Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 10 October 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Module:WikiProject banner/doc This page is a soft redirect. This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner Jewish history This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

adjectives

wow this article is so jewish it's not even funny. can someone please make this statement less jewish before someone finds out wikipedia is really run by the jehws?

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to pulverize the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.

we don't need to say pulverize now do we? might as well say "kick their butt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is as neutral as such a topic can be, and as such the neutrality should no longer be in dispute. While the word "pulverize" is a loaded word and may show bias, the article also says the Arab forces "overwhelmed" the Israeli military, therefore equally strong statements are used to describe victories by both forces. To expect perfect neutrality to both sides in the description of a war is ridiculous, and while we should strive for perfection we must also realize it isn't going to happen. You could rewrite this article 100 times and each time there would be people objecting to the wording of parts of it. As such I believe the neutrality of this article is fine and should no longer be in dispute.Cwagmire (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Article (on the "Belligerent" Comoros Islands)

Can we please have a new article to highlight the serious threat from the "belligerent" Comoros toward poor little Israel? 221.255.16.58 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacing this because in a way, this apparently ridiculous suggestion provides a perfect perspective on the POV-pushing in the article and thus is a relevant addition to this discussion. The David vs Goliath map used atop the article is wholly inappropriate and misleading. I ask editors -- who is more involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States or the Comoros Islands? By the way, the editor who removed 221's question is wrong, the article does list Comoros Islands as a "belligerent." Suggest adding the United States to the map. RomaC (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article mention the Comoros Islands. The only mention of it was added by the very same anon editor who commented about it above, an addition which was essentially vandalism, and I promptly removed it. Basically, he added a section about them, and then complained about it in the talk page.

Don't feed the trolls.

Regarding your point - the Arab league is officially in conflict with Israel, which is why Egypt was kicked out of the league after signing the peace treaty with Israel 1979. This is the policy they set, and so the map is appropriate. The US never fought in Israel's name, and US forces have never defended it against Arab attacks. By your logic, we also need to have the USSR/Russia highlighted in green, as the main arms supplier of the Arab world (the same part the US plays for Israel). By the way, Russian forces have fought on behalf of the Arab states, mainly Russian pilots assisting the Egyptian air force. okedem (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV David vs Goliath map and infobox very clearly present the "belligerents" as the "Arab Nations" on one side and "Israel" on the other. Click on "Arab Nations" and voila, the menacing Comoros Islands are listed. RomaC (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the meaning of the Arab League. They're all in conflict with Israel, by their own choice. okedem (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, okedem you say the Comoros are belligerents because they are in the Arab League and "That's the meaning of the Arab League." I didn't see that definition in the WP entry on the Arab League. Can you direct me to where I can find out about the Comoros as belligerent? Thanks.RomaC (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not, belligerency is not that meaning of the Arab league. But the league has passed many, many, resolutions against Israel. For instance, when Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel 1979, its membership of the league was suspended for it. As such, all members of the league are part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. okedem (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, the United Nations has also passed "many, many resolutions against Israel", so shall we list the entire world as belligerents? The map would look even more dramatic! RomaC (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the UN passed some resolutions which recommend Israel take some action, which Israel doesn't like, or condemn it for action it did take. The Arab league was and still is an active and willing participant in the conflict. See, for another example, the Arab League boycott of Israel (also ). Also, Arab League extends 'hand of peace' to Israel - "...extending "a hand of peace" on behalf of the Arab world." okedem (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to okedem: Egypt was suspended from the League in 1979, but they have long ago been restored as a member in good standing. Jordan was never kicked out. All this is clear from the very USA Today article you just provided us. The Arab League has two members, Egypt and Jordan, which are widely recognized as being at peace with Israel. Hence it is wrong to just treat every country in the Arab League as a "belligerent", membership in the League being sole qualtification. RomaC is exactly right, the map misleads the reader and must go. Sanguinalis (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanguinalis, I strongly support your contention that the misleading map must go for the reasons you cite. RomaC (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the map should go. The Arab League is definitely not an entity at war with Israel. The map fails to show that there are several members of the League with full diplomatic relations with Israel, namely Jordan, Egypt and Mauritania, whereas Qatar has trade relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Arab_states). In addition, several other members, even when they don't recognize Israel, are not belligerent: "In October 2000, Israeli diplomatic missions in Morocco, Tunisia and the Sultanate of Oman were closed as these countries suspended relations with Israel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_Israel#Diplomatic_relations), that means they had certain friendly relations before. Morocco, for instance, has never advocated war against Israel and its king Mohammed VI (among many other gestures) met in Morocco with Acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami in Sept. 2000 (http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Current+Events/2000/09/Speeches419.htm). You don't do this when being at war. So I vote for the map to be thrown out, more so when it reads "Early 20th century-present". Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What's more: I just found a wikipedia entry which states clearly "According to Israeli law, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and Iran are considered "Enemy countries"" (see Israeli passport). So the rest are obviously not enemy countries, according to Israel, and shouldn't appear on the head of this page. Please remove. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Arab-Israeli conflict since it's early days and not about the conflict as it is now-days. Please review the article and note the role of the Arab League in the conflict. The same league was quite active even recently, trying to suggest that Mubarak should be assassinated because he would not attack Israel together with Hezbollah. Jaakobou 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, when did the Arab League recently call for Mubarak's assassination? I'm ready to be surprised, but it would be quite a big one. And actually of course, while you are right that this is an article about the conflict as a whole, equally there is a separate article for the history of the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the time-line for the declaration was clarified in my comment. However, upon further examination, it was the Arab Lawyers Union who made that call on Al-Jazeera (calling him al-Khana and suggesting he's fair game) and not the Arab League - my apologies for the error. I appreciate the link to the history article, btw, but it's existence doesn't mean that this article is narrowed down to the current status of the conflict - it is an article made so that we can keep this article from becoming too complicated and long (see: WP:LENGTH). Jaakobou 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions on Wiki Style and this article

okedem, or someone, can you tell me, the following sentences -- are they ok?

"During the Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world against the coalition which sought to liberate Kuwait."

"In July, 2006, Hezbollah fighters crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel, attacked and killed eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped two others, setting off the 2006 Lebanon War which caused much destruction in Lebanon."

Cheers! RomaC (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No comments after a month, inclines me to believe that the involved editors here see no problems with these sentences. RomaC (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, due to increased work load I missed your comment.

The first sentence explains motives without attributing the claim to anyone. This is not okay. Though I remember reading that as the explanation, we're not in the position to offer commentary. Need an RS for that, or just drop the explanation, and leave the facts.

The second one is factual, so I have no problem with it. okedem (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced 'kidnapped' by 'captured' as that is the term used in wikipedia at the Lebanon conflict page and also in the source, New York Times. As Israel and Lebanon countries are (legally) at war and the victims are soldiers, I think 'kidnapping' is not the right word. Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually kidnapped is used for civilians but it is valid also for soldiers in certain instances. I don't know what source you're referring to, but a kidnap operation usually has it's victims dubbed as "abducted hostages" (I've inserted this correction). Considering that this operation was declared as a hostage taking maneuver from the get go, that is the neutral descriptive to go by. Jaakobou 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right there. The source I referred to, anyhow, is an article in the IHT that is used as a source in the main wikipedia article. Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes your note clearer as the IHT has an editorial policy of avoiding both 'abduction' and 'kidnapping' when a soldier is taken regardless of the situation (abduction/capturing). This article where Shalit is referred to as 'captured' and Alan Johnston is referred to as 'hostage' just goes to show this. However, the terminology is so clear-cut that not only do other mainstream sources use it but IHT sometimes have a "slip of a key" (or two) and use these words as well. I hope this clarifies the IHT working issue. Jaakobou 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Religious foundations of the conflict

I created this subsection in the "Scopes of the conflict" section. Regardless of your opinion, I (and Huckabee) think it is naive to start the article with the Ottomans. Until Jewish-Muslim war becomes a blue link again, this article is the only place where this (hugely important) concept can be described and discussed. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I started looking for more sources, and found plenty. I made heavy use of direct quotes (yes, it looks like a link farm) and selected academic texts to help me survive the inevitable criticisms. Strange how this abundantly published facet of a top international issue was completely left out of Misplaced Pages. One of my sources is tittled "The Elephant in the Room". Indeed. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Huckabee comment in the section. Putting his (mildly said) vain comment in the section gives the impression that he might have some kind of authority or expertise to comment the subject whereas he is irrelevant regarding it. Random comments by random US governors should not be the centerpoint of international issues. Instead, more sources like the 2006 thesis and historical and political studies are needed, not populistic newspaper comments. --piksi (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't complain, be bold, replace it with a better source -- there a plenty to chose from. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to the title of the subsection "Religious foundations of the conflict". Nobody would deny that there is today a religious element to the conflict, but it is definitely not a foundation. The Zionist movement was overall agnostic and did not promote a "fight against muslims" but rather the colonisation of an -according to them- "land without people". In the same sense, the PLO was rather non-religious, included important Christian leaders (see George Habash and focussed on the de-colonisation debate. It is not until the eighties when Hamas adopts clearly religious positions. But until today, even the most outspoken, or fanatic, Muslim critics of Israel tend to use the word 'Zionist state', not 'Jewish state', as to distance themselves from a general Jew-hating vision. So I would replace 'foundations' with 'aspects' or 'elements' or something like that. Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, of all places, did the Jews want Palestine? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't, it was the non-religious Zionists who wanted it. It must be questionable they chose Palestine (over Uganda or Madagascar or South America) on anything except practical grounds, it was a much easier place to live. And closer - remember, almost half the early settlers returned, unable to survive even in a country with agriculture and tourists and a postal system. PR 09:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ilyacadiz, I'm not sure I'd agree with you considering the exploits of the Grand Mufti. Sure, the Christians were joining the Pan-Arab movement on a nationalistic level, but the Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict. Emmanuelm, the Jews wanted a national sanctuary in the historical homeland of Eretz Israel. Jaakobou 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, it is true that there is a religous foundation for zionism (considering Eretz Israel as the historical homeland for all jews whereever they are), but it is not exactly a foundation for the conflict, as the immigration per se could have led to other outcomes: in its earliest stages, some zionist and Arab leaders envisaged a strong alliance between "two semitic peoples". Could have been... Jaakobou, the hate speeches of the Grand Mufti are very much quoted, but I think they really didn't determine the subsequent wars. "The Muslims were acting under Islamic interpretations of the conflict" cannot be accurate (although a (small) minority of course would): among the 5 Arab armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948, Lebanon had a Christian president, neither in Iraq, Egypt nor Syria, specific Muslim views were held in goverment circles (all were nationalistic) and Jordan's troops, the strongest of this war, were even headed by a British officer. Much more so in 1967: Nasser was anti-religious, had a pact with communist Russia and used anti-colonialist, never islamic, rethoric, the powerful Syrian Defence Minister Hafez Assad was even Alawite (a Muslim orientation that refuses the normal Muslim interpretation and is strongly secular), and I can't find in the PLO's documents and speeches any reference to an 'Islamic interpretation'. That starts with Hamas in the eighties. If I missed something, glad to learn it. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Several good points in there. Others a bit misleading - no Arab leader believed the Zionists would be allies (Faisal was being bribed to say it). Lebanon didn't attack Israel in 1948 - leading Ben-Gurion and Dayan thinking it would be possible to seize the south of that country (in the event they were too busy with Egypt). You're right about there being no Islamicism until relatively recently - so the "Mufti", an advisor to a Sharia court (and controlling the budget of teachers) wasn't rated very important by the British. Meanwhile 10% of the population were getting a representative council, their language made official and new roads linking their settlements. PR 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. "historical homeland" is not necessarily a religious concepts. While the bible tells stories of Jewish history in what the Romans later retitled "Syria-Palestina", certainly archeological findings complement it with non religious and more refined outlook of actual historical events.
2. The Mufti, was the "grand mufti" with all the attached meanings of rulership in the Arab world. If you have a valid source saying otherwise, I'd be interested in giving it a look.
3. I'm not following the changes you're interested in when you describe the Arab leadership as acting on ideology rather than religious inspiration (I'm not really contesting this). Please clarify the changes you're interested in so I can see where we're supposedly going with this.

Cheers, Jaakobou 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having this short section right at the top of the main part of the article is plain odd I'm afraid, however long we sit on the talk page and discuss our own views on the subject matter. The simple fact is that the two sources cited seem to be fairly minor academic papers. Added to that, the George Mason one for example is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land"; the other link doesn't work (and what can be seen, the title, does not refer to the origins of the conflict at all). At the very least this needs to be moved to the bottom of the article. But probably removed altogether as WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE. --Nickhh (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, I would appreciate it if you stop following my edits - this has been an issue in the past and it seems to have come up yet again with this article as well as with Battle of Jenin.

Cordially, Jaakobou 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please stop accusing me of following you around. It's as tedious and wrong as it was the last time you claimed it about a year ago. If we both edit on I-P articles, we will come across each other from time to time. I have been involved in this article frequently in the past, and at Battle of Jenin. I can't recall our paths crossing on any other pages recently. And of course my immediate point here is aimed at the edits which originally added this section, not at any of yours. Are you suggesting that because you happen to be active on a page, even in a minor way, I have to avoid it? Don't be ridiculous. And I'm sorry but the sources here are weak, especially given the voluminous literature on this subject matter from well known and respected historians and academics which don't really rate this idea, and especially since even these sources don't actually support the thesis that is being floated at the top of this article by one editor, without consensus (and are you anyway suggesting that editors cannot query sources and also point out that they don't actually say what they are being used to say? Again, ridiculous, and nothing whatsoever to do with any "violation of WP:NPOV"). This is a simple issue of due weight and balance, and being accurate to what sources actually say. I am surprised you are being so cavalier about these principles, and instead of actually responding to legitimate points, have chosen to make rather feeble knee-jerk accusations against me. I was in no way hostile to you, so please do me the courtesy of following WP:AGF (if we're going to be quoting wiki-rules at each other). Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

History of following my contribution's page: You don't touch these pages for a couple months and immediately after I make a talk page comment you suddenly revive your activity. It is "clearly" ridiculous to find it whatsoever similar to past events when you followed me to 5 articles you never touched before (within a time-span of 10 days) and edit-warred on them. I request you take my request seriously (as it's not "ridiculous") and we'll leave it at that.

Content-wise: Please don't impose your personal opinion on the sources. It is a violation of WP:NPOV unless you can substantiate your claims by some valid reliable measures.

Cordially, Jaakobou 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I try and stay away from I-P pages most of the time because of all the cr#p that goes on in them. I'd actually rather avoid them - and, if I am to be honest - you altogether. Occasionally, when I have spare time, I scan a few of them for the more egregious errors and bias that turn up in them, and correct those problems or comment on them. You'll notice from my edits yesterday that I started this on several obscure I-P pages (where you were nowhere to be seen) before coming here. When I did come here I commented on Emmanuel's additions to the main article, not on anything you had said or done. You were not even editing this article itself, although you did happen to be here on the talk page. Again, there is no rule that requires me to avoid any page you are floating around. You are not only being ridiculous, but paranoid. And I have no idea what you are talking about in respect of following you to five articles in the past and edit warring on them. If it makes you feel better I hereby give you my guarantee that I will continue this practice of not deliberately following you to pages.

Somewhat more on-topic, I am not "imposing my personal opinion" on sources, I am querying their relative notability, and the relevance of their content to the point being made. This is bog-standard talk page practice. You may recall that you engage in this practice yourself, for example in respect of Gideon Levy, The Guardian etc. I'm still waiting for someone to explain and justify this section, rather than just writing it relying on two marginal sources, and then asking other people to add more sources, even though most other editors here are disputing its relevance in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

@Nickhh - you are entirely right, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that this conflict is based on religion. The Jews of Palestine were strongly opposed both to Zionism and to the Zionists. Zionism didn't gain general support from the world Jewish Community until, probably, 1967. The Zionists bombed and terrorised the Jews of Palestine (particularly during WWI, and during/after WWI, when religious Jews were keen to live in peace under the Ottomans and the British). The Zionists assassinated Jacob de Haan the leader (and sole effective, multi-lingual spokesman?) of the religious Jews of Palestine in 1924.

Even the fact that Hamas (since mid 80s) and religious settlers (mid 90s?) are now prominent doesn't make it a religious conflict - think how the Christian god has been invoked in every war fought by Christians - including every war fought against other Christians! PR 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The PalestineRemembered seal of approval (and soapboxing) was given so we can all go home now. No need to ratify claims of "minor academic papers" or use any relevant sources, for that matter, since PalestineRemembered found someone who was killed by Jews and this obviously proves all anti-Zionist theories and also that JewsAgainstZionism.com are a good reliable source. Not. Jaakobou 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jews chose that land because it was the Land of Israel, the Holy land and the Promised land, three religious concepts. I added my short paragraph as a starting point, expecting it to be quickly edited. To my surprise, it was left untouched, like a loaded mousetrap. Stop arguing, be bold, expend and clarify it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If I was to be bold here, I would just delete it I'm afraid. It's a contentious theory, which virtually every other editor here has contested, and which you have backed up using two marginal and obscure sources. It's not the responsibility of other editors to do your work for you and add proper sources to this section, and nor is that likely to happen anyway given the lack of support for its inclusion as things stand. --Nickhh (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on the content, what are the contested sources and what makes the assertion that they are marginal and obscure valid? Qualifications should be made in either direction to make a persuasive argument. Jaakobou 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

These are the two sources currently cited, here and here. As I more or less said above, before it got ignored and then lost in the fog - the George Mason University one is about incorporating religion into the peace making process rather than being a detailed analysis of the conflict's origins, and actually acknowledges that "the conflict is still seen mainly in terms of competing nationalist claims over land". It is written by a Peter E Weinberger, who gets a grand total of two Google hits (I know this isn't definitive, but it must tell us something, surely). The other link, which now seems to connect after all even if only to the summary page, is to a Master's Thesis. This also appears, in any event, to be about current opposition to the "peace process" from religious extremists. I can't seriously believe we are talking about having a section called "Religious foundations of the conflict" at the top of the main part of the article based on these as sources. They are simply not notable opinions, and in any event don't support the thesis that is being pushed. Even if better ones can be found, it's still suggesting a highly contentious analysis of history, and posting it ahead of the historical details that follow. This is all wrong for an encyclopdia. --Nickhh (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I can see where your concerns are coming from. There is certainly room to improve the citations and tone down the definitive tone of the section. This perspective is not central to the historical perception of the conflict which focuses more on the Pan-Arab movement than it's Islamic roots and the Pan-Islamic movement and therefore this should be taken down a notch on top of adding better sources. I would suggest we start by merging the sources into a single sentence and connect the "Religious foundations" section into the main "Scope of the conflict" section. I'm afraid I believe this won't be appreciated by whoever opened up the section, but as a compromise offer - I suggest something that would not be appreciated by the "other" side, which is to keep the link to "Islam and antisemitism" as it certainly fits in regards to the "scope" of the conflict. I think this compromise suggestion is fair to both sides of this argument as well as a good way to deal with this issue on the encyclopedia. Agreed? Jaakobou 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although it took an inordinately long time tbh. I'm fine with the change. The religious elements (as myself and everyone else above acknowledged) are relevant, but "foundations" was way too strong a word and the issues such as they are can and should simply be referred to in the main overview and narrative where appropriate (as it already was to a certain extent). They did not need to be given their own quasi-essay/thesis section. --Nickhh (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles