Misplaced Pages

Talk:First Intifada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:48, 8 February 2007 edit198.160.96.7 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:26, 7 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,841 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High) (Rater) 
(291 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ARBPIA}}
== Oslo update ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes|Cold-War=yes|Ottoman=yes|SciTech=yes}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2013-12-08|oldid1=584955033}}


{{Archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}}
This line pretty obviously needs revision: "After the Oslo accords, an independent Palestine of some sort, at some time in the future seemed relatively certain" ('Outcome' section, no.4). The peace process being dead, annexed East Jerusalem and the settlements having expanded, the Jordan Valley all but annexed to Israel, and given the now obvious truth that no Israeli concessions of any substance were made at Oslo, it's quite clear that what is relatively certain is that an independent Palestinian State is unforeseeable without drastic change in the situation.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:First Intifada/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Requested move 13 May 2021 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: Not moved {{nac}} (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 06:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
:It is hard to discern a rational purpose behind the first Intifada, as the Palestinians had no realistic hope of defeating the Israelis, and peace was available if the Palestinians had been willing to accept a limited Palestinian State. Prior conflicts in the ] had the purpose destroying Israel entirely, but the first Intifada lacked this clear focus. It is also hard to discern any benefit that has accrued to the Palestinian people from the first Intifada, as the Oslo accords were enabled only when the PLO expressed more willingness to recognize Israels' right to exist. And, of course, the Oslo accords have accomplished virtually nothing. However, the general level of Palestinian militancy was probably increased and inspired by the first Intifada, which some Palestinians regard as a positive result.
----


What is this? ] 03:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


It seems relatively true, but slightly misworded. The only untrue part was the Oslo accords: it brought some silence and peace, something never achieved before, at least without a one-side decision.


] → {{no redirect|First Palestinian Intifada}} – Rename per ] there have been multiple events named ] in the Arab World over the past century. Specifically, the first events named Intifada were the ] and parallel ]. Later those were followed by Bahraini ] in 1960s, the Sahrawi ] in 1970s, LEbanese ] in early 1980s (all being essentially "First Intifada"s) and only later in 1987 was the first Palestinian Intifada. Some sources which utilize the term "First Intifada" deal specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian event in retrospective and hence drop "Palestinian" from the term, while during the event itself it was rather branded "the Palestinian Intifada", the the "87 Intifada" - same as sources dealing with World War I referred to it as "the World War". It is certainly not the "First Intifada", but rather only in the Palestinian context. ] (]) 09:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC) <small>—'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;~ ] (], ] &#124; ], ]) 02:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)</small>
== Not NPOV ==
*'''Comment''' - note that the Second Palestinian Intifada article is now at ] renamed to this title in 2019, now proposed for another title discussion.] (]) 09:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
*:]. – ] (]) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It is true there have been others, so First is not very precise. It's an aka anyway.] (]) 09:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The full term "First Palestinian Intifada" is . I don't believe the extra disambiguation is necessary: the first couple of pages of a all refer to the Palestinian intifada and not any other. ] (]) 12:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I concur with Rublov. This seems like a case for disambiguation, but only as a hatnote on this article. — ] (]) 17:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]. ] (]) 03:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. {{no redirect|Second Palestinian Intifada}} redirects to ]. – ] (]) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' by far the primary topic for this, I'm unaware of a single other thing called the first intifada except for the first time by a user on this talk page. That somebody thinks some other event is ''essentially'' a "First Intifada", what matters is that sources nearly uniformly refer to the First Intifada as '''the''' First Intifada. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)</small>
{{abot}}


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2022 ==
The article is not neutral, and supports the intifada throughout. For example, in the conclusion "Some say it was the Intifada that caused the repeated rise of the Israeli peace movement (see Peace Now), and Yitzhak Rabin's eventual re-election in 1992. " It does not mention that others believe it is responsible for an increase in the militant movement.


{{Edit extended-protected|First Intifada|answered=yes}}
Furthermore, while the causes of intifada and the harms against Palestinians by Israelis is discussed:
Please change "The impact on the Israeli services sector, including the important Israeli tourist industry, was notably negative." to "While filled with suffering and terror, the First Intifada became beneficial to the Palestinians. It solidified a clear and focused national consciousness for Palestine and the peoples need for statehood. The First Intifada brought a negative light to Israel on the world stage as many witnessed the horrors the Israeli Forces were capable of in trying to maintain their political legitimacy. The conflict also cost Israel hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tourism and imports."
<ref>Pierpaoli, Paul G., Jr. "Intifada, First." The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A
Political, Social, and Military History, edited by Spencer C. Tucker and Priscilla Roberts, vol. 2, ABC-CLIO, 2008, pp. 472-474. Gale eBooks. Accessed 2022.
</ref> ] (]) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> This language seems to violate ]. ] (]) 17:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
"On October 1, 1987 Israeli military ambushed and killed seven men from Gaza believed to be members of the Jihad. Several days later an Israeli settler shot a Palestinian schoolgirl in the back."


== Casus belli ==
"However, the general underlying cause of the intifada can be seen in the many years of military control that the Palestinians suffered under the Israelis.


In the introduction it is written "an Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) truck collided with a civilian car, killing four Palestinian workers", but I don't see any reference that says that the truck was indeed one of the IDF. If it was an IDF's truck indeed, a reference saying so is, in my opinion, much needed. Otherwise, it would be good to edit this part out. Thank you ] (]) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Arabs maintain that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, indiscriminate torture, deportations, and so on.
"


:Changed to Israeli truck driver per sources. ] (]) 11:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any assessment whatsoever of the violence against Israelis that occured during the Intifada.


== Result ==
"The mere presence of stories, reinforced by the real incidents above, caused wild panic and street fights against Israeli policemen and soldiers"


Wouldn’t the proper result be a “Palestinian political victory?”
is the only statement on the other side, but it doesn't talk about how soldiers were killed, and the Israeli civilians are never mentioned.


it says uprising suppressed, and I cannot access the source to confirm it, but given that this was not a military confrontation like the second intifada which was suppressed by two major operations but instead a series of protests, shouldn’t this be the more fitting result? ] (]) 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Basically, the article discusses the negative effects on one side (the Palestinians) without discussing how the other (the Israelis) was hurt.


:my suggestion would be to remove the "result" from the infobox entirely since it isnt adding anything. I dont think any RS would describe the "result" of the first intifada simply as "uprising suppressed". ] (]) 06:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Another disturbing factor is that the only criticism of the Intifada is that it didn't go far enough:
::That would work too, the first intifada wasn’t the full scale war like the second one and from what I’m reading it ended with a peace settlement (Madrid conference) rather than being quashed by military force ] (]) 13:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
"Others point out that Palestinians felt abandoned by their Arab allies, the PLO had failed to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state in its stead as promised. "
:::Who calls the second intifada a war? ] (]) 16:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

::::The second intifada was more “militaristic” and was suppressed by 2 operations (homat magen and operation rainbow), the like of which didn’t happen in the first one. I was only bringing it up as a reference ] (]) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The article failed to point out another very common point of view - that it hurt Israel and was too violent a reaction. Additionally, the goal of "destroy Israel and establishing a Palestinian state in its stead" is not thought of as a positive goal by most groups.
:::Also I dont think we can argue that madrid was the result of the first intifada. RS do tend to describe it as an outcome, but not *the* result.

:::khalidi: {{tq|. It is worth recalling that the Madrid Peace Conference and the Palestinian-Israel negotiations that followed were in a sense the fruit of the first intifada, which had galvanized Palestinian society and revealed to many Israelis after two decades that the occupation was untenable.}}
: Moreover, this sentence is ridiculous: "Israeli military occupation of Southern Lebanon - rife with war crimes - and the continued Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza fed a growing discontent with the colonial status quo." 'Rife with war crimes'? Place any other country in the region in the situation that Israel found itself in, and I think you'll find it a whole lot 'rifer.' And don't use words like 'colonial' unless you're going to apply them equally to the numerous other, much more proactive occupations in the world. Israel never asked to get invaded. ] 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Pappe: {{tq|The first Palestinian uprising in 1987 squashed all ideas of the autonomy option as it led Jordan to remove itself as a partner from future negotiations. The upshot of these developments was that the Israeli peace camp came around to accepting the Palestinians as partners for a future settlement. At first Israel tried, always with the help of the Americans, to negotiate peace with the Palestinian leadership in the Occupied Territories, which was allowed to take part, as an official peace delegation, in the 1991 Madrid peace conference. This conference was the award the American administration had decided to hand out to the Arab states for backing Washington’s military invasion of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Openly stalled by Israel, Madrid led nowhere.}}

:::morris: {{tq|Only the Intifada, which started in December 1987, at last propelled the Israeli leadership toward moderation and concessions. At the same time, the realities of the uprising, and pressure from the grass roots in the occupied territories, compelled the PLO-Tunis leadership to move toward further moderation of its positions. It was the conjunction of these two processes and the break-up of the Soviet Union (which denied the Arabs a war option) that in 1991 made possible the Madrid Peace Conference and, ultimately, after a new, moderate government came to power in Jerusalem, the Israeli-PLO Oslo accords, including mutual recognition and the start of Israel’s gradual withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.}} ] (]) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
== one addition to not NPOV argument ==
::::Do you see removing the result as the best decision here? What about Oslo I and Madrid, better to move it to the territorial changes? ] (]) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The timeframe description "The first Intifada was the intifada that took place from 1987 to 1991 (end of massive Israeli violence)" is definitely non-neutral. It implies that the violence was one-sided, and "massive" is an unecessarily weighted word.

I suggest using the description from the Intifada article
"The first Intifada began in 1987, with a decrease in violence in 1991 and a more complete end with the signing of the Oslo accords (August 1993) and the creation of the Palestinian Authority. "

--The Israel response WAS massive. The word is weighted because the response was weighted.


I believe the above quote is quite accurate, this account of the intifada has obvious sympathies for the Palestinians, I think it would be to the credit of the article to admit its preoccupation. That said, I'm not quite sure including Israel's military losses would compliment the peice; its not suprising that soldiers tend to bear the burden of warfare. While I also agree with the critique, i'm not quite sure I accept the stance that the Intifada provided no impetus for the peace process. Surely even the most sensitive surveys of Israeli history, which account for the activities of zionist paramilitaries during the mandatory period, are aware of the political potential of violence. Make no mistake, that assertion is not an endorsement of militancy but a simple observation.
*Ibn Filastin, IBanerjee@slc.edu

== Seems to have been edited to address some points ==

I agree that the article could do with some casualty figures to put the conflict into some sort of perspective, maybe with a time line showing escalation/decline of violence. However it currently reads neutral to me, it is difficult when you have passionate feelings on a subject to not interpret neutrality as an endorsement of a viewpoint other then your own, but as I said this looks okay.

== How many Palestinians killed each other? ==

On the one hand, we have ''Additionally, over 1,000 alleged informers were killed by Arab death squads...''. On the other, ''By the time the Oslo Accords were signed, 1,162 Palestinians and 160 Israelis had died...'' (killed by the Israeli security forces). ], cited by ], gives the number as 400 by the signing of the Oslo accords. What's the deal? ]|] 20:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:The deal is, the numbers need to be cleaned up using cited sources. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the ones from B'tselem, probably the best source 1,162 etc are right - I just recalculated them and cleaned them up and made the article consistent with the source, which does not report them this way. Major discrepancies probably come from changing dates, different areas covered, not separating adults and children, etc. Not all of these 1,162 were killed by the security forces, though. The death squads number just introduced sounds high to me (and vaguely dated, more than 10 years post facto) and the Morris number sounds low. This article needs work, and I was planning on doing some, based on Morris's chapter in Righteous Victims and Aryeh Shalev's book, which should give the Israeli govt POV. Schiff and Ya'ari's book would be another good source. Earlier versions had valid information which has disappeared from the article. --] 22:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

== 7 members of the islamic jihad ==

The article talking about pre-intifada events, says that on the 1st of October 7 palestinians were killed by the israili military, and that it is belived that they were members of the PIJ, any reference that shows that they were belived to be members of PIJ, who claims so, any denials? was the assisination conducted by the IDF, by a civilian or by a solder without orders to do so? were the 7 workers in israel? --] 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Uprising ==
Why does the writer talks about the intifada as an uprising? that way the Palestines are brought in discredit. Israel is their country just as much as it is of the Jews. It's terrible what the Jews have done to the Palestines though by locking them up in their own country, but the terrorist attacks are so unnecessairy because a lot of innocent people die. Just wanted to say that both parties are equal to me and just a small change wouldn't be that hard, would it?
:Neutral term isn't it? Warsaw uprising in WWII was by Poles in Poland.
Warsaw Uprising was aimed exclusively against occupant soldiers. No Pole ever dirve to Berlin to blow himself up in local kindergarden.

Using the term 'The Jews', is incorrect. It is not the entire Jewish population who have 'locked up' the Palistinians (although in my opinion the situation as a whole is far more complicated than that) it is the Israelis. Please understand, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews.

Yes, but you see there you said it, an uprising is against the people IN CHARGE...occupant soldiers..I wanted to say, Israel as it is now, is nobodys land, and yes I do understand that not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews. but, I'm sorry to say this but in the region where I live everybody says it that way and even though I am fully aware it's incorrect is still use it. Strange but true. ] 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Palestinian Minors versus Israeli Children ==

I'm not sure I understand why in the section the casualties are listed either by Palestinian ''minors'' or as Israeli ''children''. Along with the fact that the editor somehow determined from the statistical information in the cited source that these Palestinians casualties took an "active role" I'd say this constitutes a disregard for NPOV. I'll change it for now, if anyone disagrees please feel free to explain. ] 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:Children took active role in Intifada for example stone and molotov cocktail throwing

::I understand that there were children that took an active role in the Intifada. I am wondering where the editor got the information that of the 241 children that were listed, '''most''' of them took at active role. Just because we know that children took a role in the violence, we can't just randomly assume that most of the children that were killed were actively involved. Unless there was some chart in the cited source that listed actively involved versus innocent bystander deaths I don't see where this comes from, it seems to show an assumption of the editor that most of the Palestinians killed were somehow actively involved. I'm not arguing one way or another; I’m just saying unless the claim can be substantiated, it shouldn’t be listed, otherwise it's not just a problem with NPOV but factual accuracy. ] 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::As it was changed back without further comment I'll take one more crack at this. The first problem is the use of the term minor versus child, minor simply implies age whereas child seems to imply innocence. In order to be consistent and unbiased, either call them both children or both minors. The second problem, which I won't change for now (as perhaps I'm the only one that sees this as bias), seems to imply the death of the Palestinian children who died can be justified by their role in the violence. Also, the implication that they were involved in something that is unsubstantiated by the B'Tseelem source. I won't change it, but I wouldn't consider removing the neutrality warning with something like this remaining unsourced in there.

== 84.108.166.136 (rv POV) ==

Dear 84.108.166.136,
You reverted my edit of Islamic Jihad from militant back to terrorist. Militant is the NPOV term, and not terrorist. Most people would agree on calling them militant, while there is controversy calling them terrorists. The article on Palestinian Islamic Jihad clearly states that the US and Israel consider it a terrorist group. However the US and Israel's opinion cannot be used as a given fact. Please use militant (If nobody else changes it, I will, unless an explanation is given to why it is necessary to use the word terrorist here). --] 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know that I'd agree that militant is the same as terrorist just in NPOV terms. I think there is a difference in definition of the term. Militancy just refers to the use of violence, Terrorism refers to the use of violence to achieve specific political goals. I don't know enough about Islamic Jihad that I would be able to classify the entire group. As I remember back when they were originally formed they were more radical fundamentalists rather than militants. I'm not suggesting labeling it one way or the other, just pointing out the difference is not truly just in POV.

::I suggest removing the word completely, and leaving it as '] group', or just ']', without group. If one wants to learn more about PIJ, one could click on it and read the different opinions on it. --] 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

== Cause ==

How the hell did you turn it into a traffic accident...the driver hit the four workers on purpose

== "Indiscriminate torture" ==

I am very disturbed by the claim in the "General causes" section that "Palestinians and their supporters assert that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included ... indiscriminate torture." This is a very serious charge and if it is not backed up by solid evidence, I would like it to be deleted. The burden of proof is on the "Palestinians and their supproters" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Israelis not only tortured Palestinians, but that they tortured Palestinians indiscriminately, that is that they tortured Palestinians without reguard to age, sex, religion practiced, or, most importantly, criminal record. --] 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

== re "indiscriminate torture" ==

The claim is accurate. Palestinians did '''assert''' that indiscriminate torture was one of the reasons for the intifada. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that they thought it was true. trapnhawk

== indisctiminate torture and propaganda ==

I guess Palestinians did beleve that Israelis were indiscriminitly torturing people because of the propaganda they heard. The propaganda they hear is not only anti Israeli but actually anti-Semetic and anti Western.-Dendoi Sunday 7:22 PM January 7, 2007

== re lack of sources and questionable language ==

In the "Outcomes" section:

The harsh Israeli countermeasures (particularly during the earlier years of the Intifada) resulted in international attention returning to the plight of the Palestinians, as prisoners in their own land. The fact that 159 Palestinian children below the age of 16 (many of them gunned down while tossing stones at IDF soldiers) were killed was especially alarming for international observers

"plight of the Palestinians" - change to "cause of" or a less one-sided word.

"prisoners in their own land" - this assumes that the land is the Palestinians', which is a whole other argument... -- this should be deleted.

"...159 Palestinian children..." - where is the source that this number is derived from?

Latest revision as of 18:26, 7 December 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Middle East / Ottoman / Cold War C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Ottoman military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 8, 2013.

Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


First Intifada → First Palestinian Intifada – Rename per WP:CONCISE there have been multiple events named Intifada in the Arab World over the past century. Specifically, the first events named Intifada were the 1952 Egyptian revolution and parallel Iraqi Intifada (1952). Later those were followed by Bahraini March Intifada in 1960s, the Sahrawi Zemla Intifada in 1970s, LEbanese February 6 Intifada in early 1980s (all being essentially "First Intifada"s) and only later in 1987 was the first Palestinian Intifada. Some sources which utilize the term "First Intifada" deal specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian event in retrospective and hence drop "Palestinian" from the term, while during the event itself it was rather branded "the Palestinian Intifada", the the "87 Intifada" - same as sources dealing with World War I referred to it as "the World War". It is certainly not the "First Intifada", but rather only in the Palestinian context. GreyShark (dibra) 09:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "The impact on the Israeli services sector, including the important Israeli tourist industry, was notably negative." to "While filled with suffering and terror, the First Intifada became beneficial to the Palestinians. It solidified a clear and focused national consciousness for Palestine and the peoples need for statehood. The First Intifada brought a negative light to Israel on the world stage as many witnessed the horrors the Israeli Forces were capable of in trying to maintain their political legitimacy. The conflict also cost Israel hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tourism and imports."

Stitch2016 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This language seems to violate WP:NPOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Pierpaoli, Paul G., Jr. "Intifada, First." The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History, edited by Spencer C. Tucker and Priscilla Roberts, vol. 2, ABC-CLIO, 2008, pp. 472-474. Gale eBooks. Accessed 2022.

Casus belli

In the introduction it is written "an Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) truck collided with a civilian car, killing four Palestinian workers", but I don't see any reference that says that the truck was indeed one of the IDF. If it was an IDF's truck indeed, a reference saying so is, in my opinion, much needed. Otherwise, it would be good to edit this part out. Thank you Nausicaasbel (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed to Israeli truck driver per sources. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Result

Wouldn’t the proper result be a “Palestinian political victory?”

it says uprising suppressed, and I cannot access the source to confirm it, but given that this was not a military confrontation like the second intifada which was suppressed by two major operations but instead a series of protests, shouldn’t this be the more fitting result? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

my suggestion would be to remove the "result" from the infobox entirely since it isnt adding anything. I dont think any RS would describe the "result" of the first intifada simply as "uprising suppressed". DMH223344 (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That would work too, the first intifada wasn’t the full scale war like the second one and from what I’m reading it ended with a peace settlement (Madrid conference) rather than being quashed by military force The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Who calls the second intifada a war? DMH223344 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The second intifada was more “militaristic” and was suppressed by 2 operations (homat magen and operation rainbow), the like of which didn’t happen in the first one. I was only bringing it up as a reference The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Also I dont think we can argue that madrid was the result of the first intifada. RS do tend to describe it as an outcome, but not *the* result.
khalidi: . It is worth recalling that the Madrid Peace Conference and the Palestinian-Israel negotiations that followed were in a sense the fruit of the first intifada, which had galvanized Palestinian society and revealed to many Israelis after two decades that the occupation was untenable.
Pappe: The first Palestinian uprising in 1987 squashed all ideas of the autonomy option as it led Jordan to remove itself as a partner from future negotiations. The upshot of these developments was that the Israeli peace camp came around to accepting the Palestinians as partners for a future settlement. At first Israel tried, always with the help of the Americans, to negotiate peace with the Palestinian leadership in the Occupied Territories, which was allowed to take part, as an official peace delegation, in the 1991 Madrid peace conference. This conference was the award the American administration had decided to hand out to the Arab states for backing Washington’s military invasion of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Openly stalled by Israel, Madrid led nowhere.
morris: Only the Intifada, which started in December 1987, at last propelled the Israeli leadership toward moderation and concessions. At the same time, the realities of the uprising, and pressure from the grass roots in the occupied territories, compelled the PLO-Tunis leadership to move toward further moderation of its positions. It was the conjunction of these two processes and the break-up of the Soviet Union (which denied the Arabs a war option) that in 1991 made possible the Madrid Peace Conference and, ultimately, after a new, moderate government came to power in Jerusalem, the Israeli-PLO Oslo accords, including mutual recognition and the start of Israel’s gradual withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. DMH223344 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you see removing the result as the best decision here? What about Oslo I and Madrid, better to move it to the territorial changes? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: