| Revision as of 13:47, 16 August 2010 editDe728631 (talk | contribs)56,510 edits →Sentence in the lead← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:08, 16 August 2010 edit undoWGFinley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 edits →CommentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,216: | Line 1,216: | ||
| There is only one version of Resolution 242 under discussion here, and that is the one unanimously adopted by the UNSC. If you conclude that the issue as to interpretation "is very much in dispute and not settled", then you must certainly agree that asserting the fringe POV interpretation of 242 as permitting Israel to remain in possession of some of the territory occupied during the war must not be asserted as fact in the article. I'm glad to see we are in agreement on that point. ] (]) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | There is only one version of Resolution 242 under discussion here, and that is the one unanimously adopted by the UNSC. If you conclude that the issue as to interpretation "is very much in dispute and not settled", then you must certainly agree that asserting the fringe POV interpretation of 242 as permitting Israel to remain in possession of some of the territory occupied during the war must not be asserted as fact in the article. I'm glad to see we are in agreement on that point. ] (]) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :JRH, I'm not getting involved over what's valid and not valid that's for editors to do. I'm saying, as an admin, based on what I've seen here you have objections to this material and there is no consensus to add it, that's all. --] (]) 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Sources Provided=== | ===Sources Provided=== | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 16 August 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Six-Day War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Six-Day War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 5, 2004, June 5, 2005, and June 5, 2006. |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Lede 3rd Paragraph Dispute
As the protected status will expire tomorrow and the article will be again open for editing, I'd like to make sure that the edit warring doesn't begin again. I've expressed this elsewhere, but so far haven't gotten any response, so I'm adding a new section in the interests of getting feedback and hopefully establishing a consensus to "preempt" any further warring (pun intended). The 3rd paragraph currently reads:
- On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt. Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces". Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent, despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community. Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.
The footnotes mess is a separate issue, discussed in a separate section. I'm concerned here with making sure the wording is acceptable to all. First, I'd like to get editors to respond expressing whether they approve or disapprove of the sentence: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. It reads accurately and in a neutral manner. I'm content with this wording. Please approve or disapprove below this line -- if "disapprove", please explain your reasons and present a valid argument for why your own proposed wording would be better. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve/Modify The lead was looking OK on NPOV issues, but needs a rewrite on its prose and other other WP:LEAD issues. I actually have free time over the next few days; I may tackle it. if I do, I'll rewrite in user space then post the final version here on Article Talk. That way no one will be shocked by sudden changes. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- On second thought.... with all due respect to both parties: JRHammond's version is modestly closer to the mark than JiujitsuGuy's. However, now that I have had time to let it sink in, I do see the point that JRHammond's version makes the non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically. I would opt for something that dials down that side just a bit more... I'm gonna stop fixing references. Looking at peoples' behavior, it seems that the lead issue is a bit more urgent. I hope to have time tomorrow to write a version in my user space. I bear no ill will to any sides that may exist. I want a lead that is quite nearly dry, almost boring in its impartiality. Or if not boring, then at least unbiased... I really really have to log out until tomorrow, though. • Ling.Nut 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions on wording. However, the facts I added, surely you can agree, are very relevant. And if the facts lead you to the conclusion that the attack was non-preemptive, that is your own conclusion, not one that I put forth. So I don't really know what you mean by saying I made the "non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically." Facts are facts. JRHammond (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve/Modify. It is certainly an improvement. However, I'd rather have the sentence split up into two sentences, like this:
On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt; Israel subsequently described the attack as being preemptive.
- I think it's easier to read this way. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both are okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, I added: "Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces"... despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community." The bit where the ellipses is was not my work. Footnotes 31 and 32 are mine. I would refer people to the footnotes. Everyone here can verify the factual accuracy of my additions by going to the sources. Similarly, if anyone has any concerns or comments, please air them here before making changes. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. It is factual, neutral, and verifiable, and adds important information for the context of this paragraph dealing with the claim that Israel's attack was "preemptive". Please express your approval or disapproval below, along with explanation. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral/Approve See above. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have invested a very large amount of time and energy fixing the format of the article in my user space – and have barely scratched the surface. I'm gonna move the whole thing en masse to article space when the block is lifted. Please do not edit in my user space... you can comment on my talk page. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ling Nut, consensus is achieved through the editing process and the quality of the arguments made during community discussions which take place on various public pages. You are not discussing or addressing JRHammond's concerns. I'd suggest that you join the mediation case and hold off on moving "the whole thing en masse to article space". That sounds like you've been privately planning a replacement page during the period of sysop-imposed editing restrictions. harlan (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at Ling Nuts edits in his (or her) sandbox, and as far as I can tell, all he did was to clean up the footnotes. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say in reply to JRHammond that he has an alternative version regarding the facts of the article to insert once the protected status is lifted. Just some good ol' house-cleaning that everyone can agree on. Shoplifter (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thank Ling Nut for taking the time to help clean up footnotes. However, I also thank Harlan for pointing out that my concerns are not being addressed here. I believe Ling Nut mistakenly posted the above in this section when the section above was the intended place for it. I would REALLY appreciate it if other editors would kindly respond and express approval or disapproval of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. I REALLY would like to prevent any further edit warring by such means. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC).
- "Avoiding an edit war" is probably impossible, unless some blocks and bans are handed down. The positions of pro-Arab and pro-Israel editors are diametrically opposed, and set in stone... the best you can try to do is merely state that one side says it was preemptive and the other does not. Misplaced Pages does not have the ability (as other sources do) to take a stance. • Ling.Nut 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It might not be so "impossible" if you would actually just use this section according to its purpose and kindly comply with my request. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the discussion. Nobody -- NOBODY -- has suggested the article should state as fact that the attack was not preemptive. If you were familiar with the discussion, you would know that there is a majority of editors who agree both views should be presented neutrally, with neither expressed as fact, and there is a small fringe group of 2 or 3 editors who continually revert all attempts to implement the necessary changes to make the article NPOV compliant. Please familiarize with the discussion, and please express whether you approve or disapprove of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disapprove. Too much detail for the lead. --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The facts mentioned are in no way minor points to be made. They go right to the heart of the issue, so I think it's appropriate in the lede. I'd would to agree to a shorter 3rd para in the lede so long as this information is included in a discussion of the "preemptive" issue further in the article. I think it deserves its own section, so I propose we make that happen. I would write up a draft myself, but I won't have the time. Best I can do for now is contribute this bit from the current lede for it. JRHammond (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Israel only maintained the view that it had been attacked for a day(?) or so, then how is that not a minor point? --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a minor point because if Israel felt it's attack was justifiably "preemptive", why would they feel it necessary to lie about being attacked first? They claimed a false pretense for their attack. That is by no means insignificant. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the source carefully, you will see Israel did not even say it had been "attacked". Which makes your point even stronger. Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your grasping at straws, Marokwitz. It's uncontroversial that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first, as the U.N. record shows, as elsewhere in the documentary record, e.g.: "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disapprove The words "Israel falsely claimed..." are an original interpretation of a primary source. First of all the source doesn't say "attacked" , it says "moved against" which may refer to mobilization of troops. Secondly, the source doesn't say "falsly". If we add a strong word such as "falsly" , this must come with a proper citation. Also regarding the use of "claimed", see WP:CLAIM, especially in such volatile issues. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not an interpretation. It's a demonstrable fact that Israel claimed Egypt initiated the attack. It's also a fact that that was false. This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disapprove Nowhere Israel "falsely claimed" anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fact: Israel claimed Egypt attacked first. Fact: This claim was false. What's the problem? This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Preemptive strike
Having proposed a revision nearly a week ago (see above) and receiving no objections, I have now changed the relevant part of the intro to the following:
"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israelis subsequently said Egyptian forces had been about to attack them, and that the strike was therefore preemptive. Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression. Scholars remain divided on the issue."
In light of the support editors have given to qualifying the word "preemptive" every time the issue has been formally raised, could I ask that anyone wishing to make substantive changes discuss them here first? Phersu (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- In order to maintain continuity and avoid confusion, I am pasting Mbz1's subsequent comment (see above) here: "I am categorically opposing your changes, and going to revert you. Please do not insert POV in the article without even gaining the consensus. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010"
- In reply, I would ask:
- 1) Which part of my version is POV?
- 2) Why you felt it necessary to revert without discussion?
- 3) Why - in stating that I haven't gained the consensus - you ignore the fact that each time the issue has been formally raised, a clear majority of editors have supported qualifying the word preemptive in order to maintain Misplaced Pages's neutrality on a very contentious issue? Phersu (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's disengenuous to say that "scholars are divided on the issue" when you have Finkelstein, Chomsky, Mersheimer and Quigley on one side and virtually everybody else on the other. Moreover, most, if not all of the cited sources in favor of preemption have not generally expressed a view that favors one side over the other whereas we all know where the four Musketeers stand--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- What's disingenuous, Jiujitsuguy, is to employ ad hominem arguments as an objection to seeking NPOV on the "preemptive" issue. Moreover, what evidence is provided by whatever sources to support the claim that the attack was "preemptive"? We don't need to turn to Finkelstein or Chomsky for the evidence. We may turn to Oren, who notes that the Israeli intelligence estimate was the same as the U.S. one, which was that given Israel's military superiority, it was highly unlikely that Nasser was going to attack, and even if he did, Israel would win within two weeks -- one if Israel attacked first. We may turn to Israeli prime minsters Begin or Rabin, both of whom acknowledge the war was not preemptive, but a war of choice. This is not controversial. You are only revealing your bias here. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, I've cited a report published by the American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism ; journal articles by Jeanne Woods and James Donovan ; and James Thuo Gathii . They each concluded that Israel violated the customary law prohibition of preemptive war where there is no armed attack or an instant, overwhelming threat. They explain that the prohibition is a jus cogens customary international law norm (opinio juris) supported by the majority of scholars and states ("the doctrine of sources"). They based those assessments on lengthy explanations made by primary sources, including Rabin, Begin, etc. (e.g. the Wars of Choice speech: ). Do you have any published source which says that those authors are not discussing the majority view held by the scholarly community? harlan (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Harlan. James Thuo Gathii links to an abstract that makes no mention of Israel or the Six-Day War. Mary Ellen O’Connell principally relies on Quigley and that 42-year LeMond interview with Rabin that I’ve yet to see in full context. Jeanne Woods references the Six-Day War in a footnote and cites O’Connell who in-turn, cites Quigley. Back to square one. You’ve actually proven my point.
- Concerning Begin, the Israel bashing camp cites this quote repeatedly In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. But they fail to cite this quote which immediately follows the aforementioned and places it in proper context, This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
- Concerning Rabin, extensive use is made of this so-called LeMond interview that allegedly occurred 42 years ago and nobody has yet produced the interview in its entirety so that it may be examined in proper context. In his address to the Knesset on 3 October 1994 he said this of the Six-Day War, "More than 27 years ago, when a sharp sword was held over our necks, the IDF went to war to defend our lives."(Rabin and Israel's national security, p.184) He likened the events preceeding the Six-Day War as a sword over Israel's neck and stated that Israel fought for its life. That doesn't sound like a man who was dismissive over war prospects. In fact, Rabin in his memoirs refers to Israel's action as preemptive, stating the following, "but before the tanks began to roll, we would place our fate in the hands of the air force whose Preemptive strike was to destroy Egypt's planes on the ground and give us control of the skies." (The Rabin memoirs p. 98)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Concerning Begin, the fact that he claimed the war was one "of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term" does not change the fact that he also acknowledged that the war was a war of "choice" and that there was no real indication that Nasser was going to attack. The bottom line is that Israel's own intelligence assessment was that it was extremely unlikely that Nasser would attack. The U.S. intelligence assessment was the same. The burden of proof is on those who argue the war was "preemptive" to provide evidence that there was an imminent threat of attack from Egypt. The documentary record simply does not support that thesis. Period. JRHammond (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem Hammond. Since you like Begin's quote so much we'll refer to the Six Day War "as a war of self-defense in the noblest sense," and we'll stick that in the lede. You can't go around cherry-picking what you like and don't like. Misplaced Pages isn't your own personal blog.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never suggested putting Begin's quote in the lede. I've only observed the fact that Begin has tacitly acknowledged the war was not preemptive. That is a fact, and there is no "cherry-picking" involved in pointing that out. Again, the fact that he also characterized the war as "self-defense" does not belie the fact that he also said it was a war of "choice" and that there was no real indication that Nasser was going to attack. Moreover, he bottom line is that Israel's own intelligence assessment was that it was extremely unlikely that Nasser would attack. The U.S. intelligence assessment was the same. The burden of proof is on those who argue the war was "preemptive" to provide evidence that there was an imminent threat of attack from Egypt. The documentary record simply does not support that thesis. Period. Now, if you'd like to produce an actual valid argument in your next reply, I would welcome you to do so, if you are able. JRHammond (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jiujitsuguy, there are a number of detailed published accounts regarding the discussions between the Israeli Cabinet members and the General staff prior to the war. They include Rabin's memoir, Orin's "Six Days of War", and Gluska's "Israel's Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967". They confirm General Peled's claim that the survival argument was developed only after the war.
- The fact that the American Society of International Law task force and other mainstream scholars cite John Quigley or Yoram Dinstein merely demonstrates that their analysis is considered relevant by other PhDs in their field of expertise. Do you have any published critiques, from scholarly sources, of the analysis performed by either man with regard to Israel's first strike against Egypt in the Six Day War?
- I gave you a link to a free download (pdf) of James Thuo Gathii's article. Gathii explained on page 12 that only a small number of States have proposed a new doctrine on the pre-emptive use of force and that their conflicting practices are viewed as violations of established norms. On page 8 he discusses Israel's "first strike" against Egypt in 1967 and says that "Few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, especially after it became clear following the attack that there was no overwhelming threat that justified the attack to ensure Israel’s survival. Many States criticized the attack, which made it clear that the attack would not serve as a precedent to legitimize “a general right of anticipatory self defense.”" He also cited analysis from Yoram Dinstein and John Quigley. Do you have any published sources which say Gathii is not discussing views held by the majority of the scholarly community? The policy in WP:ASSERT prohibits editors from misrepresenting the relative prominence of opposing views.
- Mary Ellen O’Connell's article contains over one hundred footnotes that contain one or more citations. Her analysis of the Six Day War contains citations to Rabin's Le Monde interview, and analysis from both Yoram Dinstein and John Quigley. If you wish to challenge her published legal analysis of Rabin's Le Monde interview you have to do so on the basis of reliable published sources, not upon your personal belief that O'Connell, or the ASIL, are Israel bashers. No one has to "produce" Rabin's Le Monde interview for your examination. See WP:Access to sources
- On page 98 of his memoirs Rabin does not mention an impending Egyptian attack. He says the air strike was a preliminary to rolling Israeli tanks into Egyptian territory. During the same discussion in "the Pit" (on pages 96 and 97) Dayan and Eshkol address the need to solidify or consolidate Israel's territorial gains. and In any event, the IAF operational plan mentioned on page 98 of Rabin's memoirs was not developed in response to the events of 1967. General Mordechai Hod described the step-wise refinement of the plan as a years-long process, i.e. "Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it." -- Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559. Rabin's memoirs say that he and GHQ thought Egypt was repeating the moves taken during Operation Rotem and that the Egyptians would withdraw their forces from the Sinai. He described the events preceding the war as "humiliating pinpricks" that might effect the IDF's deterrent capacity.
- In the Le Monde and National Defense College speech, Rabin and Begin both describe a preventative war. The assessment of the Egyptians and the majority of legal scholars say it was not an example of legal self-defense. harlan (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I may add to harlan’s point, Jiujitsuguy mentions Finkelstein, Chomsky, Mearsheimer (& Walt) and Quigley – all of them notable academics who are frequently cited in scholarly literature and all of them solidly opposed to the notion that Israel’s attack on Egypt was preemptive (ie, launched because an attack by Egypt on Israel was imminent).
- Jiujitsuguy says “virtually everybody else” disagrees with them. That’s incorrect. Many notable scholars, politicians and commentators other than those Jiujitsuguy cites have cast serious doubt on the claim that an attack by Egypt was imminent. They include:
- Menachem Begin (Prime Minister of Israel)
- Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel)
- Lyndon B Johnson (US President)
- Meir Amit (Head of Mossad)
- Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell (Professor of Law, Notre Dame University)
- Professor Roger Fisher (Professor of Law emeritus, Harvard Law School)
- Sandy Tolan (Internationally-acclaimed academic, journalist and author)
- Sir Anthony Nutting (UK Minister of State and author of “Nasser”)
- James Reston (Executive Editor of The New York Times and Pulitzer Prize Winner)
- Dr Ersun Kurtulus (Associate Editor of the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies)
- Professor Joel Beinin (Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History at Stanford University)
- Professor Henry Cattan (renowned international jurist, academic and writer)
- I think most of the relevant quotes can be found among the many discussion page archives attached to this article, but if you wish me to dig out any particular ones I’ll be happy to do so.Phersu (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please listen:
- Misplaced Pages is completely unable to say the strike was preemptive. Misplaced Pages is completely unable to say the strike was NOT preemptive. Can we all please use that as a starting point? Everyone needs to get used to this idea right now: your side of the story will NOT be the "official" version. End of story.
- Moreover, versions that include both sides of the story, but frame it in a biased (or even point/counterpoint) manner are ALSO not acceptable to Misplaced Pages. We can't say, "Some folks say it was preemptive" , however . Jiujitsu guy wants "preemptive" to be the official version. JRHammond wants to mention "preemptive", but then retract/overwhelm it with a buzzing swarm of "howevers". Neither of these two approaches will fly, since they are both violations of NPOV.
- Here's what we're gonna do:
- We are gonna present both sides of the story.
- We are going to present each side in its own separate subsection of a larger section titled "Causes of the war" (or similar), so we won't have a dizzying ping-pong of point/counterpoint that is a veritable welcome wagon for POV bias and (obviously enough) edit warring..
- We are gonna use only a modest number of the BEST sources to establish each point, because a huge column of quotes looks unprofessional (biggest reason, in my mind), slows load time, is distracting & makes the article harder to read, and makes it almost certain that we're quoting some folks of the "Larry King" caliber, who are not reliable sources.
- We are gonna make the WP:LEAD very bland. We are not gonna argue or point/counterpoint in the lead.
- That all I can think of now, but I may be forgetting something.
- The main point is: NO OTHER APPROACH is gonna fly. Get it into your head now.
- • Ling.Nut 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please listen:
- I think most of the relevant quotes can be found among the many discussion page archives attached to this article, but if you wish me to dig out any particular ones I’ll be happy to do so.Phersu (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- What I want, Ling.Nut, is to state the FACTS, which are that Israel claimed the attack was preemptive despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that Nasser would in all likelihood NOT attack. Please explain to me how stating these noncontroversial facts violates NPOV. Thanks. I'm in agreement with the rest of what you say here, but obviously take issue with you saying that what I want is not NPOV. That is absolutely false. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Marshal your cites and quotes in the appropriate section. Do not put them in the lead; it will bias the article. Do not point/counterpoint in the "preemptive" section; it will invite (nay, guarantee) edit warring. By the way, a secondary goal I forgot to mention is: we need to at least try to make both sections the same length, to avoid even the appearance of violating WP:WEIGHT. That isn't a hard law like the other things I said, but it should be a soft goal. • Ling.Nut 01:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's appropriate to note the facts mentioned in the lede. You state doing so "will bias the article", but you offer no explanation as to why that would be the case, despite my request for an explanation of how stating these facts would violate NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Though Ling.Nut's general approach to improving the article seems sensible to me, in the meantime we still have a third paragraph which, in my opinion, violates NPOV. I proposed what I believe is a NPOV version last week and received no objections, only to be reverted without discussion when I finally carried out the edit. Rather than re-reverting, may I once again put forward my proposed alternative and invite discussion:
"On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. The Israelis subsequently said Egyptian forces had been about to attack them, and that the strike was therefore preemptive. Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression. Scholars remain divided on the issue." Phersu (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I completely understand the frustration. I've been twice blocked for reverting editors who undo the agreed upon version without discussion. I approve your wording, but would like at the same time to suggest: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt. Israel initially claimed Egypt had attacked first, but subsequently said that the war had been preemptive. Egypt denied this, saying Israel's attack was an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression."JRHammond (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Given frequent confusion over the specific meaning of "preemptive" in this context, however, do you think we should reword your version to read: "Israel initially claimed Egypt had attacked first, but subsequently said an Egyptian strike had been imminent, and that Israel's action was therefore preemptive." Also, what do you feel about the line: "Scholars remain divided on the issue"? Phersu (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- In his book "Middle East" Anthony Ham writes: "The Egyptian army was mobilised and the country put on a war footing. On 5 June, Israel responded with a devastating pre-emptive strike that wiped out virtually the entire Egyptian air force in a single day"
- In his book "The Third Cell" Anthony D'Egidio writes: "This preemptive strike took out all the medium-range bombers along with their support aircraft"
- In his book "100 years of air power & aviation" Robin D. S. Higham writes: "The Israelis chose to make a preemptive strike in June 1967
- I could have continued the list of sources, but I am not sure there's any use in doing this.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Phersu, that wording is fine by me. Approve. As for the inclusion of scholars being divided, I'm neutral on it. I don't think it's necessary, but would have no problem with it's inclusion.
- Mbz1 (1) "The Egyptian army was mobilised and the country put on a war footing." This is true. However, it's not to say the Egyptian positions weren't defensive -- as U.S. intelligence assessed them to be. (2) "This preemptive strike took out all the medium-range bombers along with their support aircraft". This is an assertion, not evidence. (3) "The Israelis chose to make a preemptive strike in June 1967". This is an assertion, not evidence.
- So you've managed to prove that people assert that the war was preemptive. No revelations there. Fact remains there is no strong evidence from the documentary record to support this claim. JRHammond (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut's Rewrite
I've been discussing the rewrite at length with Ling.Nut. Discussion of it is here, on my talk page, and on Ling.Nut's talk page, so what I'd like to do is bring the discussion together here, in this one place. While I approve of most of the new lede, here are a few initial issues I'd like to resolve through discussion and consensus building:
1) I'm insisting that the lede, where it discusses UNEF, should note the fact that Israel refused to have it restationed on its side. Ling.Nut is reluctant to include this fact. I don't see any legitimate reason whatsoever to omit a known uncontroversial fact, and willful omission of known relevant facts is a violation of WP:NPOV because a partial account will lead readers to draw certain conclusions they may not draw if they had a fuller account of the facts. I'd like to know others' thoughts. Approve or disapprove, and if you disapprove, why? JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Include in lede. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. UN Secretary General U Thant urged Israel to allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border, as did the USA, Britain and Canada, but Israel refused. Both U Thant and Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of UN forces in the Middle East, later stated that if Israel had acceded to the request, War might have been avoided. If Egypt's expulsion of the UNEF from its side of the border is significant, then surely Israel's refusal to reposition the UNEF on its side of the border is also significant. Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Undecided Need better evidence, better analysis, etc. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand, Ling. Better evidence for what, exactly? JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the significance of the fact; not the existence of the fact. • Ling.Nut 12:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Israel’s Foreign Minister, Ebba Eban, had argued that UNEF’s withdrawal made the Sinai “safe for belligerency” and increased the chances of war. He also said that Egyptian preparations in the Sinai posed the “chief danger” to Israel. Yet Israel refused to have UNEF redeployed to its side of the border when urged to do so by the UN and others.
- In his memoir, UN Secretary-General U Thant wrote: “If only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted”.
- Various scholars have stressed this point precisely because the expulsion of UNEF by Egypt is so frequently cited as one of the reasons Israel supposedly felt vulnerable to attack and believed an attack to be imminent. They argue that if the removal of the UN buffer was so significant, why did Israel allow it to disappear completely, rather than simply shift it over the border?
- Hence, I believe it important to mention both facts: Despite urging from the UN, Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border. And despite urging from the UN, Israel refused to allow UNEF to be moved to its side of the border.Phersu (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is absolutely significant. Oren spends three pages discussing it, as you already know. Finkelstein responds to Oren's discussion of it in the Journal of Palestine Studies article I cited for you previously. Phersu makes a further good argument in addition to the one I've already given you. I fail to comprehend what more "evidence" of the facts significance you need to see. It is a fact that is prima facie significant. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
2) The sandbox currently asks for sources on the above (Israel rejected UNEF). Here are several:
a) If UNEF had been deployed on both sides of the Line as originally envisaged in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution, its buffer function would not necessarily have ended. However, its presence on the Israel side of the Line has never been permitted. The fact that UNEF was not stationed on the Israel side of the Line was a recognition of the unquestioned sovereign right of Israel to withhold its consent for the stationing of the Force.
b) Yet a simple solution to the UNEF conundrum existed, U Thant believed, and he presented it the next morning, May 18, to the Israeli ambassador. The UN force would cross the frontier and redeploy on Israeli territory.
c) It is hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved the peace while stationing it on the Israeli side would not have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian side but not the Israeli side.
3) Current version, first paragraph, reads: "...greatly reducing its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states". I strongly object to this wording, as it implies that a) Israel's neighbors were the aggressors and b) Israel was "vulnerable". The former is a point of view, highly debatable (an understatement), and the latter a judgment seemingly without basis, given the fact that Israel, uncontroversially, had a vastly superior military force. I would argue this violates WP:NPOV and should therefore be revised or removed to read more neutrally. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Revise wording. Why say the capture of territory reduced Israel's "vulnerability"? What about the vulnerability of the Palestinian territory, which has been under occupation for 40 years? This is Israeli POV.
Approve. It should read more neutrally.Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. This is gonna be well-sourced. Keep. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- What difference does it make if it's well-sourced if it's not NPOV? It would be fine to include if we also included the Arab POV of what Israel's capture of territory meant. But to just state what it meant for Israel's POV would seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that Israel's defensive ability was improved because its borders (disputed/occupied/controlled whatever; I know they are not legal borders, I'm just talking here) does not imply that attack was imminent. It merely merely states the obvious: that Israel's defensive ability was improved. I intend to offer cites that say simply that Israel's defensive ability was improved, and that it was a wee-tiny country with major cities in easy bombing range of its foes. I do not intend to state, or imply or suggest, that this means that the Arab nations intended to attack. It just means it made it somewhat less easy for them to do so. If other editors try to use that as an excuse to say the war was preemptive, I'll move their text into an appropriate "preemptive attack" section or subsection.... moreover, it seems to me that the Arab POV is very thoroughly covered. Is our plan, then, to completely delete the Israeli POV? If you think mentioning it first biases the reader's interpretations, then we can surely move it down to that overlong last paragraph. but... I just.. want the paragraphs to be a bit more equally-sized... • Ling.Nut 12:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have significantly reordered the sandbox lead, preserving all content. This deemphasizes the "defensive borders" info (but preserves it), and enhances the prominence of the "occupied" verbiage. • Ling.Nut 13:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- It may not imply attack was imminent, but it does assume aggressive intent on the part of the Arabs. I don't think you're understanding my objection here. I don't dispute that this is hypothetically true. What I am saying is that here you are telling the consequence of Israel's capture of territory FOR ISRAEL. That's Israeli POV. So, if you're going to do that, to comply with NPOV, you need to also state the consequence of Israel's capture of territory FOR THE ARABS. Arab POV also needs to be included here, or the sentence scrapped altogether. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
4) The current version reads: "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things." My argument is that if we are going to include different POVs with regard to characterizations of the war, how can we possibly omit the Arab POV, which was that the war was an act of aggression? It prima facie violates WP:NPOV to offer the Israeli POV but not the Arab one. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Include Arab POV. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Egypt said it was a war of aggression. Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Superseded The working sandbox already has a sentence: ""Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor."
- Ling, This logic defeats itself, since by the same reasoning we don't need to add Israeli POV that it was "preemptive" in this sentence in question. If we do include the Israeli POV of how they characterized the war (two versions of Israeli POV, actually), then we must also include the Arab POV. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we already covered the victim/aggressor bit, and you said it was OK. That sentence ("Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor") absolutely does contain the Arab POV that Israel was the aggressor. Moreover, it licenses the body text of the article to discuss and analyze that point, within an appropriate section or subsection.
- Yes, I am OK with "Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor". That is neutral, offering both POVs. But I strongly object to "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things" because it includes two characterizations from Israeli POV and NONE from Arab POV. To comply with NPOV, the Arab POV MUST be included here, or the sentence scrapped. JRHammond (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't saying that the war was waged in order to preserve Israel's deterrence strategy the equivalent of saying that it was a war of aggression? Certain commentators have argued that the Israeli attack against Gaza the other year was fought to re-establish Israel's "deterrence capacity", meaning its ability to strike fear into the Arabs. That would certainly be the same, speaking in terms of using aggressive force, as if the war was fought to gain land or to drive out the population. Shoplifter (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not equivalent. Legally speaking, yes, a war of "deterrence" would be aggression. The two are not mutually exclusive. But just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles squares, all wars of "deterrence" are aggression, but not all aggressive wars are "deterrence". Saying the war was done as "deterrence" attributes the Arab states with aggressive intent and motivations of self-defense on the part of the Israelis, which is 100% Israeli POV. Both "preemptive" and "deterrence" are Israeli POV. How can the article state two variants of Israeli POV, but not state Arab POV, which is not that the war was deterrent, but that it was an act of aggression and war waged to conquer even more territory? WP:NPOV demands that BOTH POVs be noted, or neither. I don't suggest the latter. JRHammond (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think your reasoning is valuable, even though, it seems to me, we both agree that initating a war on the basis of deterrence is in itself a war of aggression. But your explication makes a good case for being more careful about which words are chosen to describe the motives of the aggressor. Shoplifter (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad we're in agreement on that point. Do you also agree, then, that the Arab POV that the war was an act of aggression should be included, if we're going to include various POVs of the war as is presently the case in Ling's draft? And if we're not going to include the Arab POV, then neither should we include the Israeli POV? Do you agree this is necessary to comply with WP:NPOV? Would appreciate your further thoughts (as well as others'). I'd really like to get this lede hammered out solid. Ling.Nut has done some great work with his rewrite, and I'm hoping editors can discuss and arrive at a consensus approval of his draft, so it can be implemented ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I principally agree with your take on WP:NPOV, but I'm willing to consider what Ling.Nut suggests would be a compromise resolution before making any hard and fast rules as to what should and should not be included. I think his description above on what to be expected from a neutral lead is reasonable. I will hold off my view until he presents his proposal. But yes, anything that is apparently and unjustifiably tendentious should not be accepted. Shoplifter (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If we're going to mention that there are various descriptions of the war, including the suggestion that it was preemptive, we also have to include the Arab position, that it was a war of aggression. Phersu (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Have you had a chance to look at the map lately? Do you really believe that Israel that could be seen only through a magnifying glass will wage a war of aggression on 20+ Arab countries? Or you really believe that Israel left Gaza to take it back? Or you really believe that, if Israel wanted to take back Gaza, they could not have done it? Israel wants peace. Israel fights for her survival. In 1948 Robert Kennedy said:
| “ | The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise. On the other hand, the Arabs say: "We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise. | ” |
- More than 60 years later it proves to be the right statement over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Mbz1, I don't see what relevance your opinion has to the issues I've raised here. If you'd care to address my point on the basis of the facts and logic I present, please go right ahead. JRHammond (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- JRHammond, I posted the comment in the response to Shoplifter, but now you inserted your comment between my comment and Shoplifter's comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- You nested it only one level, so it seemed to me it was a reply to my comment. But not matter, I don't see what relevance your opinion has to the issue address by Shoplifter. If you'd care to address his point on the basis of the facts and logic he presents, please go right ahead. JRHammond (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I too thought your comment was directed toward JRHammond. Either way, as he points out, it does not provide any rational argument related to my previous comment. Shoplifter (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
5) Current version reads: "The unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants, plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict." I strongly object to this, as it omits and whitewashes the fact that the Palestinian territories have been under a more than 4-decades-long foreign military occupation. This is completely uncontroversial, so why go to such great lengths to avoid mentioning the fact? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't see any legitimate reason NOT to mention what is arguably the single most significant consequence of the war. Seriously, going out of the way to omit this fact is just plain ridiculous.
- Superseded Sandbox already mentions "occupied". I am, however, quite willing to work out the objectionable phrase "unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories"
Current version notes one consequence being a rise in Islamism. If that is going to be mentioned, I think it is absolutely incumbent to also note what one can easily argue is the most significant consequence, which is the occupation. I have proposed several variants: (a) "Another lasting consequence of the war that has had enormous repercussions and which helped establish the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East was the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which continues to this day." (b) "Another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories." (c) "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East."
I'm not adamant in the least bit about the word, only that the occupation as a consequence of the war be at least MENTIONED. Anyone who disagrees, state your reasons please. I don't see any legitimate reason to omit the fact whatsoever. How can we NOT mention this? JRHammond (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Note consequence of occupation in lede. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Approve. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (and other, non-Palestinian areas) were seminal consequences of the War.Phersu (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Superseded All of the above already covered. Please reread the sandbox version carefully, including the new phrase at the very end. • Ling.Nut 09:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Resolved I see that now, thanks for the update, Ling. JRHammond (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not Opposed per se to putting the UNEF bit in the lead; I want its inclusion fully defended before it does (or doesn't) go in.
- I'm not Opposed per se to your wording of the final sentence of the LEAD; I wanna hash it out further. • Ling.Nut 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- All due respect, when I presented my argument, you replied "You are flat wrong". And you repeatedly argued that sources that lend the fact weight must be provided, despite the fact I'd already presented you with two very prominent sources writing from two opposing viewpoints who did just that. So forgive me for interpreting that as opposition inclusion of the fact. But, fair enough, I apparently misinterpreted. How's "reluctant" work for you? JRHammond (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that your conclusion that the UNEF bit should go in the lead is "flat wrong"; I meant that the logic you used to get to that conclusion is wrong. I'm sorry if I was harmfully unclear. I am quite busy in RL and am juggling two tasks at once. I apologize. • Ling.Nut 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- All due respect, when I presented my argument, you replied "You are flat wrong". And you repeatedly argued that sources that lend the fact weight must be provided, despite the fact I'd already presented you with two very prominent sources writing from two opposing viewpoints who did just that. So forgive me for interpreting that as opposition inclusion of the fact. But, fair enough, I apparently misinterpreted. How's "reluctant" work for you? JRHammond (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- No misunderstanding on that point. My logic is sound. JRHammond (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to get other editors comments, approval or disapproval, please. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's move our working version of the lead into the article now
- I was surprised to see people still arguing about the dreaded third paragraph of the current lead. I was under the impression that nearly everyone thinks the lead in User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox has many advantages over the current text.
- We are depriving Misplaced Pages's general readership (the folks "out there") of a markedly improved text.
- The only sticking points with the working version are:
- JRHammond doesn't want "greatly reducing geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states"
- JRHammond wants the very last sentence altered to give a sense of the scope of the impact of the Jewish Occupation on regional politics.
- JRHammond wants to include the fact that Israel declined UNEF forces; J-guy does not.
- J-guy doesn't want "inadvertent" included.
- J-guy wants the article to state unequivocally that the attack was preemptive.
- With all due respect and in the humblest terms possible, I'm afraid that the conclusion is inescapable that #4 would simply be impossible. The number of extremely reliable sources taking that tack simply cannot be brushed side. In a similar way, #5 is also impossible. In addition to (again) ignoring a wide swath of critical opinion, that would be reduce the article to an editorial.
- As for JRHammond's wishes, some are more debatable, and some are less so.
- The point remains, the version in user space is far superior.
- Let's consign the current lead to the dustbin (where it belongs), move the version in user space into the article now, and debate its merits from that standpoint. As I said, we are depriving the wider readership of a clearly superior version. • Ling.Nut 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. To be honest, I think I have addressed almost every one of JR's concerns. We can argue about UNEF later. • Ling.Nut 13:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely Approve. We can continue make further tweaks after as deemed necessary through discussion and consensus forming. Hope to get more editors to comment on my thoughts/suggestions about how to improve it even further. JRHammond (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve for now It was a preemptive and inescapable war, which is confirmed by hundreds of reliable sources. To say anything different than that will be POV pushing. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- You'll recall my earlier remarks that Misplaced Pages is not permitted to take an editorial position. If you are inflexible on this point, then you have reduced the premise for your opposition to a single-issue position that stands in stark contrast to Misplaced Pages's five pillars. I hope you will reconsider. I am hoping we can all embrace a WP:LEAD that is bland, and does not take positions. • Ling.Nut 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am more or less fine with the lead that you have in your sand box right now, if it is what are you going to put in.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm quite puzzled. Then why did you "Strongly Disapprove"? • Ling.Nut 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because #4 and #5 are represented in the version in your sand box, but now you seem to be backing out from those or I am missing something?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I very definitely want #4 and #5 to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD, and I definitely want each of those propositions to receive its own subsection containing WP:RS supporting their stance (and not containing even one word of rebuttal; other propositions also have their own section). What I do not suggest is that the article categorically state that #4 and #5 are absolutely true – or absolutely false. Each "cause of the war" theory (for lack of a better word!) will get its own section, and within that section, it can support its premise as strongly as reliable sources will permit. Does that make sense? • Ling.Nut 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because #4 and #5 are represented in the version in your sand box, but now you seem to be backing out from those or I am missing something?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm quite puzzled. Then why did you "Strongly Disapprove"? • Ling.Nut 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, It is the lede in the sandbox right now that you just strongly disapproved of. If you approve of what's there right now, please edit your reply to read "approve" so we can move on and get this thing done. JRHammond (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You've gone back to arguing about details of the implementation, which is not helpful. I want to agree on the interface (that is, the WP:LEAD). Please do save arguments about POV for another thread. In fact, I would meekly suggest that you strike through that post, as irrelevant...• Ling.Nut 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I trust my comment now reads to your satisfaction. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I sound schoolmarmish. I just wanna stay focused on the immediate present, and the issues at hand... • Ling.Nut 03:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I trust my comment now reads to your satisfaction. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Totally understood. Feel free to remove this bit (including this and my previous comment) if you want to clean it up. JRHammond (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. The proposed version is indeed superior to the current version. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. I second the above comment of Frederico1234. Shoplifter (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. The proposed version is better. Phersu (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Approve. Articles should be written for the typical reader, and this is particularly true for the lead. Readers of an encyclopedia do not want or need to be told what to think. Instead they seek to be informed. Readers who already have a strong view are unlikely to be persuaded by an article that obviously promotes an alternative view. Instead articles should be written to provide readers who have an open mind with more information. Such readers will react against information with a leading bias. Misplaced Pages is not the place to resolve arguments about what happened or who was in the right. A good test of an NPOV article is whether it is possible for an outside reader to guess the views of the editors. A POV article adds nothing to the beliefs of those with that view, and will alienate those who do not share it. In all these respects, the sandbox lead improves upon the current one, but editors need to take the general principles on board if they truly aspire to write a better article, one that people will be inspired to read. Geometry guy 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Rusk's memo
As I've written previously, I was the one who added the information about the US intelligence assessment several months back. This included Johnson's emphatic response to Eban on Israel's military superiority visavi the Arab states, the growing contemporary view that preemption was seen as unwarranted by the Johnson administration, and, the famous memo sent by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the President on May 26.
On the issue of the memo, I think it has some rather interesting clauses which are not currently noted in the article, but perhaps should be. As of now, the one line that is included in the article reflects the US rejection of the Israeli claims of an imminent attack: "Our intelligence does not confirm Israeli estimate." But if you read further on, the picture painted by Rusk of the political positioning by the Johnson administration becomes quite the more elucidating. For example, he goes on to state the following:
"We put the case against preemptive strikes to Eban very hard last night, both from the military and the political points of view. I pointed out to him that we have lived with this issue a long time in connection with the Soviet Union, and come down definitively against the idea. Despite this, Eban still believes, I think, that in the context of Israel's problem, surrounded by menacing concentrations (armed among other things, with nerve gas), he needs something pretty solid to hold the line against his hawks.
They have absolutely no faith in the possibility of anything useful coming out of the U.N."
Further below, Rusk makes this assertion:
"We will consult with the Israeli Government at every step of the way, and we expect the Israelis to reciprocate. We know and appreciate that in light of the difficulties which have developed as a result of Nasser's unilateral steps, it is difficult for Israel to be patient and prudent in circumstances where its vital interests could be adversely affected. Nevertheless we can proceed only on the assumption that Israel will make no military move that would precipitate hostilities in the area. Preemptive action by Israel would cause extreme difficulty for the United States."
And finally, he proclaims:
"The fundamental guiding principles of the U.S. are the preservation of international peace and security and the preservation of the political independence and territorial integrity of states of the Near East. We have opposed aggression from any source in the past and will continue to do so."
Just by reflecting on what is being said here, it seems to me to be clear that the administration not only was of the opinion that preemption was unnecessary, but firmly opposed any such action. No matter how the memo is interpreted, I believe it warrants further inclusion. Your thoughts? Shoplifter (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's significant insofar as it demonstrates the U.S. intelligence estimate was that there was no imminent threat of attack from Egypt. (As Oren points out, the Israeli estimate matched the U.S.'s.) It is also significant insofar as it demonstrates that the U.S. was trying to convince Israel not to launch a first strike, as it eventually did. These facts should absolutely be included in the article, and this memo is a good source for that. JRHammond (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- The US intelligence estimate is an opinion that has to be attributed to a source. On the other hand, NPOV says that we can assert facts, including facts about opinions. The Secretary-General, various national leaders, and scholars say ‘There is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel’, See for example Avi Shlaim, Iron Wall, 2000, page 85. There are a number of editors here making WP:Synth claims on the basis of their own unpublished research. Neither WP:WEIGHT nor WP:ASF permit the lede or the article to misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views.
- It is also a published fact that only a small number of states considered preemptive strikes to be lawful, and that the US, France, USSR, UK, & etc. warned all of the parties that there would be consequences for the side that initiated hostilities. See for example Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, By William B. Quandt, Brookings Institution Press and the University of California Press; 3rd edition, 2005, ISBN 0520246314, page 404, note 43
- President De Gaulle cut-off arms trade with Israel entirely. He released a letter to Rueters that was addressed to David Ben-Gurion on 9 January 1968. He said that he was convinced Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian territory by force of arms. He felt Israel had exercised repression and expulsions during the occupation and that it amounted to annexation. He said that provided Israel withdrew her forces, it appeared that it might be possible to reach a solution through the UN framework which could include assurances of a dignified and fair future for refugees and minorities in the Middle East, recognition from Israel's neighbors, and freedom of navigation through the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. {{cite news|url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C11F73C541B7B93C2A8178AD85F4C8685F9&scp=1&sq=&st=p|title=Text of de Gaulle's Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion |publisher=Select.nytimes.com |date= 10 January 1968|accessdate=2010-03-09}}
- I don't see a good reason to include Michael Orin's opinion that the extra territory Israel acquired "greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states" in the lede. Most commentators agree that the loss of so much Arab territory and the lack of a negotiated withdrawal made another war a certainty. See for example Chapter 7, Holy Days and Holy War, October 1973; in "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Bickerton and Klausner, Prentice-Hall, 4th ed, 2002, page 161. harlan (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Jordanian soldiers in the Government House
- The article has been repeatedly picked over by editors who wish to remove a cite presenting one account about whether or not Jordanian soldiers took control of the Government House. I am very aware of these concerns. I know, acknowledge and concur with their importance. But we can only address one issue at a time, and all edits in this regard seem to have been POV-laden. Please do be patient. Please do realize that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. This article is obviously going to take months to bring into anything even vaguely resembling respectable shape (in terms of prose, NPOV, coverage of the the topic – you name it, every single aspect). Please do understand that Misplaced Pages is not the center of the universe. If the text temporarily reads in a manner that you do not agree with, the world will not end. Please do b patient. Please do discuss your concerns in a productive manner. Thank you. • Ling.Nut 03:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It would suffice to mention that Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound and opened an artillery barrage as reported by the Secretary-General to the Security Council on June 5, 1967. However, you chose instead to quote a footnote out of context that three soldiers entered the building for ten minutes. This is quite misleading and makes it sound that this is the whole story. Authoritative (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Authoritative. It is a very important point.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- "In the interest of historical accuracy, it is to be noted that the report that Jordanian troops had "occupied" Government House was originally based on incomplete information owing to a communicaitons breakdown caused by the events in the Government House area. On the basis of a review of events and a checking with the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, it was later determined that the actual facts as regards the reported entry of Jordanian troops into Government House on 5 June 1967 were as follows: at approximately 1445 hours local time, three Jordanian soldiers entered Government House over the protest of UNTSO, but were persuaded by UNTSO staff to leave the building after about ten minutes."
- Kindly explain what is "out of context" about this correction from the UN's own records. Also please explain what is "misleading" about it. As the footnote explains, what is misleading was the report that Jordanian troops had "occupied" the building. And what is your basis for your claim that they "opened an artillery barrage"? You cite a report to the SG. Please provide it. JRHammond (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought that the following would suffice without mentioning the Secretary-General's report or the occupation of the building itself.
Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country. .
However, if you wish to add the above footnote, it would have to be quoted in context of the Secretary-General's report where it belongs as specifically marked 1/ to avoid misinformation.
At the UN Security Council meeting of June 5, 1967 Secretary-General U Thant reported that:
"at 1330 hours local time today approximately one company of Jordanian soldiers occupied the garden of the Government House.
"General Bull later informed me by an emergency message that Jordanian troops had not with-drawn and were demanding to enter Government House itself and had demanded that no telephone calls be made from Government House. Firing was continuing and mortar shells were now landing within the Government House compound. United Nations Headquarters lost radio contact with UNTSO headquarters in Jerusalem at 0852 hours New York time, at which time Jordanian troops occupied Government House1/. This also means that United Nations Headquarters has lost direct contact with headquarters UNEF, whose messages are routed through UNTSO." Authoritative (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- The text exists – on a UN document, no less. We cannot ignore its existence. wait, here's more here. Also sourced to p. 506 of Bailey, Sydney D. (1980 ). Nonmilitary Areas in UN Practice. The American Journal of International Law Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 499-524, though Bailey doesn't provide his source... yes he does, in the book. He cites personal correspondence from Odd Bull... p. 96, IIRC.
- If anyone can scan the relevant pages of Odd Bull's book "War and peace in the Middle East: the experiences and views of a UN observer, Volume 1976, Part 2" and email them to me, that would be useful.. looks like it should be on pp. 115ff. • Ling.Nut 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are citing the raw reports contained in the minutes of the 5 June 1967 session of the Security Council (i.e. the Procès-verbal, PV). The footnote material was added after-the-fact for historical accuracy to state what had actually happened.
- Odd Bull's story about the three soldiers is in agreement with the UN and Mr. Bailey's report. It relates that a Jordanian Major had been told over his radio to occupy the Government House and that the Major and three soldiers had entered. Odd Bull called the head of the Jordanian delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission, Colonel M. Dahoud, and told him that if the troops were not withdrawn at once he would contact King Hussein. The Major and the soldiers left. There was a company of Jordanian soldiers in the Government House garden and they drew fire from the nearby Israeli position. Several buildings in the compound were severely damaged when they were hit by over twenty mortar shells, and the quarters used by Odd Bull and his wife caught on fire (pages 115-116). Avi Shlaim does not say the Jordanians occupied Government House, he said they captured it, but the IDF also captured Government House. It was the IDF that drove out the UN staff and their families (per Sydney Bailey, Odd Bull, et. al.).
- Historycentral.com is a commercial site for MultiEducator products founded by Amy Erani and Marc Schulman. There is no information provided regarding their editorial review process, or their specific professional qualifications. The article on the Six Day War has a "History of Israel from dream to reality" banner. The article is unattributed and there is no bibliography. It appears that Amy Erani is the Director of Judaic Studies at Westchester Fairfield Hebrew Academy, National Education Director at Young Judaea, and attended Jewish Theological Seminary. I'd suggest that (at best) any unsourced information from historycentral.com be attributed as an opinion, and that we avoid linking to unlicensed unsourced commercial content in the first place. harlan (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
We are in agreement that Avi Shlaim does not say the Jordanians occupied Government House, he said they captured it. Neither the version "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound" nor Secretary-General U Thant's 1967 yearbook mention anything about the building itself.
However, if you prefer to add the footnote in context, I think that there is no problem since we are in agreement that there was a company of Jordanian soldiers in the Government House garden. If you find something interesting in Odd Bull's book I would welcome it. Authoritative (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we are missing the big picture here. If we discuss the Jordanian actions, then NPOV tends to require that we include the published material regarding the IDF's actions. They mortared the Government House buildings, captured and occupied them, and drove-out the UN staff and their families. See Sydney Bailey's account at the link above. harlan (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Harlan is right. Also, Authoritative's version reads, "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country" - this suggests the Jordanians initiated the hostilities. I see nothing from the record to indicate it wasn't equally possible or more so that Israel attacked the compound and the Jordanians responded. This should read that fighting broke out and not pin responsibility for that on one side or the other. JRHammond (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the current version that reads "several accounts state that Jordanian forces occupied Government House", the assertion that "Jordanian troops seized the Government House compound, used as the headquarters for the UN observers in a Demilitarized zone since the 1949 Armistice Agreements and opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country" is sourced and well documented.
It takes a great deal of vision and imagination to suggest "that Israel attacked the compound and the Jordanians responded." Authoritative (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then it should be very simple for you to provide sources that substantiate that assertion. Please do so, or drop the claim from your version of the sentence. JRHammond (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources now cited substantiate that assertion rather than the current version. Authoritative (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC).
Sources "now cited" "rather than" "current version"? Huh? There is no substantiation for this in the article at present. You need to provide a source. JRHammond (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources are 138 and 139 as they appear in the article at present. Authoritative (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fn 138 is cited for "On the evening of June 5, the Israeli cabinet convened to decide what to do; Yigal Allon and Menahem Begin argued that this was an opportunity to take the Old City of Jerusalem, but Eshkol decided to defer any decision until Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin could be consulted" -- not for your assertion that Jordanian troops "opened a heavy-artillery barrage" from the Government House.
Fn 139 reads: "After asking for 24 hours to think about it, Jordanian troops opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country. In addition, Jordanian troops seized government houses and the headquarters of the U.N. in Jerusalem." This does not support your assertion that the barrage was launched from the Government House. In fact, it's quite clear two incidents are being referenced here. You confuse them.
If you want to insert this claim into the article, you need to provide a source. You have offered none. JRHammond (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been revised to separate the two incidents accordingly. Authoritative (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. JRHammond (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
main point versus supporting detail: Israel declined UNEF
- I have spent a great deal of time tracking down cites about Israel refusing UN troops. Please listen carefully to what I say:
- Everyone – whether Pro-Israel, pro-Arab, neutral; whether major source or minor source; doesn't matter – everyone mentions Nasser's request/demand that UNEF troops be withdrawn from Egypt.
- The point about Israel refusing a re-request by Thant is very seldom mentioned, and:
- When it is mentioned, it is never a main point, but always a supporting detail (aside perhaps in Finkelstein; I haven't seen his text)
- When it is mentioned, it is always in the context of an Arab viewpoint, criticizing Israel (I found, for example, some comments by quotes by Quincy Wright and Michael Barton Akehurst).
- Oren does not spend pages discussing it, as has been stated. I cannot see p. 72, but I can see the following pages, and they are not about that. He treats it as a detail, not a major fact. That is probably to be expected, as he is a pro-Israel biased source.
Finkelstein is the prototype of a biased pro-Arab source.
- For these reasons, it seems to me that the conclusion cannot be avoided: this point is a supporting detail in arguments from an Arab perspective. It is never dealt with as a main point. By the simple logic of composition studies (main points in introduction; supporting points in body) this point does not belong in the lead.
- It certainly DOES belong in an appropriate subsection that lays out the Arab perspective.
- I am removing it from the sandbox version.
- Some editors may be tempted to use logical arguments to support the assertion that it must be left in the lead. Absolutely no one on this page seems to realize (please do pay attention):
- Our logical arguments = our analysis = original research.
- To repeat: Logic-based arguments for or against inclusion of text in the WP:LEAD are original research. Analysis of source texts is the only proper procedure.
- I'm gonna move the sandbox lead into the article very soon. I fear some editors may edit war to insist that that point be reinserted in the lead. Please refrain from doing so.
- Thanks. • Ling.Nut 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great analysis and the right decision! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the sentence could be dropped from the lead. However, the claims that "When it is mentioned, it is always in the context of an Arab viewpoint, criticizing Israel" and "It is never dealt with as a main point." are wrong. Tom Segev in his book "1967" devotes a paragraph on page 274 for this subject. Segev does not mention this as part of the Arab view-point. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Given your characterization of Finkelstein, I think it's fair that we look at what he actually writes about the UNEF issue. Here's the relevant excerpt from Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso Books, 2003:
- "U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary-General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF 'envisaged' that it would be stationed on 'both sides' of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. (Egypt had acceeded to the General Assembly request; Israel had not. U Thant also noted that, in the course of the decade that had since elapsed, Israeli troops 'regularly patrolled alongside the line and now and again created provocations by violating it'.) But Israel dismissed as 'entirely unacceptable' U Thant's recommendation. Repeated entreaties by the United States, Britain and especially Canada all fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel." (p. 128)
- "In his memoir, U Thant conjectured that 'if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted.' His speculation received an authoritative endorsement from Odd Bull, who stated that 'it is quite possible that the 1967 war could have been avoided' had Israel acceeded to the Secretary-General's request." (continued on p. 128)
- As far as I can tell, he simply relates the view of Thant and Bull to explain what happened, and he does so in less than one page. Shoplifter (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- All of which still supports my conclusion, I believe... • Ling.Nut
- As far as I can tell, he simply relates the view of Thant and Bull to explain what happened, and he does so in less than one page. Shoplifter (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you might be able to find other writings which support your description of Finkelstein, but it seems to me that UNEF issue is not one of those. I don't owe a copy of either Segev's or Oren's books, but it would be interesting to juxtapose their depiction of events with Finkelstein's. Before I added the extensive documentation of the US intelligence assessment, this was described by one line in the article, which, I believe, stemmed from Oren: "The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the Israeli claim; the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive." That is, shall we say, quite a black-out of the documentary record. If Oren treats it as a detail, what does he actually write about it? Does he mention Thant's and Bull's views? Same thing goes for Segev. Shoplifter (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you arguing for reinsertion of the UNEF bit, or arguing that Finkelstein isn't POV? If the latter, then fine, I've struck through my remarks above. • Ling.Nut 07:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should evaluate the source material mainly on the basis of documentation, not solely on whom and how many scholars deals with an issue. If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead. Whether or not Finkelstein is POV is, I believe, not relevant to this particular question; can his assertions be corroborated (for example, by looking at the quoted sources)? I concede that this is an issue to be argued among editors, whether the UNEF restationing attempts warrants inclusion. But I think your quantitative view of the source material is problematic. Shoplifter (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
(1) It does not follow from the fact that Israel's refusal to station UNEF on its side isn't mentioned as often as Egypt's dismissal of the force that it is not significant. (2) Oren lends the fact significance, as do other writers, such as Finkelstein. (3) Your argument that "Finkelstein is the prototype of a biased pro-Arab source" is an ad hominem argument. Moreover, even if we accepted this argument, we would also have to accept the converse, that Oren is the prototype of a biased pro-Israeli source. But this only demonstrates the point: Two prominent sources writing from two opposing viewpoints both lend this fact significance. (4) Your argument that we can't use LOGIC to argue for its inclusion is illogical. (5) "If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead." Shoplifer hit the nail on the head with this remark. JRHammond (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- As always, many comments. I hope I can explain things a bit more. I want to say.. if I start babbling about things that you already know, or that seem painfully obvious, please forgive me. It's not that I think you don't know anything. It's that I don't know what you know and don't know, and so I have to say everything that seems relevant.
- The fact that U Thant said that might make it seem prominent, given his office at the time. Well, in reality, perhaps it does, and perhaps it doesn't. This has everything to do with what Shoplifter called a "quantitative view of the source material." It isn't... really... a quantitative view. I know it might seem that way, and in fact in an extremely surface sense it kinda is that way, but in a deeper sense it isn't. The model that best explains academic writing is an extended conversation among many participants. That's true even for the white coat guys who write abstruse mathematical on the back of their shopping list; they're still just all having a conversation with one another, in print. The way to drive to the heart of the matter is to ask these questions:
- What are most people saying on the topic (which seems like bean counting)
- If some people are discussing more than one point (for example, comparing two positions), then how much weight do they give the various positions
- Who are most people quoting on the topic.
- The third one is relevant here. So if U Thant did say that (I'm not disputing it; I haven't looked yet) then what matters is, do many people quote him on it? If not, then you begin to think that perhaps most analysts don't lend much weight to his views (or to put it bluntly to the point of being rude, they don't respect his opinions). In fact, and I am very far from an expert here, but I've seen a couple quotes that kinda questioned U Thant's judgment, and not yet any that supported it. But I am not staking out a position that he should not be heard. I'm abstractly discussing the possibility that that's the case.
- And going back to the conversation metaphor, you have to step back and listen to the whole buzz of voices, getting a feel for some relative proportions in the general din, before you can start to get an idea about the credibility that various ideas have in the wider arena of discussion.
- OK. Now, the fact that Oren and Finkelstein mention Israel's "Just Say No To UNEF" position doesn't automatically lend it weight, either. You're talking about an entire book. Moreover, these books are probably trying to achieve some measure of comprehensiveness in their analysis. With those two things in mind, it would be extremely salient if they didn't at least mention U Thant's comments. Alarm bells would go off in the minds of underpaid professors across the world. If experts write books on the topic that are supposed to be comprehensive, and they do not mention U Thant's remarks, then they are either deliberately eliding something that contradicts their POV, or they completely disregard U Thant's opinions (which might also be a sign of POV, but might not – especially if they've offered up some commentary or quotes that calls his credibility into question), or else they just sorta didn't do their job very well, at least in that instance. So to protect their cherished scholarly reputations, both of them REALLY SHOULD mention it. The mere fact that they mentioned it is not really significant, in itself. So, if something is mentioned, what do we make of it? We see how much time they spend discussing it. We see how many other cites they provide that support or concur with U Thant's positions. We try to get a sense of proportion.
- In this particular case, we've established that both Oren and Finkelstein spend less than a page (perhaps much less than a page, I don't know) discussing this idea. To be honest, after typing all this, I can't quite remember what the quotes above (provided by Shoplifter/JRHammond) actually say. ;-) Sorry! But do they feel the point merits the effort to mention other sources who say the same thing? Do they hit the point with a big hammer, talking at length, or do they just kinda mention it on their way to the coffee machine?
- These are the things we need to be looking at. Can we find others who quote U Thant on this, for example?
- Sorry so long-winded. • Ling.Nut 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Can we find others who quote U Thant on this, for example?". Segev. See my comment above (easy to miss in the jungle of comments!).
(1) That Israel refused to have UNEF restationed on its side of the border is an uncontroversial fact. Nobody is refuting that. It is a significant fact. (2) Sources lend significance to that fact. For example,
- (a) U Thant viewed it as a solution to the situation.
- (b) Oren spends 7 pages (67-75) discussing the removal of UNEF, and in that discussion notes that Israel rejected U Thant's proposal. Oren's discussion is essentially an argument that the removal of UNEF threatened peace, and he states that Israel's reason for rejecting the force was that it "would be less likely to stop Egyptian aggression than to limit Israel's response to it."
- (c) Finkelstein answered Oren by noting "Oren doesn't offer a jot of evidence to support this allegation (there isn't any), but acknowledges earlier that 'the mere presence of UNEF had sufficed to deter warfare during periods of intense Arab-Israeli friction, to keep infiltrators from exiting Gaza and ensure free passage through the Straits of Tiran' (p.67). In addition, he repeatedly suggests that Nasser's decision to remove UNEF (as well as U Thant's acquiescence in it) put the Egyptian leader in a position to 'threaten' peace (pp. 67). It is hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved peace while stationing it on the Israeli side would not have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian but not on the Israeli side."
(3) The major significance is self-evident.
- (a) As Shoplifter noted, "If Thant and Bull were of the view that the restationing of the UNEF could have prevented war, this, it seems to me, is a major point which deserves to be mentioned in the lead."
- (b) It's not only about what U.N. officials thought, it's about what is logically self-evident. As Phersu rightly noted, "If Egypt's expulsion of the UNEF from its side of the border is significant, then surely Israel's refusal to reposition the UNEF on its side of the border is also significant."
(4) It currently stands, as far as I can tell, 3 in favor of including the fact in the lead (JRHammond, Phersu, Shoplifter) and 2 in favor of omitting it (Ling.Nut, Frederico1234). (5) The argument I see opposed is that the fact isn't significant enough to mention. So please answer me these two simple questions:
- (a) If it is significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border, why is this significant?
- (b) In what way does that significance not also apply equally to Israel's similar rejection of the proposal to have UNEF on its side of the border?
Again, the significance is self-evident. But we don't need to rely on ourselves being individuals capable of independent, rational thought. That significance is evidenced by U Thant's view that it was a solution to the crisis, by Oren's effort to downplay the fact, and by Finkelstein's response to Oren explicitly noting the self-evident significance, among other sources.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason to OMIT this crucial fact from the lead, whatsoever. JRHammond (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- JR, your arguments don't go where you believe they do..
- Moreover, you are merely banging your shoe on the table (again and again) and repeating the same assertions (again and again). Your persistence in the face of persuasive arguments that you are incorrect absolutely forces me to say several things that I truly do not want to say.
- Oren spends page after page discussing Egypt throwing out UNEF; he dismisses U Thant with a cursory paragraph or two. I dunno why you think this makes U Thant's remarks important to oren; the converse is self-evidently the case.
- You keep banging your shoe on the table and asking me to answer your logic. In fact, User:Authoritative has already answered that logic repeatedly, and I did not join in his/her (self-evidently correct) assertions because I disregard our own logic as a motivation for including text. I only believe the article should follow sources; where sources emphasize a fact, our article should reflect that emphasis, and (extremely relevant here), where sources deemphasize a fact, our text should do likewise. But User:Authoritative has already answered your logic repeatedly: even if Israel had permitted UNEF troops inside its borders, that would still have left the Straits blocked. No solution that left the Straits blocked would have delayed the war; U Thant was flatly, wholly wrong. It's even a jaw-dropping error. Source after source after source after source after source says "Israel looked at the closure of the Straits and said 'Gulp! We can't live like this. We can't live hunkered down, in defensive mode, etc. We can't live barricaded in. We must attack.'" I am NOT saying that I agree with that position by Israel, I am NOT saying "It really was a defensive/preemptive/whatever war." I am saying that Israel believed that, and Israel acted upon that belief, and Israel would not have failed to act, given any solution or under any conditions that left the Straits closed to them. I regret that you closed your ears to my arguments that work strictly from the sources. I am sorry to resort to "pointing out the obvious", which is very distasteful to me. I would rather work from sources; it is an NPOV approach. Using "our logic" is a welcome mat for POV-based arguing. In fact, it is not only a welcome mat, it is always and everywhere a hallmark, and even a necessary pre-condition for POV arguing. I am saddened that I was forced to fall back to this position.
- You don't seem to understand the nature of WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a a vote in which "3 to 2 means 3 wins". Neither is it suicide pact that sanctions an end-run around sources. • Ling.Nut 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- You say I'm "incorrect", but don't point to where I made any error in fact or logic and otherwise don't substantively address my points, which I would reiterate. You say Authoritiative answered my logic. Where? As for your own logic, you make the following arguments:
- (1) "ven if Israel had permitted UNEF troops inside its borders, that would still have left the Straits blocked". So therefore the fact should be omitted? This is a non sequitur.
- (2) "No solution that left the Straits blocked would have delayed the war; U Thant was flatly, wholly wrong." That is your own judgment, and thus irrelevant.
- (3) "I regret that you closed your ears to my arguments that work strictly from the sources." False premise.
- (4) "I would rather work from sources; it is an NPOV approach. Using "our logic" is a welcome mat for POV-based arguing." I am working from sources. Sources note the fact and lend it significance in doing so. The NPOV approach is to be neutral (duh). To be neutral, the article must note that Israel also rejected UNEF.
- (5) "It is not a a vote in which "3 to 2 means 3 wins"." Nevertheless, more people agree with me than with you. Yet you seem to think that you have the final say in the matter. You do not.
- What is the problem with noting this fact in the article, really? Your arguments against it fall flat on their face. Also, you did not answer my two simple questions. Please do so:
- (a) If it is significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border, why is this significant?
- (b) In what way does that significance not also apply equally to Israel's similar rejection of the proposal to have UNEF on its side of the border? JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's significant that Egypt expelled UNEF from its side of the border because every single source under the sun discusses it, and usually at length. Why they discuss it in that manner is a query you'll need to resolve by reading those sources.
- By precisely the same token, U Thant's last-minute gesture is not significant enough to go in the WP:LEAD because it is NOT mentioned even a fraction of the number of times. When it is mentioned, it is typically granted a whole two paragraphs in a comprehensive book hundreds of pages long.
- I never said we shouldn't put it in the article; I said we shouldn't put it in the WP:LEAD. Why not? Because then Misplaced Pages would be foregrounding a fact that every else relegates to background info. But it can certainly go in the body of the article. • Ling.Nut 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's no sense wasting time debating this anymore. It's a non-issue at this point. My comments were based on previous versions that emphasized the UNEF withdrawal. The current version, however, de-emphasizes the withdrawal of UNEF altogether. See my comment below, and the new section I started, also. JRHammond (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that the current version has changed and the only place this is even mentioned is this phrase, "after UNEF withdrew at his request". This was emphasized much more in previous versions. Given the de-emphasis of this point in the current lede, I'm fine with also de-emphasizing (that is, omitting) the fact that Israel also rejected UNEF. It absolutely must be mentioned in the body. I trust that is agreeable to everybody. JRHammond (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Starting new sandbox phase
- For those who may be just logging in, I created another important section above, including one very important generality about the use of our own logic in these discussions.
- I'm thinking the "among other things" in the lead can be replaced with a well-cited phrase (no more than a few words) mentioning US/Soviet involvement, but I am not gonna do it, at least not today. Maybe later, unless someone else does it first. P Lease cite very well if you do.
- I'm starting another phase of this article in my sandbox: the all-important "causes of the war". I have repeatedly outline the "compartmentalized" approach I favor, though I know that getting this done in a coherent manner may be a formidable task. Given how long it took us to do the lead, I expect this new task may take 6 weeks or 2 months.... All comments invited. • Ling.Nut 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- What to do about the notes without refs? Shoplifter (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. you know, about that big heap of quotes... I respect J-guy's passion and hard work on this matter. However, to keep the article as clear as possible, we need to sift and weigh those quotes, and offer only the best ones, and put them in the best position. That will take a nontrivial amount of time. To be honest, it's a task that's kinda low on my priority list, even though I know they're a little distracting... • Ling.Nut 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Six-Day War in other articles, the preemption issue
I've written on the importance of making other articles comport with the consensus lede. Since a decision has been reached and implemented, the consensus should be reflected in the following articles, and others that deal with the issue:
Preemptive war, specifically Preemptive_war#Examples
History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically History_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#War_of_1967
Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically Arab-Israeli_conflict#1949.E2.80.931967
Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline, specifically Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline#Six-Day_War
Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, specifically Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt#Six_Day_War
All of the above descriptions of the war are written from the Israeli viewpoint and describes it as preemptive without reservation. Shoplifter (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, don't even look in my general direction. As I've said, just this article alone may take months. Second, "Here there be dragons." beware. Do you really wanna spend the time and energy fighting edit wars across a related suite of articles? And with that in mind, which article is the most important? Things you should think about. • Ling.Nut 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what you're saying. But if we reach a consensus in the subject article, what would, principally, stand in the way of implementing this conclusion in all articles that deal with the same issue? I've changed the wording in Preemptive war to be closer to the consensus. If others do the same thing, and then, if warring starts, at least we can centre the discussion to this talk page. It just doesn't seem right, after months of exhaustive discussion and bargaining, that the result reached will be ignored in all other relevant articles. This becomes more alarming when many of those articles are flagrantly biased (if we are to consider our consensus to be more neutral). Take the description in Arab-Israeli conflict:
- On May 30, 1967, Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel. In response, on June 5 Israel sent almost all of its planes on a preemptive mission into Egypt. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack, then turned east to destroy the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces. This strike was the crucial element in Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.
- WP:NPOV, WP:Weight, and so on? Who ever heard of a "preemptive mission"? Sounds like Jehova himself sent those planes. This is not a good situation. Shoplifter (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Syria-Egypt defence (or defense) pact (or agreement)
- An editor {{fact}} tagged the date of the Syria-Egypt defence (or defense) pact (or agreement)... Some sources say 4 November; others say 7 November. It's only three days apart, but still.. Cohen 1988 is where I got 4 November, but if you go to google books, both dates seem nearly equally represented (but I think7 Nov. may have the edge in the quality of the sources...) Can anyone track down better sources? I might be kinda busy today. Tks. • Ling.Nut 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just say "early November" then. nableezy - 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a few remaining problems with the lede
Most of the issues/objections I've had with the lede have been addressed. One has not, and two new ones have appeared since last I looked:
- "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including disputed portions of the West Bank), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, with far-reaching implications for global affairs and international law."
a) The parenthetical must be removed. There are no "disputed portions of the West Bank". All of the West Bank east of the green line is undisputed Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. This is not a matter for opinion, but a point in fact under international law, reflected in numerous UNSC resolutions, as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice. All of the West Bank beyond the '49 armistice ("green") line (including Jerusalem) is occupied territory. This is an uncontroversial point of fact under international law.
b) Also, the outcome of the war has no implications for international law. International law has implications for the outcome of the war (such as the one just noted). The wording needs to be revised to correct this point in fact, or removed. Suggest removal.
- "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states."
c) The second clause is a judgment, not a fact, and should therefore be removed or a caveat added to note this fact. Moreover, the footnote cites Oren, p. 107. On that page, Oren discusses a discussion Rusk had with Eban. There is no discussion of the consequences of the war decreasing Israel's vulnerability to attack. Suggest removal. JRHammond (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can change the word "disputed" to "Israeli-disputed" or "disputed by Israel" if that seems better. I included it because the Israelis do dispute it. .
- I moved the "defensive borders" sentence way, way in the bottom of the lede because you objected to it so often, but I don't think it can be removed. First, I can find far better refs for the "defensive borders" phrase, and I will, in time. . Second, from the Israeli POV, it is a significant outcome of the war. We give the Arab side full coverage, and even foreground it. Do you want the Israeli perspective to disappear? Third, it is geographically true that the Israeli vulnerability to Arab artillery was reduced. Fourth, it is not such a sweeping implication of Arab hostility as you imagine. It is more likely to be interpreted as Israeli defensiveness.
- As for "implications for international law" you're technically correct, but I think you're kinda splitting semantic hairs. I don't think readers will mentally access the interpretation that the war will change international law; I think they will assume that the outcome of the war raised many issues in international law. Click the wikilink to that phrase to see International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict... I can try to come up with a better wording, but any other wording will almost certainly be more clumsy.• Ling.Nut 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- a) I strongly disapprove of the parenthetical as it now reads: "including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel". This does not resolve the issue. If you're going to state Israel's POV, then to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, you have to state the POV of virtually the entire rest of the world that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory. Moreover, as I've already observed, this is not really a question of points of view -- it's an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory. I therefore again suggest removal of the parenthetical. Otherwise, the inclusion of the Israeli POV should be accompanied with the inclusion of this point in fact.
- b) You didn't address this problem. It is not "splitting semantic hairs". Misplaced Pages articles should say what they mean, and not depend upon readers to be able to conclude that a sentence doesn't actually mean what it states explicitly. The wording must be changed so that it means what it says. I should hardly have to argue that point. I suggest removal. If you insist international law be mentioned here, why? What is the point you are trying to make? If not that the consequences of the war had implications for international law (which is what it actually says), then what? If there's a point, just revise the wording to make that point, instead of having it in fact make a point that you're not trying to make and thus making the readers have to guess at your intended meaning and draw conclusions opposite from the logical corollary of the actual wording. Suggest removal, or revision to include the point of fact that under international law all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, is occupied territory.
- c) You haven't substantively addressed my concerns on this point. Until sources are found (and the current source is in need of correction), it should not be included. If/When sources are provided (again, none currently are), then it needs to be expressed not as a fact, but, as you here acknowledge, as being from "Israeli POV". Surely you must agree that expressing what you acknowledge as "Israeli POV" as fact is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. So just add that caveat to the sentence. Or remove it. Either solution is agreeable to me. JRHammond (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I used the words "Israeli occupation", if I recall correctly, and wikilinked it. If i say something is occupied by Israel, doesn't that mean it's occupied? Irael's disputes are relegated to parenthetical status. 'Nuff said.
- I have improved the references, thanks for pointing that out.
- International law -- must be raised as a sub-issue. Did you ever read the linked article? Its first sentence corresponds to Arab POV (and may also reflect international opinion; I am not a lawyer).
- Crucially: I think you misunderstand the intention of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Intuitively, the main goal is this: A person reading the article should not know what POV the editors are writing from, or should not get the feeling that the editors are consistently writing from any particular POV. That is emphatically not the same as saying that no POV statements are ever included. That would, of course, be completely impossible; particularly in an article such as this, nearly ever statement has POV implications. Saying that a sentence is "Israeli POV" is most certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV. Have you read WP:NPOV? • Ling.Nut 04:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- a) Israel's "disputes", which is to say, it's attempts to effectively annex portions of the West Bank, have precisely zero legitimacy. Thus, it does not warrant even a parenthetical. Again, it's question of point of fact, not point of view. And the fact is that it is completely uncontroversial that under international law all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, are occupied territory. (Side note: Jiujitsuguy edited this sentence to read non-NPOV. I reverted it back to your version. In doing so, I left the parenthetical, even though I strongly object to it, as a show of good faith). If other editors favor your inclusion of this, I'll go along with it, but I don't see the point of including it. Would like other editors to comment, state their own position on this.
- b) I did not read the linked article, but I -- like other readers -- shouldn't have to. This article should stand on its own. If you argue international law "must be raised as a sub-issue", then why do you wish to include it in this sentence? Like I said, it's fine to include it, but the wording should be revised to it means what it says, rather than having it say something you don't intend it to mean. My suggestion is to just remove it, so I don't have suggestions on re-wording. I'm open to others make them, including yourself, if you wish to.
- c) Issue remains that this is a judgment is expressed as fact. Moreover, if we are to include this judgment, citing Oren as source, we should also include Oren's judgment that "the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo, and Amman". That would make the sentence read more neutrally. On WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, we are on the same page, I assure you. I refer to those policies in precisely the sense you describe. You point out "Saying that a sentence is "Israeli POV" is most certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV." No kidding. That was entirely my own point. If you want this to comply with WP:NPOV, an Israeli POV MUST BE EXPRESSED AS AN ISRAELI POV (as opposed to expressing Israeli POV as a fact, which violates WP:NPOV). Since you clearly agree with me on that, I look forward to your making the requisite change to the sentence to include that caveat. Or give the word, and I'll do so myself. JRHammond (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. Qualification of each phrase with "According to Arabs" and "according to Israelis" would not only be distracting and just plain ugly, it would appear obsessive. Even the most naive reader imaginable is going to enter this text with some appreciation of the fact that the Arabs and Israelis have fought a bunch of wars against each other, and that their views are categorically opposed on many issues. No one will be so naive that they read any sentence or phrase as gospel truth. What we need to safeguard, then, is the overall impression, not each phrase point by point. Again, no. • Ling.Nut 05:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ling.Nut, please substantively address my points. Your argument does not do so, but rather is effectively that stating a POV as fact is acceptable. That is not acceptable, and this argument is nonsense. POVs must be expressed as POVs, not as fact. That's a perfectly elementary observation with a view to WP:NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- a) Israel's "disputes"...have precisely zero legitimacy.
- Whether or not they are legitimate, they are notable. Notability is the threshold for inclusion, not truth. See WP:5P.
- b) I did not read the linked article, but I -- like other readers -- shouldn't have to. This article should stand on its own.
- Misplaced Pages does not function that way. Most people don't give a flying monkey's proboscis about international law. However, the ones that do are provided with a pretty blue link that directs them to the page where the specifics of that topic are unpacked. That's just the way it is. Unpacking the specifics of this point, and every other one, would involve importing the text of roughly a dozen or so other articles into this one. Conversely, deleting all the pretty blue links because the ideas are not fully unpacked would deprive interested readers of one-click access to the topic they wish to read about.
- c) Issue remains that this is a judgment is expressed as fact. Moreover, if we are to include this judgment, citing Oren as source, we should also include Oren's judgment that "the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo, and Amman".
- The fact that the expansion moved Arab artillery back is not an opinion, it is a fact. The fact that it provided Israel with better defensive depth is also a military fact. It is actually NOT POV to assert that Israel needed to be defensive. They were attacked in '48. Far closer to the time frame at hand, the rhetoric at the time (and now, I suppose) from many states was "destroy Israel now". Nasser was (from the Israeli POV, at least; others may have interpreted it as mere bluster) breathing fire and calling down the wrath of God on them up until the war began. His warlike rhetoric is cited in many sources; would you like me to insert it in the lead immediately preceding the "defensive" phrase?? That should address your concerns that the text is not motivated by any real aggressiveness on the Arab side... An additional source is cited, and I plan to find even more. • Ling.Nut 06:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying more substantively. My replies:
- (a) Understood. But WP:WEIGHT must also be considered, which policy states that "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". I object to this being in the lede on that basis. It might perhaps be appropriately mentioned in the body, with an accompanying explanation that it's a point of fact under international law that none of the West Bank is "disputed" territory. It is all occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. This is uncontroversial, so I see no reason for objection to this proposed solution.
- (b) Fine, so like I said, leave the reference to international law. But revise the sentence to state what you mean, rather than stating something you clearly don't mean. It's your sentence, and your insistence the link remain, so I'll leave it to you to reword it more appropriately. Again, as is, it states that the war has "far reaching implications" for "international law". That's simply not true; the converse is -- as you've already acknowledged. So just fix it to say what you mean it to say. Simple solution.
- (c) (i) Strawman. I never argued that Arab artillery wasn't forced back with Israel's capture of territory. See my actual argument, which I won't repeat. (ii) Your assertion of Israel being "attacked" in '48 is mischaracterization of what actually occurred. In '48, the Zionists unilaterally claimed for themselves the existence of a "Jewish state" in Palestine without specifying borders. At the time, Jews (the minority) owned 7% of the land, Arabs (the majority) 85%. In order to prevent this disenfranchisement of the majority population and to counter the Zionist prejudice towards the rights of the Arab inhabitants of the land, the Arab nations took up arms. This was not an "attack", but an act of self-defense against Zionist aggression and intent to take by force what was not theirs. This is further demonstrated in the fact that the Zionists ethnically cleansed more than 700,000 Arabs from the land they took by force, and in the fact that by far most of the fighting occurred on Arab soil. (iii) What's the problem with pointing out, if you're going to assert Israel's capture of land reduced it's geographic vulnerability to attack, that it also meant Israel was in a better position to launch attacks against its neighbors? These two judgments go hand-in-hand. Noting the one while omitting the other would seem to me to violate NPOV. This is a double-sided coin. That fact should be reflected in the wording of the sentence, or the sentence removed. Simple solution. JRHammond (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- To reiterate and clarify on point (c), to assert that Israel's capture of land "reduced its vulnerability to attack" without noting that the converse is also true that it made Israel's Arab neighbor states MORE vulnerable to attack is non-NPOV. This point is driven home even more strongly in the fact that this ostensible reduction in Israel's "vulnerability to attack" CONSISTED of illegally occupying foreign soil. Moreover, this is a judgment expressed as a fact. If it is to be included, it should at the very least be noted as such, rather than asserted as a fact. For instance, an opposing judgment is that Israel's occupation has INCREASED its vulnerability to attack, since it is such an enormous cause for grievance. All I'm asking is for a judgment to be expressed as such, rather than stated as fact, and for a statement from Israeli POV to be expressed as such. WP:NPOV certainly demands such. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I altered the "law" bit, making it longer and decidedly clumsier, and adding no information that would not have automatically been surmised anyhow. However, I hope it meets with your satisfaction
- You are turning cold, hard facts regarding terrain into a question of aggressive intent. Perhaps you simply do not understand the geography? Before the war, Israel had no defensible natural borders, and its cities were within artillery range of its neighbors. After the war, Israel had a far better geostrategic position, defensible natural borders, etc. Cold, hard facts. No human factors of "who is the aggressor" involved.... NOTE: I changed the wording to "providing it with defensible natural borders." This removes the explicit mention of attack from its neighbors. Now.. I know.. you will say the borders are not legal borders. Fine. make that point in the body text; Misplaced Pages is not a legal document and cannot address every fine legal point ... especially not in the lead section of an article...• Ling.Nut 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- (a) See Shoplifter's solution below.
- (b) I'm satisfied with "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs."
- (c) Your argument for "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders" begins with "You are turning cold, hard facts regarding terrain into a question of aggressive intent." That is where your argument breaks down. To state that Israel's conquest of territory gave it "defensible natural borders" itself raises the question of aggressive intent, and projects that aggressive intent onto Israel's neighbors. Also, my point remains that this express Israel's POV insofar as security is concerned. But what about the security of the Palestinians who now lived under Israeli occupation? What about the fact, as Oren points out in his very next breath after suggesting Israel was "vulnerable" prior to the war, that this capture of territory put Israel in a better position to attack its neighbors? What about those POVs, equally relevant, equally valid? How can you state the one without noting the others? Conversely, if you refuse to note the other consequences from those other POVs, how can you include the one? WP:NPOV is at issue here. JRHammond (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Progress paralyzed. Nickel-and-dimed into paralysis
- Folks. Please. Please. Please. Get this through your heads. Please. Please. The text will never be perfect, and in particular, it is physically impossible for it to be perfect in the minds of both POV camps simultaneously. The lead as I had it is NPOV. It is thoroughly and soundly NPOV. It is even sparkling NPOV. Aside from JR's need to improve the refs (which was reasonable and good), the objections and alterations being made will cause this article to sit in its present state until it rots, with each side changing two words per day, unless everyone gets this through their heads: it is physically impossible for it to be perfect in the minds of both POV camps simultaneously. Please stop. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You'll observe that when I undid Jiujitsuguy's undoing of your wording, I restored your version fully, despite my objection to it, since it's currently under discussion. That is a clear demonstration of my good faith. For my part, my objections/suggested improvements are perfectly reasonable. Please stop telling us to stop trying to improve the article. That is what we are all here to do. You do not have the final say in the matter. I've stated my case. I welcome other editors to read all arguments and state their approval/disapproval of suggested changes. That is the process. You're trying to stifle that process, which is totally unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I welcome progress on the article's current, substandard state. I never suggested that you or any other editor is deliberately being obstructionist. Rather, I think a number of people involved here have no appreciation for the fact that the article can never fit anyone's views perfectly... and trying to make it do so will merely result in stagnation, since other parties will attempt to assert their views by replacing yours. Attempts to achieve perfection always and everywhere achieve only the continuation of the ping pong match – no more, no less. I for one find ping pong supremely boring. • Ling.Nut 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You'll observe that when I undid Jiujitsuguy's undoing of your wording, I restored your version fully, despite my objection to it, since it's currently under discussion. That is a clear demonstration of my good faith. For my part, my objections/suggested improvements are perfectly reasonable. Please stop telling us to stop trying to improve the article. That is what we are all here to do. You do not have the final say in the matter. I've stated my case. I welcome other editors to read all arguments and state their approval/disapproval of suggested changes. That is the process. You're trying to stifle that process, which is totally unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- "I welcome progress on the article's current, substandard state." Great. Glad we are in agreement. So let's get back to it. JRHammond (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Judea and Samria" and other "disputed" words
There is a very specific set of circumstances in which the terms Judea or Samaria should be used on Misplaced Pages, see here. None of these circumstances apply here. Those naming conventions were put together as a result of an arbitration case in which a number of editors were indefinitely banned from the topic area. Further, Jiujitsuguy's edit removes "occupied" and "disputed by Israel" and replaces that with a simple "disputed". It is a super-majority view that the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, a view that even the Israeli High Court shares. nableezy - 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit and especially for citing the case... I wasn't aware of that. I think we're trying to work on this. Thanks again. • Ling.Nut 05:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nableezy. Notice Jiujitsuguy undid my undoing of his undoing without discussion. He has repeatedly demonstrated poor faith. It would be nice if he continues to refuse to discuss his objections/suggested revisions and continually undoes discussed and approved versions admins would ban him, so this problem of edit warring doesn't persist. Simple problem. Simple solution. JRHammond (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Re-emphasized Warnings
After a lot of progress some have resorted to reverting for various viewpoints they are holding on to. This resulted in several additions, reverts and reverts back. Again, we can't have edit warring on this subject matter. Accordingly I have gone back to Ling Nut's last edit as he is heading up the effort to build consensus on changes to this article. I have also escalated revision protection to Level 2 for this article which means revisions will need the approval of a Reviewer or and Admin in order to go into effect. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that some participants may have reviewer status, as that's the case this article is now under a 1RR for the next week. --WGFinley (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, WGFinley. But that said and done, I would urge that leeway should be given to editors who restore Ling Nut's version, as it has been extensively discussed and received unanimous approval. Restoring approved versions should not be regarded as "edit warring", which is a characterization that should only be applied to those making changes to that version without making any kind of effort -- much less a good faith one -- to raise their objections and discuss their proposed solutions here on the talk page. JRHammond (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"disputed by Israel" phrasing, possible resolution
I strongly agree with JRHammond that international law is determinative in describing the conflict. I hope that this is not even a point of argument. At the same time, I recognize Ling.Nut's desire to voice Israel's undoubtedly notable view. I want to make four points which may solve the impasse:
1) It's an uncontroversial fact that there are no "disputed" portions of the West Bank. In fact, it's so uncontroversial that not only the UNSC, the UNGA, the ICJ and the EU agrees to this, but even the United States.
2) Israel is of the view that certain areas are of the West Bank are "disputed". This is a notable view since Israel is part to the conflict.
3) Consequently, it follows that the phrasing should be made to reflect that there are no "disputed" territories, while at the same time voicing Israel's notable view. This is not the case with the current formulation, which expresses the Israeli view without underlining the fact that this view is erroneous.
4) Change the wording to reflect the point in question, for example: "disputed by Israel, which is rejected by the international community" (or other collective term of your liking). Shoplifter (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a legal document. Attempts to nail down every fine point of the legalities will result in bloated, spagetti prose... especially in the lead. Address this issue in the body text of the article. • Ling.Nut 11:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my suggestion. I believe it's imperative that the near-unanimous international consensus is reflected in the lede. It's up to the other editors to voice their opinions. I reject that this a legalistic fine point, in fact, I would say this is the beginning and the end to the conflict. Most everything else is patina to this one issue. Or, as the ICJ put it: "It's a fundamental principle of international law that it is illegal to acquire territory by war." Shoplifter (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Extremely clear cite, please, for "the near-unanimous international consensus". Find the very best one possible. If it's a book, find something published by a premier university – you know, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, those kinda places. Don't even look in the direction of a radical school. Other publishers are possible too, but that is a strong position you are staking out when you say "nearly unanimous". You need a source with a bit more credibility than usual.. • Ling.Nut 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- UN General Assembly resolution, January 2010: Peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine
- I'm not sure what you're looking for here. We don't need a Harvard cite to buttress the undisputed, uncontroversial fact that the whole world except for Israel says the territories are occupied. Shoplifter (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Approve. I approve Shoplifter's suggested wording. This very reasonable suggestion resolves the issues as far as I'm concerned, and all Shoplifter's points made here are right on. JRHammond (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I'm not sure what you're looking for either. I have already stated in the article that the territories are occupied. You apparently are searching for a statement that the occupation is illegal. That is an impassable barrier, in my view. First, we are not lawyers; we don't know jack about this. Second, I found a highly reliable source saying that the status is not so clearly illegal. There are other essays in this same text, however, that adopt a hardcore stance in the other direction. What to do?? We are not lawyers. We are on desperately shaky ground if we try to expound on legal issues. • Ling.Nut 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is twisting words. Israel disputes that the territories are occupied, not that the military occupation by itself isn't illegal. Everyone agrees that occupation, or acquiring territory by war, is illegal. Israel tries to make the case that the territories they conquered in the Six-Day War did not belong to anyone, which the international community (UNSC, UNGA, ICJ, EU, ICRC, and the US) rejects. Shoplifter (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not deliberately twisting anything; just wasn't sure what you meant. If your final statement is your position, then we don't need to do anything at all. We have already categorically stated that the territory is occupied.• Ling.Nut 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound brash. But I don't agree that the issue is settled, because Israel's view is allowed to stand unquestioned. This gives undue weight to a fringe view. This is my point. Shoplifter (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It isnt exactly accurate that the occupation is "illegal". An occupation itself is not illegal. And occupation != acquiring territory by war. What is illegal is not obeying the laws of military occupation. Such actions as establishing colonies in occupied territory or unilaterally annexing that territory or changing the penal code, with specific exceptions to this last one, are illegal actions. But occupation itself is not illegal. Israeli action in occupying the territory have violated international law, the Israeli occupation though is not by itself "illegal". It is unprecedented that a belligerent occupation lasts this long, but that also does not make the occupation itself illegal. What Israel has done as a part of the occupation is illegal, that is nearly beyond dispute (see the various resolutions on Israeli settlements or the ICJ ruling in the Wall case or the vast amount of material from the ICRC on Israeli violations of the 4th GC in the oPt and the Golan). But to the point of "unanimity" in the view that the West Bank is occupied territory. UNGA resolutions are a start, also are the documents from various UN agencies such as OCHA, UNICEF, WHO, ..., and, again, the documents from the ICRC. But if you want an academic journal or book, here you go:
- Roberts, Adam (1990), "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: 60, doi:10.2307/2203016,
Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
{{citation}}: More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help)
Even the territories that Israel has applied its law to, what the source calls "acts that amount to annexation", are considered occupied territory by the international community. nableezy - 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- My Better Half is calling me away. Gone for several hours. I see nableezy's quote but no time to read at this moment (sorry!). If you folks find something authoritative that says Israel's "dispute" is against the weight of a huge consensus saying otherwise, then I suggest we move the text to a footnote rather than crap the lead up with legal spagetti. • Ling.Nut 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true, but the occupation is illegal in part because, as the ICJ have found, it amounts to an attempt to acquire territory by war. Good clarification otherwise. I wasn't trying to outline the rules of war, just insofar as they apply to this conflict. Shoplifter (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That acquisition of territory by force is illegal, that is true. But that does not make the underlying occupation illegal. There is a distinction between actions carried out during an occupation and the actual occupation. Things like the building of the wall within Palestinian territory or the application of Israli law to E. Jerusalem, those actions are illegal. nableezy - 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, and I apologize for being nebulous. As I wrote, the Israeli occupation is illegal, because it is in violation of a number of UN resolutions (including the famous Resolution 242), which says that Israel must withdraw from all territories conquered in the Six-Day War. In other words, in the eyes of the international community, Israeli presence in the occupied territories amounts to annexation (as was affirmed by the ICJ). Shoplifter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- That acquisition of territory by force is illegal, that is true. But that does not make the underlying occupation illegal. There is a distinction between actions carried out during an occupation and the actual occupation. Things like the building of the wall within Palestinian territory or the application of Israli law to E. Jerusalem, those actions are illegal. nableezy - 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
By and large, it is pointless arguing over minutiae of the lead when the body of the article is substandard and in need of significant development. Once that happens, it will be much clearer which facts merit coverage in the lead and which do not. Effort expended now on the lead will effectively be wasted. As a naive reader, it is pretty obvious to me that the status of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is "disputed" on all sides: just as those sympathetic to Israel dispute the final status of the West Bank in an imagined future settlement, so others dispute the validity of Israel's occupation of the West Bank in the first place. If ever there was a "disputed" issue, the endless discussion on this talk page illustrates that this is an example.
It isn't the role of Misplaced Pages to be part of the debate, to decide what international law states, or even to say that what the United Nations says has priority over what Israelis and Arabs say. Our aim is simply to inform and report, based on what a balance of reliable secondary sources have to say (none of the political bodies are secondary sources), and hence present all significant views in encyclopedic language with due weight. Once that is done in the body of the article, it will be much clearer what "disputed" means, and how to incorporate that (if at all) into the lead. Geometry guy 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's uncontroversial that there are no "disputed" territories in the West Bank, save for Israel's view. As I've mentioned repeatedly, virtually no significant actor on the international stage agrees with Israel in this regard (including the United States). I agree that this discussion became longer than it need to be; my proposed solution is simple. Once again, let me underscore the contention: In the eyes of the international community, there are no "disputed" territories, and to allow for Israel's view to be left unquestioned in the lead gives undue weight to this, clearly fringe position. Shoplifter (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- You miss my point. Even if everyone else in the world disputes Israel's view (and the world is nowhere near so simplistic), it is still a dispute from all sides. Geometry guy 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly is a dispute, in the same way that it's disputed whether the earth is round. The question is what prominence should be given to the fringe view. To a reader unbeknownst of the facts, the lead gives the impression that Israel's view is a major point in question, which it emphatically is not. Israel is saying: "We're not occuping this part of the West Bank, because it hasn't had a rightful owner since the Ottoman Empire", to which the rest of the world replies "Your presence constitutes a belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory". Likewise, almost the whole world is saying that the world is round. How should we present the facts? I say, it's a notable view because Israel is part to the conflict. But we've given it unjustified prominence in the lead, and we should find a way to deal with that. I think my solution is reasonable, but I'm open to other suggestions. Shoplifter (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to press my point, as that is part of the problem here, but comparison with a scientifically resolved debate is inappropriate. For an alternative comparison, consider whether Bill Clinton had sex with that woman or not. We could trade analogies for hours and disagree on which analogies were closer to the dispute here. I submit that this is, for the moment at least, a waste of time. Geometry guy 22:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want come off as contentious; that is not my intention. I do feel compelled to straighten out the facts on which I rest my proposition. I realize now that I should've been more comprehensive in giving my advice to begin with; I apologize for that. Let me just say this: The bottom line is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a dispute about Israel's claims to certain land masses. The last UN resolution on the issue came out 164 countries in opposition to the Israeli view, and 7 in favor (4 abstentions). But that is not the question that we're discussing here. Israel is, to my knowledge, the only country in the world which asserts that certain areas of the West Bank are not under its military occupation. And while those proportions of support are not a mathematical equation, I respectfully believe that it's flippant to suggest that it's anything short of an overwhelming consensus, which has implications for our choice of wording. Shoplifter (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The editors on this page are far, far, far, far too close to this topic, and uniformly far too committed to a POV. You are constitutionally incapable of seeing the viewpoint (not in the POV sense) of the relatively uninformed and dispassionate reader. You are also drawing lines in the sand based on Truth... From the perspective of the average, uninformed and dispassionate reader: If there's a debate, no matter how valid, I wanna be told in the WP:LEAD that there's a debate – and then left to draw my own conclusion later. I don't wanna be breathlessly told how to think about every single detail at every earliest juncture possible. I want the body text to lay out the details, and I wanna draw my own conclusions for myself. Speaking for the Coalition of Nonaligned and Not Overly-Concerned Misplaced Pages Readers, I say that the lead is not only fine, but actually optimal as it is at this very moment. However, I refer you to my first three sentences. I doubt we'll have much luck avoiding being told how to think. • Ling.Nut 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I won't get longwinded, because I feel I've stated my view and it's up to other editors to agree or disagree. I will only state what I believe JRHammond touched on above, namely that your reasoning sounds nice, but is essentially relativistic and tautological (please, don't take that as a personal affront, it's not intended to be). Yes, we shouldn't mention too much, we shouldn't mention too little, we should let the reader make up his own mind, etc. These are good things, but they don't mean much for our discussion because editors interpret such broad ideas with equivalent diversity. That's why there is a talk page... (Now I'm going to bed, it's 02:18 here). Shoplifter (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Shoplifter is quite right. It's a point of fact under international law that all of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, are occupied Palestinian territory. Including this "disputed" parenthetical in the lede gives undue WP:WEIGHT to a fringe view. This is not even in the least bit controversial. Mention it in the body, but remove it from the lede. Otherwise, something along the lines of Shoplifter's suggestion is required, noting the fringe view, but accompanied with the view of the entire rest of the world rejecting any Israeli claim to or attempts to effectively annex any inch of the occupied territories. JRHammond (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's delve into this a little bit deeper. The parenthetical reads "including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel". Well, what portions does this refer to? Israel's official government position is not that the West Bank, or even portions of the West Bank, is Israeli territory. The only exception to that, the only portion of the West Bank Israel considers legally its own, is Jerusalem. But Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem are unequivocally rejected by the international community as a violation of international law, and thus null and void. So how about this as a compromise solution:
The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex), plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs.
Approve. Please express your own approval/disapproval of this suggestion. JRHammond (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
added 1 sentence to lead; think it's uncontroversial
- I added, "In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria." I didn't want to lose a sense of the tension in the interim between the Suez Crisis and as-Samu.
- I hope this won't spark calls for more and more text to be added, though I'm open to refinements of the current text, of course. I suppose "particularly over water rights with Syria" might be acceptable. But we wanna keep it short and bland. And short. And bland. • Ling.Nut 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Reference
I asked for a specific reference citing the November Syrian-Egypt pact and somebody put up the Gawrych reference page 5. I always like to check these things out but I could not find it there. It is best if references are accurate. I was able to find it at a Jerusalem Post article here however do not know how to make the references the way they are set up on this page. Could someone please help? JuJubird (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I found some sources that say 4 November and others that say 7 November. Most sources simply say "November". What I kinda suspect is that there was a four-day meeting Nov. 4–7 in which many political issues were hashed out. I do intend to fix this, but it is a little low down on my list of priorities. ... hey, the Gawrych file you provided is not chapter 1 of the book. It is a much later chapter, beginning on page 97 or so. I found the relevant quote on page 5, just as nableezy (I think) indicated. Everything is correct. • Ling.Nut 02:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The text from Gawrych is as follows:
nableezy - 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Meanwhile, back in Egypt, Nasser drew acerbic criticism from Arab capitals for failing to honor his defense pact with Syria. That agreement, initialed on 4 November 1966, obligated each country to provide military support should the other face attack from Egypt.
War did not provide Israel with expanded borders
- The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders.
This suggests Israel's capture of territory expanded it's borders, which is false. Look, this previously read "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states." I objected to that for reasons already stated. It's been changed to the current wording, above, without discussion. The point is, when objections are raised, to discuss. Propose solutions, submit them to peer review, and implement them only after agreement is reached. The above does not satisfy my objection. In fact I object even more strongly to this current wording than I did the previous. I'll be removing the objectionable portion of the sentence momentarily. If someone wants to propose inserting something here about Israel being better able to "defend" itself as a consequence of the war, please discuss your proposal here FIRST. Until agreement can be reached on what/how this point of view should be included, it doesn't belong in the lede.
- The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel)...
I've also expressed my objection to this. I'll reiterate my proposed solution here: The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex)... For discussion, see JRHammond (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You rmvd the "borders" text. "Borders" does not mean "legal borders". Borders means borders, and yes, it is a de facto border. It is a line of control. One party controls one side of the line; another party controls the other. Moreover, the sources explicitly use the word "borders". I know that you're very invested in avoiding any text that affords the Israeli POV any toehold at all into legitimacy, but at some point, as a cooperative editor who is willing to compromise and at times even concede points – as opposed to a tendentious editor – there must be some areas where a little ambiguity can be tolerated. I would suggest that the word "borders" is just such a point; tolerating the minor ambiguity is a way to avoid eliding a major point.... • Ling.Nut 05:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The premise of your argument is fallacious. "Border" very much suggests a legal, or even "de facto", national boundary. The Jordan River comprising the natural eastern boundary of the West Bank, for example, is not the Israeli "border", de facto or otherwise. The only de facto "border" that exists is the Green Line -- that is, the 1949 armistice line. The wording suggested an expansion of Israeli territory, and I removed it (it required approval for the edit to be implemented) for that reason. Moreover, I reject your premise that we should permit "ambiguity" be tolerated on this point. Also, kindly refrain from further suggestions that I'm being uncooperative or "tendentious". As I've requested before, make your case without employing ad hominem arguments. I will continue to do the same. JRHammond (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Edits don't require approval before being implemented: please read WP:BOLD and WP:TE. And one thing is certain: the only way forward is in fact if both sides in the edit war are willing to give in at times, concede points sometimes, tolerate ambiguity sometimes, and adopt a flexible attitude, rather than a rigid and unbending one. I repeat myself, and will continue to do so: there is no version which is perfect for both sides. If either side insists on a perfect version, all progress stops permanently.• Ling.Nut 07:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, WP:DISPUTE states as a guideline: "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages." Are you opposed to doing so? If not, nothing more to discuss. JRHammond (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The dispute I was referring to doesn't involve me; it involves pro-Israel and pro-Arab camps. "Nothing more to discuss" doesn't open up any way forward, but rather posits an either/or, open door/closed door ultimatum. I don't think I need to point out that I have been impeccably calm, and have been willing to work out all things on various talk forums. Both the structure and the details of the text have been very significantly altered as a direct result of your input. The problem I am pointing out is that each editor must perceive that there are limits to the degree that his or her views can hold sway. The place where those limits exist is, in my view, a question that finds its way to us on a case by case basis. However, in my view at least, flatly denying any and all verbiage that observes the fact that Israel had no defensible borders before the war and did have some after the war comes close to crossing the line between input into the form of the text, and dictation of the same. Please suggest a formulation that observes Israel's acquisition of defensible borders.• Ling.Nut 07:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, WP:DISPUTE states as a guideline: "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages." Are you opposed to doing so? If not, nothing more to discuss. JRHammond (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's "either/or". You can either follow the guideline of WP:DISPUTE or not. Like I said, if you choose the former, then we are in agreement and there's nothing more to discuss about that matter. As for your desire to include something about "no defensible borders", this is your desire. I don't agree this should be in the lede. So I have precisely zero desire to suggest a formulation. Like I said before, I'm perfectly willing to hear proposals if others would like to include it. If you have one, I'm all ears. But any suggested wording must not state or imply that Israel expanded its territory or its borders. And it must equally represent consequences from opposing POVs, and not present only the Israeli POV. I hardly think insistence on these points should be controversial or cause for concern. WP:NPOV demands it. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- As for WP:DISPUTE, I really think you need to ground your statements within a better sense of perspective. There are a host of various essays, policies, etc. on Misplaced Pages, and they interact in many ways. In many if not most cases, picking a sentence from one page and drawing a line in the sand behind it is a misunderstanding of the intent of that page (and others).
- As for "borders", propositional statements regarding the defining geographic edge between two peoples/states really can't be done without the use of the words "border" or territories". You are inviting me to make bricks without straw. • Ling.Nut 08:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- bound, boundary, bounds, brim, brink, circumference, confine, end, extremity, fringe, hem, limit, line, lip, outskirt, perimeter, periphery, rim, selvage, skirt, trim, trimming, verge? Defensible geographic perimeter?• Ling.Nut 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Lin.Nut, do you not agree with me that we should follow the suggested guidelines of WP:DISPUTE to resolve disputes? How is it demonstrative of a lack of "perspective" on my part to suggest we should observe this procedure? Your argument (if I can call it that) has just become bizarre. As for "borders", this is the whole problem: you formulation DID NOT draw a line between Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. If it had done so, I would have had no objection. My whole objection is the fact that your formulation blurred that line and made it -- as you yourself termed it -- "ambiguous". JRHammond (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's tension between policies, guidelines, etc. that call for boldness and others that call for circumspection. Neither trumps the other; editorial behavior is judged on a case-by-case basis.
- There is a line between Israeli-held territory and all other territory on the planet. I prefer to call that line a border, which is the familiar term after all, but could retreat to the much less perspicuous term "perimeter".
- I think you misunderstand my use of the word "ambiguous". The word "border" might invite confusion between legal borders and less clear cases. The word "perimeter" might invite confusion because readers would wonder, "Is that or isn't it the line separating Israeli held territory from the rest of the world?". I think the first chance for confusion is preferable to the second, because I assume readers will be wary enough to be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding the legality of that line. In the second case, I think resolving the confusion will require a bit more mental effort. But that's OK.
- Are you OK with "defensible natural perimeter" or similar? ... mmm maybe "boundaries" is better...• Ling.Nut 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Boundaries" and "cease-fire lines" are used quite often. There was nothing particularly "defensible" about these boundaries as subsequent events demonstrated. Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- They might not have been as defensible as Israel would have liked, but they were an improvement. I like "boundaries" too... The whole lead really does not adequately cover positive facts or outcomes about Israel. And believe it or not, I'm OK with that, at least for the moment. I want to move forward in a constructive manner. But there can't be nothing; there must be something. If not the borders thing, then what? • Ling.Nut 09:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Boundaries" and "cease-fire lines" are used quite often. There was nothing particularly "defensible" about these boundaries as subsequent events demonstrated. Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The whole premise here is a judgment, and a questionable one at that. It's not a fact, and moreover, it's Israel POV and not neutral. I don't see the point of including it in the lede at all, and I think it's inappropriate to do so for the reasons just stated, so whatever noun one chooses to use is moot as far as I'm concerned. JRHammond (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The noted Israeli academic Zeev Maoz has concluded most of the profound ramifications of the war were negative for Israeli policy and society. It accelerated Israeli threat perception and as a consequence defence spending increased from 6% to 14.1% and military personnel increased 30%. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not exactly a mainstream kinda guy, though. However, my concern is this: I see systematic bias in this article's future. Every statement about Israel that is not explicitly negative is subjected to pages of "analysis and discussion". This does not bode well at all for the future of this article. I am casting about for an approach to handling this problem. I have no desire to be an enabler of propaganda.• Ling.Nut 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ian, I'm glad we're in agreement on that point. I'd like to get your further view on my other proposed change to the lede. It currently states:
- "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including portions of the West Bank disputed by Israel)..."
- I've argued for removal of the parenthetical, but Ling.Nut is insistent that it remain. I've proposed the following compromise solution, which I've yet to get any response to, including from Ling.Nut:
- "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (including Jerusalem, which Israel has attempted to annex)..."
- My discussion of this is here: Thoughts? JRHammond (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ian, I'm glad we're in agreement on that point. I'd like to get your further view on my other proposed change to the lede. It currently states:
- I am in favour of removing the parenthetical comment completely. The status of the Palestinian territories is not ambiguous under international law. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the bit where we said that Truth is irrelevant; notability is the threshold for inclusion. We need a page about Israel's claims. and we need a link to it from this article. • Ling.Nut 13:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am in favour of removing the parenthetical comment completely. The status of the Palestinian territories is not ambiguous under international law. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly reject Ling.Nut's characterization. For the umpteenth time, kindly refrain from tautological ad hominem arguments. JRHammond (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only want NPOV. If you wish to be considered an NPOV editor, please work with other editors to make the article something other than a straightforward "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims" narrative...• Ling.Nut 13:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, let's see. According to Ling.Nut, this:
- "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and provided it with defensible natural borders."
is "NPOV". But this:
- "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region."
- is equivalent to "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims", clearly demonstrating JRHammond's anti-Israeli/pro-Arab bias.
- Right, Ling.Nut. Keep coming up with these. These are good. Very amusing stuff. JRHammond (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- At every juncture, as strenuously as possible, and with a great surge of text from your keyboard, you seek to delegitimize Israel. That is POV. • Ling.Nut 13:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We all want NPOV and using the best academic sources will ensure that we don't end up with a simplistic narrative. Maoz was head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and academic director of the MA Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College. His assessment could provide a suitable template for discussing the outcome of the war and allow us to summarise the range of expert opinion on the key issues. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Structure dictates POV. Using his analysis as a "template" is a framework for precisely the narrative we wish to avoid: "Israel is evil; Arabs are victims". Or do you wish to avoid that narrative? • Ling.Nut 13:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Using expert analysis will ensure that no key issue is omitted and citing the best academic sources will ensure that no significant viewpoint on those key issues (or difference of opinion about them) is omitted. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Using one person's analysis as a framework is a welcome mat for POV. let's use Chomsky as an expert to analyze Bush, or maybe Ward Churchill...? • Ling.Nut 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ling.Nut, I'm not interested in responding to your ad hominem arguments. If you wish to discuss editing with me, kindly address my edits and suggestions on the basis of their merits/demerits in terms of the facts I present and the logic I use to arrive at my conclusions. JRHammond (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to bed. see above; The answer is No. No framework based on biased scholar's analysis. • Ling.Nut 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I once again have an idea on how to solve the phrasing issue. Let's hope it's not as controversial as my last one. Quite easy, really: "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and expanded its borders beyond the legally recognized 1949 armistice line." The point is that it's hard to avoid using the term borders to describe the outlines of state territory, but we're including the fact that these borders are seen as illegitimate by the international community, since they are in violation of the 1949 armistice agreement. What do you think? Note that the Wikilink is a key facet of this formulation. Shoplifter (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't resolve the issue as it still includes "expanded its borders". Disagree it's hard to avoid the problem term. Also, Green Line is not a legally recognized border. Propose: "The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region, and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line". JRHammond (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the war did provide Israel with defensible borders. JRHammond approved the version in sand box, and now adding POV from his Israeli hater articles and blogs.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the armistice lines are not permanent borders so "legally recognized" is inaccurate in that sense. I meant to say that the Green Line is considered the point to which Israel must withdraw to begin final status negotiations. I think your suggestion is reasonable. Shoplifter (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also think the suggestion is fine. Ian Pitchford (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the feedback Shoplifter and Ian. As I'm fine without it, I won't make the edit, but if someone else wants to add ", and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line", that's perfectly okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed the wording, and also added a source to emphasize the international consensus that the lands captured beyond the 1949 armistice line are occupied territory. The latter is for reasons of clarity; it's uncontroversial that this is the view of the international community (as seen in the numerous General Assembly resolutions, and the ICJ opinion, et al.). Shoplifter (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Am reverting. Three major problems:
- Largest problem: This edit once again beats the drum for the "Israel is evil and/or illegitimate; Arabs are innocent victims" narrative. Not that I care; I do care that Misplaced Pages does not assume an editorial voice. This edit gathers support for an editorial position.
- This information in this edit is redundant; it adds nothing to text in the first paragraph. The first paragraph already establishes that Israel acquired (relatively) large stretches of new territory; it also established that the territory is legally considered "occupied" as opposed to legally acquired.
- The meaning of this edit is substantially different than the edits I added. It is not a proper substitute at at all. my edits, already taking on board that Israel has acquired the territory, make the subsequent point that the territory improved Israel's defensive position. This edit merely attempts to drive home the "Israel is evil and/or illegitimate; Arabs are innocent victims" narrative.• Ling.Nut 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the revert, and the reasons given for it. The edit is neutral and perfectly in alignment with the international consensus on the conflict, reflected by the view of the UNSC, UNGA and the ICJ. Your view that the edit creates a "Israel is evil, Arabs are victims"-narrative is, I believe, wholly without foundation. Shoplifter (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- The article is making no progress. Any edit anywhere which even sniffs as though it might vary from the Innocent Arabs narrative is immediately reverted. Huge amounts of very dedicated and heartfelt effort are expended to revert tiny changes to the text.
- Let's say I throw my hands up and put the lead in precisely the shape that you and JRHammond wish it to be. That may seem small.. However, the process will not stop. Step by step, the tone of the article will be altered to fit the preferred narrative. • Ling.Nut 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I remain perplexed of how you find this particular edit to be anything close to your description of an "Arabs are victims, Israelis are evil-narrative". These are almost fighting words thrown at another editor, but to choose that description for an edit which echoes 40 years of UN General Assembly resolutions is astounding.
- You still haven't explained what exactly you find objectionable about my edit. Please break it down for me, and we might get some dialectical footing. Shoplifter (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The debate here boils down to this: What is more important -- laws, or self-preservation? The Arab POV is that laws are more important, since the laws favor their position. Their narrative runs like this: All Nasser's talk was bluster. Blockading the Straits was not an act of war, and it was not illegal (though it was). The troops were there as a defensive measure. Ejecting UNEF was within Egypt's legal rights ... Etc. The Israeli narrative is this: We did what we had to do to survive. Nasser was threatening to exterminate our country, as were others. Troops were closing in on our borders. Nasser ejected UNEF. Closing the Straits was an act of war. We may not have been in accordance with the law, but we had no choice." Now, I am not choosing sides in this debate. But if you take the position in the lead that the legal perspective is the correct viewpoint, then you completely nullify the Israeli narrative (except for the bit about closing the Straits). You give the "legal" arguments a commanding position, holding the podium. You need to understand that we cannot do that, even though you may believe with all your heart that it is correct. We are not lawyers, nor are we editorial writers, nor can we even structure our article to favor one narrative over the other. peppering the lead with legal findings (neglecting the illegality of closing the Straits) is favoring the tools of the Arab narrative. • Ling.Nut 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's very good that you clarified your view on this. Let's have a look at what is said in WP:WEIGHT, subgroup to WP:NPOV, the latter being one of the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages:
- '"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
- The Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law, which is a fundamental principle of interrelations between nations. All parties involved in the Six-Day War were signatories to the UN Convention, thereby accepting to be ruled by the decisions made in the bodies of that organization. As a consequence of the war, there have been numerous rulings that outline the view of the UN and its members on the conflict, and corollary demands for action by the nations part to the conflict. You're claiming that the article should give equal weight to Israel's desire for "self-preservation" as to the laws and directives of the organization to which it is a member. This violates WP:NPOV principles, in particular WP:WEIGHT, since Israel's view is a distinct minority view.
- Another problem with your reasoning is that it basically only applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Have a look at the article on the Armenian Genocide. Does it equally represent the Turkish view that there wasn't a genocide committed upon the Armenians as it does the historical and legal view, accepted by a majority of international actors, that it was? It does not, as it shouldn't, for the above stated reasons.
- Why is this the case, then, that the Israel-Palestine conflict is given special treatment? Unfortunately, Americans not seldom think that their view is more important than most other countries, even if all those countries are in agreement. And more than 50 % of the editors at Misplaced Pages are American, which makes for an unforunate way of reasoning, where the necessity of upholding the worldwide view is often forgotten.
- In summation, the "self-preservation as opposed to the law"-argument is in direct contradiction of WP:WEIGHT, and is in itself a clear expression of WP:POV as it enlarges the view of one participant to equalize that of a devastating preponderance of opposing views. Shoplifter (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is the counterbalance to your WP:WEIGHT argument:The Israeli argument for self-preservation hangs crucially on the closure of the Straits, which apparently is (by consensus) illegal. Their position is legitimized by the legal consensus in that area. All other issues (where they do not hold consensus) are subsequent, both logically and chronologically. Everything comes down to the Straits. Is the UN clearly against Israel holding onto its acquired territory – to the point of declaring it illegal? Yes. Is preemptive war extremely questionable, from a legal standpoint? Apparently so, since anti-Bush people have been trying to get him tried as a war criminal (let's not start the Iraq thing, though: my point is just that he said it was preemptive). Did Nasser moves troops to the border before, but then do nothing? Yes (but he didn't close the Straits at that time). Is it illegal for the leader of a country to explicitly threaten to exterminate another country? Probably not, and if there are any UN rulings against it, they are toothless. Is it illegal to move troops up to the border, but still within your side of the border? No. The key point in every aspect is one and only one thing: the closing of the Straits. That was the (by consensus, illegal) game-changer. This is the counterbalance to your WP:WEIGHT argument: that the Israeli position is not a fringe one on this point, and that it is in fact the linchpin of the entire commencement of hostilities.
- Moreover, WP:WEIGHT says "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The Israeli view is certainly prominent, among directly involved parties. • Ling.Nut 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- This reasoning is only valid if you disavow all UN Security Council/General Assembly resolutions, beginning with Resolution 242 up until today. If we were having this discussion the day after the cease fire, you would've had a point. But the international consensus that has formed over more than 40 years of legal decision making does not allow for the magnification of this one aspect of the war to trump the conclusions of the international community.
- The Israeli view is prominent to Israel, not necessarily (certainly not in this case, as follows from the UN resolutions) to the rest of the world. Shoplifter (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- (undent) My point is this: not only do I not mind if you state the position that the Israeli continued occupation is illegal within the body text; I actively encourage you to do so. . It is a very valid point. What I do not wish to see is that argument repeatedly foregrounded in the lead. We have already stated that it is an occupation, not a legal acquisition. Repeating this fact begins to create a "cloud of witnesses" prejudicing the reader's perspective of Israeli position, due to its foregrounded position.
- The Israeli view is prominent to this article. we are not the world; we are not the UN; we are this article. • Ling.Nut 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, Israel's view is the minority view. Therefore, it does not deserve equal representation in the lead (this would violate WP:WEIGHT). The lead should reflect the international consensus. Your view that there has been a repetition of facts is, as far as I can tell, erroneous; you've objected to certain phrasings (such as my edit) which states the view of the international community instead of using nebulous language which effectively obscures the issue (to the benefit of Israel). Shoplifter (talk)
- Yes, the Israeli view is prominent to this article, and should be given its due weight in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Again, either you accept that it's a minority view, and we can end this argument, or you don't, and I know where you stand. I mean, why go on with this pointless arguing? I've stated my view, which emphasizes the importance of upholding WP:5, specifically WP:NPOV. Shoplifter (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) How is it a minority view? There are two sides, and Israel represents one. To say that it is one Jewish nation against a brace of Arab ones is... let's say, a novel approach. . • Ling.Nut 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a minority view because most of the world disagrees with it, as seen in every UN resolution beginning with Resolution 242. The same way as it's a minority view that the Turks didn't commit a genocide upon the Armenians. Yes, of course there are two sides, that is necessary for there to be a dispute. And one side has considerably less support - it's the minority view. Shoplifter (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your statement completely privileges the Arab viewpoint in every respect. This licenses blatant Arab propaganda, whether you realize it or not. The weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly, but other aspects. Moreover, the weight of opinion about the start of the war, as Jiujitsuguy would love to add more cites to prove, is that the war was preemptive. Do I care? Not one stinking bit. i want the article to be neutral. You can drag in opinion about the occupation; J-guy can drag in opinion about "preemptive" and I think both of you are trying to privilege a particular perspective . You also seem to have missed the bit above where I said that your points can legitimately be included -- but in body text.. • Ling.Nut 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see that you're making ad hominem attacks. I've reasoned about the international consensus represented by the decisions of the political and legal bodies to which Israel is signatory, and you're accusing me of "licensing blatant Arab propaganda". I won't respond to such accusations, but I will say that your statement that "the weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly" is clearly erroneous - one need only look at the most recent UN resolution on the issue , which, as usual, calls for "The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem". And, as usual, the whole world agrees except for Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and the United States. Again, let me underscore that your refusal to accept that Israel's view is that of a distinct minority is what creates the illusory problems you have with the text, and the only way you can achieve this is by neglecting the 164 countries in opposition to the Israeli view (and referring to this as an attempt not to "privilege the Arab viewpoint"). Shoplifter (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not ad hominem; not an attack. Your perspective privileges the Arab narrative – whether deliberately or not, as i said, "whether you see that or not".. You did not respond to the fact that the world's consensus is that the war was preemptive... I see JRHammond;s additions as being better dealt with in a footnote. • Ling.Nut 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this world consensus that the war was preemptive? I haven't read that anywhere. I've seen an extensive amount of American sources which claim that it was. Hardly representative of the world view. Shoplifter (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- "The weight of UN opinion is not against the occupation directly, but other aspects." That is false, as Shoplifter correctly observed. Under numerous Security Council resolutions (not to mention GA resolutions), as well as according to the International Court of Justice, the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible is emphasized and Israel is called upon to withdraw from the territories occupied in '67. This is absolutely non-controversial. As for this discussion on preemption, it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed here and the objections that have been raised. JRHammond (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did you take the time to look at the quote nableezy provided, above? His comments are directly in line with (read: identical to) others I have seen. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that numerous UNSC resolutions emphasize the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and that they call on Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the '67 war? JRHammond (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The UN wants Israel out of the occupied territories. The finer points of legality are not as easily conflated as you would suggest. • Ling.Nut 03:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that numerous UNSC resolutions emphasize the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and that they call on Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in the '67 war? JRHammond (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what "finer points of legality" you are talking about. The facts are as I've stated them. JRHammond (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
3 here agreed with the additional clause: ", and expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line". Ling.Nut want this to say something about this conquest allowing Israel to defend itself better and so returned to the old formulation. As objections to this have been raised, and as 3 editors here find it inappropriate and only 1 (Ling.Nut) insists on it being included, despite the objections being raised, without addressing those objections, I've put in to remove the wording in question. Until a satisfactory alternative is proposed for which a consensus can be found, it doesn't belong in the lede. To reiterate the objection, the wording in question expresses a judgment, and a questionable one, and is Israeli POV. Ling.Nut has not substantively addressed these objections, preferring instead to engage in ad hominem or other invalid and irrelevant arguments. Moreover, Ling.Nut's arguments against the edit made by Shoplifter are wholly without merit. Stating an uncontroversial fact is not "anti-Israel/pro-Arab". But stating a benefit of territorial expansion from the Israeli POV is, on the other hand, contrary to WP:NPOV. Moreover, this formulation projects onto Israel's neighbors aggressive intent, a further violation of WP:NPOV. One could just as easily cite Oren to point out that this same conquest allowed Israel to threaten Damascus, Cairo, and Amman. It was, after all, Israel that attacked first, and not vice versa. Moreover, the assumption inherent in this formulation that Israel was somehow vulnerable prior to the war is faulty, as its military power was vastly superior to those of its neighbors -- combined. JRHammond (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Some misconceptions
After reading above dispute I came to a conclusion that some editors have a number of misconceptions about Misplaced Pages policies:
- No Wiki policy requires that any article follows any "consensus of international community". In fact, any such consensus is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not a pocket encyclopedia of the United Nations.
- What our policies really require is a consensus among reliable sources, preferably scholarly sources. If there is no consensus all opinions should be represented according to their weight.
- UN and other international organizations are not reliable sources as they are political organizations, which are under influence of various governments and political groups. They are simply not independent enough to be reliable. This means that various SC and GA resolutions can not be used as sources for this article (except as references to themselves).
- In this particular example, the article should use words that are used in reliable source. Do any source use such words as " expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line"? May be, but I still doubt that any serious author would use such a bad and convoluted English. The word "border" seems much more likely to be used. What is the expert opinion about the nature of the war? Do (almost) all scholars think that it was not a preemptive war? Or may be they are divided on this issue? In the latter case the article should give the equal weight to both positions.
- Do not forget that articles are written for readers in the first place and therefore should be written in a good English. They should not confusing and should be well structured (for example, avoiding repeating the same information twice).
Summarizing, the opinion of the international community is absolutely irrelevant for this article. It should only be mentioned as one of many facts. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "No Wiki policy requires that any article follows any "consensus of international community". Nevertheless, WP:WEIGHT does require that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Thus, the consensus of the international community is relevant, and certainly must be included if the fringe Israeli POV is to be mentioned.
- Consensus of the international community is only relevant as one of facts of life. It should be reported but not more. It certainly can not be relied upon as the basis for writing this article. WP:WEIGHT requires giving a weight to "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", not to "all significant view points". You are misrepresenting the policy. International community is not a reliable source, and Israeli opinion may be a minority in some matters but certainly not fringe. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- "What our policies really require is a consensus among reliable sources, preferably scholarly sources... UN and other international organizations are not reliable sources as they are political organizations, which are under influence of various governments and political groups..." U.N. resolutions, documents, etc. are most certainly reliable and authoritative sources that reflect the international consensus.
- U.N. resolutions are written by politicians, which are involved parties in conflicts. They are absolutely not reliable, and under no circumstances should be used as "reliable sources". Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- "In this particular example, the article should use words that are used in reliable source. Do any source use such words as " expanded its control of territory beyond the 1949 armistice line"?" This is absolutely non-controversial wording, and states a point of fact.
- "Expanded borders" is also absolutely non-controversial wording, but it has one big advantage—it is much less confusing. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Do (almost) all scholars think that it was not a preemptive war? Or may be they are divided on this issue? In the latter case the article should give the equal weight to both positions." This has already been discussed AT GREAT LENGTH on Talk, and the great majority of editors agree this is a judgment and POV and must be expressed as such, with both sides being presented. This should be a non-issue at this point.
- You still failed to answer the question. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Summarizing, the opinion of the international community is absolutely irrelevant for this article." No, it is very relevant indeed, for the reasons discussed. JRHammond (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is only relevant as one many facts that should be reported in this article. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1) You're making a fatal logical error in intertwining my underlining of the view of the international community, as reflected in the decisions made by the UNSC, UNGA and the ICJ, with that of Misplaced Pages being a "pocket encyclopaedia for the United Nations". In fact, if you read back what I wrote, I explicitly stated that "the Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law." (As opposed to a disagreement over UN resolutions.) This is uncontroversial; the question from which our discussion originated was whether it was part of a "Israelis are evil-narrative" to describe the territorial acquisitions of Israel in accordance with the widely held legal terminology, or, if it was necessary to obscure the issues by using nebulous language to achieve WP:NPOV. The only reason I've spoken of the UN resolutions at length is because there have been attempts by editors to magnify Israel's minority view of the legal issues to permit a hazy reflection of the scholarly consensus.
- "the Israel-Palestine conflict is a disagreement over the application of international law" This is a hollow statement because almost any war or international conflict involves "a disagreement over the application of international law". Moreover this article is about a war, not about "Legal issues of the Israel-Palestine conflict". "to describe the territorial acquisitions of Israel in accordance with the widely held legal terminology" So, you agree that "expanded borders" is a good language? Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- 2) On the above stated question, you will not find one (1) source that purports to show that Israel is not in breach of UN resolutions. What you will find is a scholarly disagreement over whether Israel is in breach of international law, including a relatively small number of dissenters arguing that it is not. However, the overwhelmingly predominant view remains that it is.
- Israeli position is reported almost in every source. Majority of authors may disagree with it but still report it. It means the view of Israeli should be displayed prominently in this article. We do not suppress a point of view which is widely discussed only because all who discuss it disagree with it.
- 3) I had in fact sourced that particular assertion, which reflected the language used in the text (expanded territory, armistice line 1949, illegal, etc.), with a book by David McDowall published by University of California Press. This edit was removed by Ling.Nut. There is, as follows from the above, a wealth of secondary source material which speaks of the same issue (how and why Israel violates international law).
- How about other books? I suspect that you cherry picked a book that uses necessary words. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- 4) In saying that "the view of the international community is irrelevant to this article", you are making the same logical error. It is not a question of what (almost) the whole world thinks is right and wrong. It is the question of how these views are reflected in the secondary sources. And since most scholars agree with the descriptions of the UN and the ICJ (in saying that there are no disputed territories in the West Bank, or that the war did not grant Israel new borders since all lands beyond the 1949 armistice line are occupied territory, et al.), these are the views that should be reflected in the article, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.
- It does matter that scholars agree or disagree with Israel. What really matters is what they report. The Israeli position is reported in any book and should be given a weight proportional to how often it is mentioned in the reliable sources. This is what the policy actually says. If you follow the policy you will see that there are two positions that should be given an equal weight: the position of Israel and that of almost everybody else. It is not a proper function of the Misplaced Pages to take sides in this debate.
- 5) Why hasn't anybody adressed the pertinent analogy to the Armenian Genocide article? Why aren't you complaining in that talk page that the article is POV, and that the stark language used in describing the event, from EU resolutions and other international bodies, is creating a "Turks are evil-narrative"? Can it be because, on that issue, you're fine with the legal terminology being used, but on this one you're not? I'm not sure (I have my ideas, as stated above), but I'd love to know.
- Please, do not try to divert attention to this absolutely unrelated issue. I have not read the article about Armenian Genocide and is not going to do this in any foreseeable future. Ruslik_Zero 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Shoplifter (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ruslik_Zero, I don't know what it is, exactly, you're objecting to in the wording of the article. You're speaking so broadly I don't know what your point is. What is your objection to whatever current or proposed wording, precisely? JRHammond (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I want you to stop POV pushing and adhere to what sources say. Even Maoz uses the "border" far more often than "boundary". The later is actually used only in context of "international boundaries" implying their legality under the international law. The lede also does not satisfy WP:LEAD because it is not a faithful summary of the article. Ruslik_Zero 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ruslik_Zero, your rebuttal does not address the key issues, namely that WP:WEIGHT presupposes that we grant proportional weight to the disputing views, and that the scholarly consensus agrees with the UNGA/ICJ viewpoint in describing the conflict's implications for international law. Whether you are aware of this or not, you are the one engaging in POV pushing by arguing to make the Israeli viewpoint equalize that of the scholarly consensus (including, as I mentioned, widely held legal terminology). Furthermore, you're accusing me of "cherrypicking" a source, without rebutting the undisputed facts used in the source (the latter which would answer your question to why using "borders" is not an option). Thirdly, you refuse to acknowledge my pertinent analogy to the Armenian Genocide article, by accusing me of trying to "divert attention" from the issue. Conceded ignorance doesn't work in your favor. Shoplifter (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Other crap exists is not an argument. The word 'border' is preferably used in many sources because it is an established term and there is no reason to use anything else. Inventing new terms not represented in literature is classical POV pushing. (I checked Maoz, who does use the word "border" despite being highly critical of Israel.) What scholarly consensus are you taking about? I said above that what really matters is how widely the Israeli viewpoint is discussed in the literature, not how often it is approved (or disapproved). The latter is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages only reports all significant viewpoints without taking sides in disputes. You basically advocating that Misplaced Pages should take the side of the international community in its dispute with Israel. This is not surprising actually after reading your user page. Ruslik_Zero 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ruslik_Zero, your rebuttal does not address the key issues, namely that WP:WEIGHT presupposes that we grant proportional weight to the disputing views, and that the scholarly consensus agrees with the UNGA/ICJ viewpoint in describing the conflict's implications for international law. Whether you are aware of this or not, you are the one engaging in POV pushing by arguing to make the Israeli viewpoint equalize that of the scholarly consensus (including, as I mentioned, widely held legal terminology). Furthermore, you're accusing me of "cherrypicking" a source, without rebutting the undisputed facts used in the source (the latter which would answer your question to why using "borders" is not an option). Thirdly, you refuse to acknowledge my pertinent analogy to the Armenian Genocide article, by accusing me of trying to "divert attention" from the issue. Conceded ignorance doesn't work in your favor. Shoplifter (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm arguing that Misplaced Pages should represent all views proportionally, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT (which is a non-negotiable principle). In regard to your referencing a non-policy, non-binding essay by Misplaced Pages contributors, you should keep in mind what is being said in its introduction: Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to weigh the issue. Shoplifter (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Really? But the international consensus that has formed over more than 40 years of legal decision making does not allow for the magnification of this one aspect of the war to trump the conclusions of the international community. Are these your words? You apparently think that the article should be written in accordance with "the consensus of the international community". This is contrary to both WP:V and WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia article, which should represent points of view of both parties. The fact that one party to this conflict is supported by the international community in irrelevant. Ruslik_Zero 09:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm arguing that Misplaced Pages should represent all views proportionally, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT (which is a non-negotiable principle). In regard to your referencing a non-policy, non-binding essay by Misplaced Pages contributors, you should keep in mind what is being said in its introduction: Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to weigh the issue. Shoplifter (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ruslik_Zero, you say "I want you to stop POV pushing and adhere to what sources say." Then you argue that the use of the word "border" should be used. But saying that Israel expanded it's "border" would ipso facto mean that all of the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory. Now, there are some who hold that POV, but it is a marginal fringe POV. WP:WEIGHT must consider the fact that there is an international consensus that all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territory, and that Israel's military presence therein is legally an "occupation". This is absolutely non-controversial. Your whole argument here is nonsense, including your citing of Moaz, which does not support your contention that the Gaza Strip and West Bank fall within Israel's "border". The "border" Moaz refers to is the '49 armistice line (Green Line). Your argument is just absolute nonsense. JRHammond (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hammond, kindly refrain from calling or characterizing ideas or positions that don't comport with yours, as "nonsense."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with J-guy; most all of us have flied off the handle at one time or another in the past, but I think we've managed to sustain a notably civil environment in here over the last few weeks (save for a few anonymous IP's). Everyone gets their say. It's a good thing. (I do concur in your reasoning, still.) Shoplifter (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree it is any way uncivil to point out the demonstrable fact that Ruslik_Zero's argument consists of "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas". He accuses others of "POV pushing" while himself pushing a marginal fringe view contrary to international consensus. So that's a meaningless argument. He cites Moaz to support his position. But the source does not support his position. So that's a meaningless argument lacking any kind of logical validity. In other words, by definition, "nonsense". This is an observation on point of fact, not an attack on his person. JRHammond (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- You still have failed to address my arguments. Please, specify a source that specifically uses "boundary", "perimeter" or any other words in respect to the Israeli border as of 11 June 1967. what the Egyptians had in mind given the situation that has materialized along their new border with Israel. This passage from Maoz, p. 114 refers to the border along the Suez. Maoz is critical of Israel but still does not hesitate to use the word "border". If you however continue to attack me with claims like "that's a meaningless argument lacking any kind of logical validity" a trip to WP:AE will be inevitable. Ruslik_Zero 09:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Suggesting that Israel expanded its "border" as a result of the war would mean that the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, given the uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the territories are Palestinian and that Israel an occupying power, and given the international consensus with regard to this point of fact under international law. JRHammond (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
many additions to lede
It's becoming War and Peace again (pun intended). • Ling.Nut 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made two edits. One shortened a sentence. The other replaced one wording with another of equal length. The rest seems to be as originally posted. So could you explain what additions you are referring to you think have made it overly lengthy? JRHammond (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Legality of closing the Straits; legality of the occupation
- I suggest we create sections in body text about both these topics. • Ling.Nut 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for that. I'm not as knowledgeable about the legal issues relating to the straits, but I'm very familiar with legal issues relating to the occupation, so I can help with that. The occupation is illegal, which is to say, it's in violation of international law. This is uncontroversial. Israel is a member of the U.N. and remains in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, beginning with 242, emphasizing the principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calling upon Israel to withdraw. This has also been affirmed by the International Court of Justice. The international consensus on this point is also reflected in numerous UN General Assembly resolutions, such as 32/20 (1977), which expresses deep concern "that the Arab territories occupied since 1967 have continued, for more than ten years, to be under illegal Israeli occupation and that the Palestinian people, after three decades, are still deprived of the exercise of their inalienable national rights". JRHammond (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Lead
The changes here are not neutral:
Its an occupation of the Palestinian territories including Jerusalem according to the worldview, so that is what it should say. Not "disputed" or "administration"
Also "provided it with defensible natural boundaries" is extremely pov and sounds like propaganda. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- and when you insert bullshit saying the only reason for no treaty is israel's "occupation" it's ok? made me laugh. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
To IP
Didn't you read the name of the article? "Assad: Golan withdrawal before peace"
Here is another one: "Al-Moallem: No Peace without Restoring Occupied Syrian Golan, No Alternative to Turkish Mediator" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
(UTC)
- just because assad says some bullshit doesn't make it factual 174.112.83.21 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Defensible natural boundaries
Two of the three sources cited in support of this claim say nothing about "defensible natural boundaries". On page 307 of his book Oren says "Exceedingly vulnerable before the war, its major cities all within range of Arab guns, the Jewish state now threatened Damascus, Cairo and Amman." On page 84 of his book Sadeh says "This concept of secure defensible borders was premised on defense without a first strike initiative. It paved the way to a deterrence strategy based on counterstrike punishment whose efficacy was not based on a system of red lines, but on an ability to mitigate the Arab temptation to attack based on Israel's miltary prowess." Ian Pitchford (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my edit, which was reverted by Ling.Nut. I won't get into any warring, though. Let's hear what others have to say about it. From your fact-checking, it's quite apparent that the previous formulation about "defensible borders" is not an option. Shoplifter (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The sentence is clearly propaganda and not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it is not neutral. I've discussed this at length elsewhere. As of right now, there have been numerous editors who've objected to this line, and only one who wants it included (Ling.Nut). It should be removed. JRHammond (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Lead shenanigans
Regarding this edit that removed the 'The status ..blah balh blah..far-reaching consequences..etc', I'm okay with that and considered doing that too. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence establishes the importance of the topic. The exact phrasing may be improved perhaps, but deleting it altogether is unwise. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with that too so let's see if we can do that sensibly without me have a very strong urge to ask an admin to block editors who confuse writing articles for Misplaced Pages with writing articles for CAMERA or the JCPA. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes right, how could we forget!!! the standard for writing wikipedia articles about israel is more closely aligned to that of al jazeera arabic. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, the standard for Misplaced Pages is to comply with mandatory policies and in articles like this there is the added obligation of complying with the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- yes right, how could we forget!!! the standard for writing wikipedia articles about israel is more closely aligned to that of al jazeera arabic. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with that too so let's see if we can do that sensibly without me have a very strong urge to ask an admin to block editors who confuse writing articles for Misplaced Pages with writing articles for CAMERA or the JCPA. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some thoughts:
- Deleting 'the status blah blah blah' is pretty much the same as deleting what's probably gonna be the cause of the next nuclear war. It is certainly deleting a daily topic in the global news.
- The three soldiers killed by a landmine is waaay too much detail. And the same goes for several other bits that IPs keep stuffing in.• Ling.Nut 00:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ling.Nut. The sentence is extremely important context for understanding the consequences of the war on the subsequent history of the region, right up until the present, with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yes, mention of the soldiers killed is way too much detail. Raids are mentioned. That is enough for the lede. Details can be added in the body. JRHammond (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- About the broad statements in the lead: Goodness gracious, I could source those in my sleep, and so could you. Verifying those statements would be trivially easy – almost as easy as looking out the window to verify the weather! Umm, let's see, I only need to pick the best 1 or 2 or even 3 of each of the following:
- Google books: "arab-israeli conflict" "international law" (13,700 hits)
- Google scholar arab-israeli conflict" "international law" (4,750 hits)
- (For "global affairs", note that that term has a number of synonyms that I could also check)
- Google books: "arab-israeli conflict" "global affairs" (172 hits)
- Google scholar arab-israeli conflict" "global affairs" (338 hits)
- I haven't even tried JSTOR or Academic Search Premier or any other good database yet, and yet I'm already home free.
- They aren't sourced because sourcing them is not necessary. It isn't necessary because it is trivially easy. Adding sources after common knowledge like that is overkill killed over.• Ling.Nut 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- This would be an excellent example of WP:SYNTH. The fact that you can demonstrate that much has been written about the Arab-Israeli conflict in and around global affairs and international law does not provide justification for this edit. JuJubird (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ling.Nut is absolutely correct. This objection is patently ridiculous. Is anyone here really going to contend (a) that the consequence of the '67 war of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is not a central concern in the Arab-Israeli conflict, (b) that the occupation does not raise issues under international law, or (c) that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have far reaching consequences in international affairs? Is anyone seriously going to argue that these are in even the slightest way controversial observations? JRHammond (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Mention of the false Soviet intelligence report in the lead
- Some thoughts:
- Sure the Soviet Union gave the Egyptians false reports. But drawing a direct causal link is totally unacceptable. It is undocumented, and even a little unlikely, that that was the only or the direct cause of Nasser's actions. Nasser never said, "The Russian info made me do it!"
.• Ling.Nut 00:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is my original edit that is being complained about:
"In May of 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. In response Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (16 May), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (19 May), from:Shlaim, Avi (2007) Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace Vintage Books ISBN:9781400078288
Ling.Nut changed to "On May 14, 1967, Nasser began sending Egyptian forces into the Sinai Peninsula, and, after UNEF withdrew at his request, his forces took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran" saying we could not use the idea of response.
- But the Original source, Shlaim wrote Shlaim, Avi (2007) Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace Vintage Books ISBN:9781400078288
- "Thrown on the defensive, Nasser took a series of steps designed to shore up his prestige at home and in the Arab world. What he did do was to embark on an exercise in brinkmanship that went well over the brink. On 13 May Nasser received a Soviet intelligence report that falsely claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border. Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable: he expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Gaza Strip and Sinai on 19 May; he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on 22 May."
- Another source, Jordan in the 1967 War by Samir A. Mutawi says the same: "This situation entered a new phase with Russia's announcement to Syria and Eqypt on 13 May that Israeli troops were massing on the Syrian border and intended to attack on 16/17 May with a force of eleven to thirteen brigades. This evoked an immediate response in Nasser who now had an ideal opportunity to demonstrate his readiness to come to the defence of his ally and the strength of his commitment to the Palestinian cause. Ignoring all protestations from Israel and the UN that the Russian report was mistaken, the following day he announced the mobilization of the Egyptian army. Two divisions were ordered into Sinai to support the reinforced division already there. This was followed two days later by his demand that UNEF withdraw its forces from Sinai. Three days later UNEF had vanished and Egyptian troops faced the Israeli army on the other side of the border. As UNEF troops left Sharm Al-Sheikh overlooking the Straits of Tiran Egyptian paratroops were flown in to occupy it." Pg 93
Notice how both sources use "respond" to refer to the massing of troops. Also please note that both say Nasser "expelled" UNEF or "demanded" that UNEF leave, not "withdrew at his request."
The as-Samu incident was triggered by the mine that killed three Israeli soldiers. It was in response to that incident that as-Samu happened. This is a fact that provides context and clarity and is only half a sentence or so long. If it is too long, let's drop both. 172.190.31.25 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some scholars may draw a causal link between the disinformation and Nasser's response, but e cannot do so. That would be swallowing their word for it, uncritically. We ca mention the Soviet disinformation, in four words or less, but we cannot uncritically swallow the causal link that some people write in their books. Nasser never mentioned the Soviet info.
- The land-mine incident is covered by the words "cross-border raids". I am amazed that you cannot see this. Israel didn't suddenly and specifically become shocked or amazed because of the land-mine incident. I'm sure other soldiers had died before. Israel certainly cared about the ongoing (and perhaps escalating) series of raids, and perhaps it also cared about the defense pact. Sigh. Why is this so endless? • Ling.Nut 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- says: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It defines secondary sources as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I have presented secondary sources (2) that say specifically that Nasser "responded" to the disinformation provided by the Soviets, as well sources (of which I can provide many more) that say that Nasser "expelled" or "demanded" that UNEF withdraw. My edit has secondary sources which support it and is perfectly appropriate. It is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to be critics of secondary sources unless we hold them to be unreliable which you have not indicated. It is quite acceptable that we use the "analytic or evaluative claims" of our secondary sources. Your argument here is based on false premises. 172.190.204.235 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- In May of 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. In response Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (16 May), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (19 May)...
This wording is fine with me, except for "on Israel's border", which needs to be removed. It's misleading. Egyptian troops were well within Egyptian territory in the Sinai. This implies they were all lined up right at the border, which is false. Look at this map, for example: . Moreover, it implies offensive position, when, according to U.S. intelligence, they were defensive positions.
However, I prefer Ling.Nut's wording: "On May 14, 1967, Nasser began sending Egyptian forces into the Sinai Peninsula, and, after UNEF withdrew at his request, his forces took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran..."
I don't understand what objection there is to this. JRHammond (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are two secondary sources that say "on the border" so unless you have a secondary source that claims otherwise my version should stay. Virtually ALL RS say that Nasser expelled UNEF, or demanded that they leave. This gives an entirely different understanding to an event that is currently described as "UNEF withdrew at his request." 172.190.204.235 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide the sources you refer to here, as I did with the map demonstrating that Egyptian forces were not "on the border" but well within the Sinai. Simply ignoring clear evidence demonstrating your error will not make it go away. Your "on the border" wording is misleading and must not be used. Currently, this claim is made elsewhere in the article, apart from the lede. One source given is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs!. I should hardly need to point out the problem with citing the MFA as a source for this assertion. But even this elementary point is moot, since that webpage doesn't even support the "on the border" wording; it states "As a result of Soviet prodding, Nasser mobilized and sent 100,000 troops to Sinai." I made the necessary edit to fix this. JRHammond (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
False claims on UN Res 242
- The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately did not include words all or the in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war. The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English.
This paragraph is extremely problematic. I've edited it to fix it, but someone reverted and requested I take it to talk. Interestingly, the objection stated was that I offered no source. Yet, the current version has no source, either. So the revert may have been for a legitimate reason, but was not made without hypocrisy, which is unfortunate, particularly since this reverted version contains a FALSE statement.
There is this myth out there that the absence of the definite article "the" before "territories" means the UN approved of Israel keeping some of the occupied territories. This is absolutely false.
(1) All quotes from Caradon, Rostow, Goldberg, Eban et al expressing this view in the documentary record are well post-'67. This is revisionism. The relevant documentary record is the time between the war and the passing of the resolution. That record does not support this assertion, it contradicts it.
(2) The concern of the U.S. was a call to the June 5 lines would be a tacit acceptance of that line as a border, so it worked to have reference to this line removed from the draft. However, this was not because the U.S. agreed Israel could legitimately keep territory. The U.S. wanted a U.N.-negotiated settlement in which a final border status would be established, with minor and mutually agreed upon changes to the '49 armistice lines.
(3) The U.S. concern was moot, since none of the other UNSC members interpreted any of the draft texts calling upon Israel to withdraw to imply the establishment of a final border. Most UNSC members interpreted the text of 242 to call for a complete, not partial, withdrawal, which is what the actual text actually calls for, with a final settlement to be negotiated following that withdrawal, and not vice versa.
(4) UNSC resolutions are not open for unilateral interpretation from individual member states, but must be understood according to the actual language and the consensus understanding of that language among UNSC members.
(5) The absence of the article has no effect on the meaning. "Territories", plural. The simple litmus test is: Is it a territory Israel occupied during the war (i.e. West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, Sinai)? If yes, then under the wording of 242, Israel must withdraw from that territory. Period. That's the meaning of the language, with or without the "the". Suggesting otherwise one has to effectively argue that no "the" means we may interpret the resolution to mean "most of the" or "some of the", which is patently ridiculous logic.
(6) Furthermore, the present assertion that only the English version of the text is legally valid is absolutely false. The French version of the text, which does contain the definite article, is equally valid under international law, so the argument addressed in the previous point is moot, anyhow.
(7) 242 emphasizes the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The interpretation that 242 allowed for Israel to keep some of the territory is absolutely irreconcilable with this emphasized principle, and therefore any such interpretation must be rejected as wholly unfounded and contrary to the clearly intended purpose of the UNSC.
(8) The logic of this ridiculous argument about the word "the" being missing defeats itself. Observe that the very next clause of 242 states "For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area". This is a clear reference to Egypt's closing of the straits of Tiran. According to the logic of the people arguing Israel may, under 242, keep some occupied territory, since it says "international waterways" and not "THE international waterways", Egypt may therefore close SOME of the straits to Israeli shipping. Obviously nonsensical logic.
I'll be re-implementing my fix. I'll include a source as to the equal validity of the French text (no source is currently given for the FALSE assertion that only the English text is legally valid). Here is the French delegate speaking at the UNSC prior to the vote on 242:
We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories". JRHammond (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- all of your analysis is WP:OR and false. as for the french being equal to the english, if you find a source that says that, you can go ahead and put it. the quote you found isn't adequate. it's the FRENCH delegation saying it... the only thing that is good for is if you want to say something like: "the french delegation claimed that the french is equivalent to the english", but not in the encyclopedic voice. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't even tried to demonstrate (much less actually demonstrated) that a single point I made is "false", as you claim. The facts are as I've stated them. JRHammond (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't tried because I don't have to. It's a waste of time. Your analysis not properly sourced and therefore, whether or not you believe it is true, it is unacceptable in this article. The French delegate's opinion is not enough to justify writing in the encyclopedic voice. At very most, you could say that the french delegate claimed it, but this would be against WP:FRINGE. The rest of your analysis was completely unsourced. I know that this analysis is full of lies, and anybody who does research knows that it is full of lies. But you can't demand that I prove it, because I don't have to. Your claims are unsourced. That means they don't go in the article. Period. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The facts are as I've stated them. You claim I've lied. I welcome you to try to demonstrate that any point of fact I stated is false. You won't be able to do so. I've not proposed anything I've said here be included in the article. But by your own logic, the assertion that only the English version of the text is legally valid must not be included in the article, since it is unsourced (besides being false). So your argument defeats itself by its own logic. JRHammond (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause
Dean Rusk served as US Under Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs during the Truman administration and as Secretary of State during the Johnson Administration. He commented on the validity of the French text and on the intent of the resolution:
There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War. See Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389
The Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, George Brown, also commented on the French text
It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. See Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN: 0863722229, page 209
President Carter asked for a State Department report "to determine if there was any justice to the Israeli position that the resolution did not include all the occupied territories". The State Department report concluded:
Support for the concept of total withdrawal was widespread in the Security Council, and it was only through intensive American efforts that a resolution was adopted which employed indefinite language in the withdrawal clause. In the process of obtaining this result, the United States made clear to the Arab states and several other members of the Security Council that the United States envisioned only insubstantial revisions of the 1949 armistice lines. Israel did not protest the approach. -- State Department Study of the Meaning of Resolution 242, by Nina J. Noring of the Office of the Historian, and Walter B. Smith II, Director of the Office of Israeli and Arab-Israeli Affairs, Department of State, The Withdrawal Clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, Its Legislative History and the Attitudes of the United States and Israel since 1967, February 4, 1978 cited in Donald Neff, The Clinton Administration and UN Resolution 242, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 20–30.
The Foreign Relations of the United States documents the fact that Ambassador Goldberg could not draft a resolution that was acceptable to all of the members of the Security Council. In Document 467, Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson, McGeorge Bundy said "Goldberg is no longer the ideal negotiator." Ambassador Goldberg subsequently reported on numerous private meetings with the British representative to the UN, Lord Caradon. Goldberg asked the UK representative to draft the proposals and negotiate agreement with the other members of the Security Council.
Glenn Perry and Arthur Lall (a member of the Indian UN delegation in 1967) all wrote that Caradon not only negotiated the adoption of the resolution, he even stage-managed the statements made by the other delegates to prevent a Soviet or USA veto. The USSR, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, France, India, Mali, Brazil, Argentina, and Nigeria all made statements on the record that Israel was required to withdraw from all of the occupied territory. McHugo notes that of the other states on the Security Council, Canada, China, Denmark, Japan and the USA made no statements on the record, which contradict the meaning the others attached to the withdrawal phrase. See John McHugo RESOLUTION 242 – WHY THE ISRAELI VIEW OF THE “WITHDRAWAL PHRASE” IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001; and RESOLUTION 242: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE RIGHT-WING ISRAELI INTERPRETATION OF THE WITHDRAWAL PHRASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS.
Glenn Perry says "The absence of any rejection of the "full withdrawal" interpretation was the result of a behind-the-scenes agreement. Until November 22, there was uncertainty whether the United Kingdom would expressly reject any clarification of the meaning of the draft, in which case the Soviet Union was prepared to veto it. According to Lall:
A crucial meeting took place at 3 p.m. between the Arabs and Caradon. He was able to reassure them that their position on the question of withdrawal remained unprejudiced. Further negotiations followed between Parthasarathi and Caradon which involved also the French and Nigerian delegates. As a result of these late exchanges Caradon agreed to delete from his proposed response to the Indian delegate's projected statement the words "But the Indian interpretation is not binding on the Council." On this basis Parthasarathi decided to vote for the resolution and so informed the Soviet Union. See Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Glenn Perry, Middle East Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn,1977), pp. 413-433, page 429
During the subsequent Security Council session, the Indian delegate said the resolution required Israel to withdraw from all the territories. He quoted George Brown's statements on British policy, which set out British rejection of the practice of territorial aggrandizement and which stated that Israel could not expand its borders as a result of the war. See S/PV.1382 (OR), 22 November 1967, paragraphs 50-54. Caradon replied "As to the policy of my own Government, we stand by our votes and we stand by our declarations. We have throughout made our national position and our national policy quite plain." (paragraph 57). harlan (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Harlan. Good info. JRHammond (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- One must stand in awe of harlan's grasp of the source material. Shoplifter (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt II
I would like Shoplifter to stand in awe of my grasp of the source material too. And JRHammond, please feel free to use this good info.
Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft , said, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
- "... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (UN DOC S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67) quoted in The United Nations Security Council and war: the Evolution of thought and...
Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
- Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
- Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear; the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "
- Quoted in Yonah Liberman Israel, 50 years in documents -pg 200
- Present history Theodore Draper Page 292
Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
- Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"
- Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."
- quoted in: The fight for Jersalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places Dore Gold p6 306
- Commentary Magazine Volume 57 Page 28
- Crescent and star: Arab & Israeli perspectives on the Middle East conflict - Page 234 Yonah Alexander, Nicholas N. Kittrie
- quoted in: The fight for Jersalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places Dore Gold p6 306
Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
- "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, January 1, 1970)
- quoted in
- The fight for Jerusalem: radical Islam, the west, and the future of the Holy places - Page 306 Dore Gold
- Israel 50 years: a history in documents page 200
- UN Security Council resolution 242: the building block of peacemaking pg 31 Adnan Abu Odeh, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- quoted in
Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
- "To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... " (UN DOC S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)
- quoted in
- Israel 50 years: a history in documents page 200 Yonah Lieberman
- Israel's foreign relations: selected documents Medzini, Meron - Page 842
- The new world balance and peace in the Middle East: reality or ..., Volume 1973? - Page 260 Seymour Maxwell Finger
- quoted in
Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
- "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
- quoted in
- The Arab world, Volumes 17-18 - Page 31 Arab Information Center
- The June 1967 Arab-Israeli war: miscalculation or conspiracy? - Page 166 Elias Sam'o
- 'UN Security Council resolution 242: the building block of peacemaking Page 88 Adnan Abu Odeh, Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
- Israel's foreign relations: selected documents - Page 842 Meron Medzini
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
- "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
- "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbors 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68
Vasily Kuznetsov said in the debate that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
- "... Phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (UN Doc S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)
Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:
- "We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States." (UN doc S/PV. 1382, p. 66,22.11.67 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.52.137 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Meaning of the Withdrawal Clause pt III
The purpose of the U.S. and U.K. as reflected in these statements is that 242 result in recognition of a permanent border settlement, with minor and mutually agreed-upon changes to the '49 armistice line. These quotes support that U.S./U.K. POV, but do NOT support the claim that 242 called only for a limited withdrawal. Also, again, the relevant documentary record is prior and up to the passing of 242, not subsequent revisionist interpretations. Notice also only U.S. and British officials are quoted here. There were 15 members of the UNSC who voted on 242 (it passed unanimously), and all of the other 13 members rejected attempts by the U.S./U.K. to interpret the wording as including conditionality. WP:WEIGHT is at issue here, and this "limited withdrawal" interpretation taken from selectively quoting from the documentary record of deliberations over 242 must be balanced with the contrary POV of the great majority of Security Council members who rejected this in passing the resolution.
Additionally, there are matters not of POV, but of fact, at issue here. Caradon's subsequent assertion that "the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries" is simply false, for example. Read 242. It calls for BOTH an Israeli withdrawal AND and termination of a state of belligerency and respect for territorial sovereignty. As a point of fact, there is NO conditionality between those two things. The former is no more conditional upon the latter as the latter is upon the former. This is a point of fact. It's also a point of fact that any interpretation of 242 that Israel may keep any occupied territory (apart from minor and mutually agreed upon changes to the Green Line) is irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. Any such interpretation is thus prima facie invalid.
The attitude of the British Government is clear. We want the area to be at peace. We recognize that, peace demands the greatest measure of justice in its political arrangements. And on this foundation the progress of its peoples, especially of those whose need is greatest, must be based. I should like, if I may, to set out certain principles which I believe should guide us in striving collectively for a lasting settlement. Clearly, such principles must derive from the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Charter provides that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State ...'. Here the words "territorial integrity" have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal, on which much has been said in previous speeches. I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement. -- George Brown, British Foreign Secretary, June 21, 1967
I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. -- George Brown, September 26, 1967
As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both I withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear. -- Lord Caradon, British representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379) If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago. These were his words: "I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel's neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers...." In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble we emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear. We believe that it would be a serious error to attempt at this stage to vary or add to them. -- Lord Caradon, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)
We know from the statements of Israel statesmen, and in particular from that made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and just published in The New York Times, that Israel makes a definite claim to keep some of the territories seized from the Arab States. Consequently, the United States draft leaves open the possibility that Israel's forces may not be withdrawn from all the Arab territories they have seized and that part of these territories may be kept by Israel. If this is not so, we hope that the United States representative will give us a clear and unambiguous explanation to the effect that the United States supports the withdrawal of Israel's forces from all the occupied territories to the positions occupied prior to 5 June 1967. It is obvious that the provision for the withdrawal of troops must be so clearly formulated as to leave no loopholes whereby anyone can interpret it in his own way. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, Soviet representative at the UNSC, November 15, 1967 (S/PV.1377)
As long as Israel troops occupy the Arab territories they have seized, as long as no stop is put to the colonialist appropriations of these lands by the aggressor, and as long as he is not forced to leave them, there will be, and there can be, no peace in the Middle East.... During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)
However, we voted for the United Kingdom draft resolution, as interpreted by the representative of India, whose views we share. Thus, in the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the "'withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"…. It has been made clear, both from representatives' statements in the Security Council today and from the many statements made during the preceding days, that this is the basic content of the resolution and that it has thus been interpreted by all the members of the Security Council. – Vasili Kuznetsov, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
The aggressive Israel forces continue to occupy territories of Syria, Jordan and the United Arab Republic and territories under United Arab Republic administration. The duty of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, as well as with the various decisions previously adopted by this Organization, is very clear, that is, to secure the withdrawal of the Israel forces from all the territories which they have occupied after 4 June 1967. Our position on this question is absolutely firm. -- Mahmoud Riad, UAR representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)
Today, I wish to affirm once again our position that the first step towards peace lies in the full withdrawal of Israel forces from all territories they have occupied as a result of their aggression on 5 June. The efforts on behalf of peace which would then follow would of necessity be within the framework of this Organization and its Charter. The provisions of our Charter prohibit aggression and require all States to assume in good faith their obligations arising from the Charter as well as from international agreements and other sources of international law. – Mahmoud Riad, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
The immediate stumbling block in the crisis is the withdrawal of the Israel forces from the territories of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria which they occupied following the aggression of 5 June 1967. Their withdrawal is a prerequisite for any political solution to the crisis. The first task of the Council is therefore to secure, in application of the provisions of the Charter, the withdrawal of the Israel forces to the positions they held before the aggression. -- Mamadou Boubacar Kante, UNSC President and Mali representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)
My delegation therefore wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text, namely: first, that the withdrawal of all the armed forces of Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June cannot be made subject to any condition whatever…. For all those reasons my delegation, in voting for the draft resolution on the Middle East submitted by the United Kingdom, was anxious to record its unshakable adherence to the principles of the Charter. My country therefore continues to believe more than ever that the withdrawal of forces from territories occupied by military conquest is a prior condition for any solution of any armed crisis. – Mamadou Boubacar Kante, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
The States, although adhering to the views expressed in its draft resolution of 7 November , will vote in favour of the United Kingdom draft resolution for two principal and prevailing reasons. First, the United Kingdom resolution commands, in our opinion, a substantial con-sensus in the Council and is entirely consistent with the policy of my Government as set forth by President Johnson in his statement of 19 June and as stated by me in the several interventions I have made in the Council, I reaffirm that policy without any reservation today. -- Arthur Goldberg, U.S. representative at the UNSC, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)
It goes without saying that the withdrawal of the Israel aggressive forces from occupied territories is at this stage the central point of the problem and should be the focus of the attention and efforts of the international community. The advocates of the draft resolution must know this axiomatic fact very well. -- George Tomeh, Syrian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area. -- Endelkachew Makonnen, Ethiopian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations.... The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal.... It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories--I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. In other words, the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River and the Syrian territory. This being so, Israel cannot use the words "secure and recognized boundaries", contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution. -- Mr. Parthasarathi, Indian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967
We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories". -- Armand Berard, French representative to the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
We note with satisfaction that in the resolution adopted, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, proclaimed in the preamble as a general principle, is clearly and explicitly confirmed in the first operative paragraph, which calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Thus it is a definite call for the withdrawal of Israel's troops from all the territories occupied since 4 June 1967. That is a practical application of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war stated in the preamble to the resolution. – Milko Tarabanov, Bulgarian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)
In the present crisis the basic issue which has to be remedied as an essential step towards peace is the immediate and complete withdrawal of Israel armed forces from all the territories they occupied in the recent conflict. The resolutions which were adopted both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the statements made on the question, have stressed this basic requirement. – Abdul Monem Rifa'I, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) JRHammond (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments
When doing pending changes to remove a change of my revert to restore the article I inadvertently accepted both changes including one pending from the IP user regarding this issue. At this point JRH I would say there is not consensus support of your position on these documents, especially when you're going to pains to point out particular version of the document that is different from others. It seems this is very much in dispute and not settled. --WGFinley (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There is only one version of Resolution 242 under discussion here, and that is the one unanimously adopted by the UNSC. If you conclude that the issue as to interpretation "is very much in dispute and not settled", then you must certainly agree that asserting the fringe POV interpretation of 242 as permitting Israel to remain in possession of some of the territory occupied during the war must not be asserted as fact in the article. I'm glad to see we are in agreement on that point. JRHammond (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- JRH, I'm not getting involved over what's valid and not valid that's for editors to do. I'm saying, as an admin, based on what I've seen here you have objections to this material and there is no consensus to add it, that's all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources Provided
My fix was reverted. The objection included in the edit summary was that the source I provided for the statement that the French text is equally authoritative as the English was not enough to establish the fact. It's highly instructive that certain editors demand sources to include this statement, and yet require none to assert the opposite. This double standard is most unreasonable, and demonstrates a lack of good faith. I've reinserted my fix, and added further sources to satisfy the stated objection:
However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text.
- The concept that authorized texts in multiple languages are equally authentic is well founded in international law: "When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language..." Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
- French is an official language of the United Nations and of the Security Council: "The present Charter, of which the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic...." U.N. Charter, Article 111
- "Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the Security Council." S/96/Rev.7, Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council
- "Similar to Article 111 of the Charter of the United Nations which stipulates that 'the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic", the texts of constitutive acts of treaty-based organizations or the texts of treaties administrered by them have been signed in one or a given number of languages and such texts are considered as authentic texts." Implementation of Multilingualism in the United Nations System, Joing Inspection United, United Nations, 2003
- "rom the strictly legal viewpoint, the French version of the resolution carries, in every respect, just as much weight as its English counterpart." Toribio de Valdes, The Authoritativeness of the English and French Texts of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) on the Situation in the Middle East, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 311-316
- The French delegate at the U.N. Security Council meeting prior to the vote on resolution 242 observed, "We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories"."
- U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk has acknowledged that "the French version ... is equally authentic" as the English, adding that the U.S. "never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war." "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389
I'm fine if someone wants to edit the footnote to minimize it. I felt it was important to at least initially include not only references, but citations from those references, so as to stop the pointless and unreasonable edit warring behavior. JRHammond (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One more:
- "here are six official and working languages of the Security Council, and resolutions of the Council are adopted and published in all six. In princple, all six language versions are authentic." Michael C. Wood, "The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 2, 1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"cost/benefit" analysis of Israel's occupation re: security
"The war established Israel as the premier military power in the region and left it in control of more defensible boundaries, but at the cost of significant increases in military expenditure and personnel and of a polarization in Israeli society over issues surrounding the control and management of the occupied territories."
Ian Pitchford revised the article to read as above. If there is going to be a "cost/benefit" analysis of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory in terms of security, I would suggest it absolutely must be noted that the occupation itself has been a major cause for grievance and thus arguably made Israel more insecure, including by escalating the threat of Palestinian terrorist attacks against itself. If this element of the equation is to be ignored, than the whole "cost/benefit" analysis shouldn't be included at all, at least in the lede. It could be a quite large discussion in the body, but I don't see how it belongs in the introduction. It's just too broad a topic, with too many varying viewpoints and factors to consider. Perhaps note that fact itself: state that there are numerous viewpoints among analysts as to whether the consequences of the war mitigated or escalated the threat against Israel's security -- but leave the discussion for the body. Any number of possible solutions, but I hope other editors will recognize my concern and that we can come to a consensus solution to end the constant changes to this part of the article. JRHammond (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree somewhat, but not at all how you put it about the occupation. The analysis should not be in the article, definitely not in first-person WP. You seem to be reading too much into the intentions and outcomes of the war and also inserting this analysis. --Luckymelon (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't understand your point. Do you agree this kind of "cost/benefit" analysis from Israeli POV should be removed from the lede? Because that is my own point. This needs to be removed from the lede. It could be included, along with a fuller discussion, in the body. But it absolutely must be removed from the lede. Agreed? JRHammond (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
as Samu incident
The as-Samu incident was a response not only to cross-border attacks but specifically to the 3 paratroopers killed on November 11. The supporting source from Segev includes the following context.
- On Friday night, November 11, three paratroopers doing their compulsory military service were killed when their command car drove over a land mine not far from Arad, in the south. They were on their way back from Mount Hebron, where they had collected some soldiers after setting an ambush for terrorists. Tracks leading to the border with Jordan were identified at the site. The next day, the Sabbath, Israel had to decide how to respond. The General Staff met in the morning and the generals agreed that there was no way to prove Syria responsible and that action could only therefore be taken against Jordan.
Clearly this is relevant material that needs to be added to the lead to avoid POV. 172.130.52.137 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you register an account? I think you're making worthwile contributions to the discussion, but it's hard to take you seriously when all I see is an anonymous IP. Shoplifter (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I prefer it this way. Maybe later. 172.130.52.137 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Your argument would seem to be based on the logic that the Nov. 11 attack you refer to was in addition to the raids mentioned in Ling.Nut's version. That is nonsense logic. Of course the Nov. 11 is included in the reference to raids. Add details in the body. The lede should be brief and just hit the main points. Restore Ling.Nut's briefer, equally neutral version. JRHammond (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sentence in the lead
"At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem, are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs."
- This sentence does qualify as original research. It may appear obvious and factual, but it is a conclusion as someone else has said, and an opinion. Its inappropriate in the lead or anywhere except maybe a section on opinions. Since it was not in the reference, I removed it and reinserted template. Verification here: 172.130.52.137 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have the Hinnebusch book at hand? Because your link to Google books doesn't contain pages 171-173 either and there is no rule that says we need an online link for each ref. Therefore I have reverted your edits to the referenced version. De728631 (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Another piece of analysis placed in the article. Need to reword, not source to one author. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here seriously wish to argue that: (a) the consequence of occupation is not a central concern in the ongoing conflict, (b) the consequence of occupation raises no issues in international law, or (c) the consequence of occupation does not have far-reaching consequences in global affairs? Because unless you're willing to argue one or more of those points, this is totally a non-issue. The present wording (Ling.Nut's version) is completely non-controversial. Furthermore, no source is required to state self-evident truths disputed by precisely nobody. JRHammond (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen there was a citation there, you removed the citation (wrong) and then claimed it needed more. Instead of removing the citation perhaps you would add more sources? If you're stating it didn't you should provide YOUR sources instead of removing others. --WGFinley (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was originally (a week ago, two weeks maybe) no citation there. The sentence was removed altogether as a "summary analysis" but it was returned again as "obvious" and "unanimously agreed upon." (The last is not factual) Since I did not want to re-revert ,asked for a citation instead. The citation was provided, but I was able to check the book and it does not say anything even similar to the analysis as written! I removed the link for that reason, and did not ask for more; just for one. The author(s) of that sentence should provide the link. If they cannot, it demonstrates the OR nature of it. The Google link was given as a courtesy, and all the (referenced) pages are available to readers. 172.129.241.59 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- As WGFinley said, it is you then who must provide clear evidence and sources that the given reference is not sufficient or even faulty. Especially since you suggest that others should provide links. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was originally (a week ago, two weeks maybe) no citation there. The sentence was removed altogether as a "summary analysis" but it was returned again as "obvious" and "unanimously agreed upon." (The last is not factual) Since I did not want to re-revert ,asked for a citation instead. The citation was provided, but I was able to check the book and it does not say anything even similar to the analysis as written! I removed the link for that reason, and did not ask for more; just for one. The author(s) of that sentence should provide the link. If they cannot, it demonstrates the OR nature of it. The Google link was given as a courtesy, and all the (referenced) pages are available to readers. 172.129.241.59 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One Last Warning
As previously mentioned, this article is under a WP:1RR restriction. This is to reduce edit warring and, yes, promote the status quo. What does this mean? If someone adds something and that change is reverted and someone, ANYONE puts it back in, that's a 1RR violation.
There seems to be a lot of editing and talking in edit notes and not on this talk page. Discussion needs to happen here and consensus reached on an article like this. It can't continue this way and unfortunately if some can't put their axes away then article bans are going to be the next step. I would really rather not do that, I would really rather people work out differences. But for an event that is over 40 years old to have this much editing going on is ridiculous, it's plain out edit warring and needs to stop. --WGFinley (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't the normal definition of 1RR is it ? Revert counts are normally counted on a per editor basis aren't they (which inevitably leads to self assembling edit warring tag teams) ? Your definition is far better in my view but is it supported by policy ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think WGFinley's understanding of 1RR is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, the rule would permit people to implement edits rejected according to consensus on Talk, and would punish editors who reverted to accepted wording according to consensus for reverting back to the approved version. That interpretation of 1RR would make no sense whatsoever, and only contribute to rather than help resolve the problem. Again, I would observe that according to 3RR, leeway must be given to editors whose reversions help improve the article. Clearly, that would include any reverts restoring versions that have been discussed where consensus or overwhelming majority approval has been reached. Granting such leeway, as demanded by the policy, is the ONLY solution to the edit warring. JRHammond (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sean, you're correct, this isn't strictly what 1RR is under normal circumstances. I've put it in place in this form for this article under general sanctions to try to keep the peace. And JRH I would encourage you to let admins come and deal with situations where there are those going against consensus. As in this case I found something that was reverting a revert (of something that has been consensus), I pointed it out to the person and clarified for everyone here what I meant by 1RR. Again, this is only for this article. --WGFinley (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- "And JRH I would encourage you to let admins come and deal with situations where there are those going against consensus." Yes, that is my whole point, that admins should do so. It would be very much appreciated by most editors here, I'm sure. JRHammond (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Analyzing specifically
Regarding this revert, which broke the 1RR as listed above. The sources for the edit are as follows:
- An editorial in the Guardian's Comment is free section by Ron Prosor who argues that this is really the underlying problem in the I/P conflict but doesn't mention this conflict. And even if it had, this source would only be appropriate for what former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs thinks, not for a statement of fact
- Paper by the ITIC, a partisan think tank, which does not once mention this conflict.
- The one RS cited, a news article in Haaretz. Now this does mention the conflict, but only when defining the Green Line as the border prior to this conflict.
- AJC director opinion piece that does not once mention this conflict, and even if it did would only by good for the opinion of the director of the AJC
- CFR background information on Hamas. Mentions this conflict but never makes the point that the article makes. It says that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, not that the refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" is a central issue in the conflict and so obviously does not discuss that supposed central issue within the context of this conflict.
What we have here are a couple of op-eds that say this is really the most important issue in the I/P conflict. Those are synthesized together to make the statement of fact that this is true and that it is somehow relevant to this conflict. None of the sources cited discuss this supposed central issue within the context of this conflict. nableezy - 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this is even disputed. The Arab nation's refusing to recognize Israel isn't even disputed. I suppose "Jewish state" could just be "the state". It looks like an underlying cause at the time deserves to be in. It deserves prominence in the lead as part of the background. Here are just a couple books that do that exact same thing: second line!again the second line and this is fromBarron's Educational Series. There is nothing controversial about it. It is a simple piece of history that is repeated in multiple texts (do you really want more?). So maybe remove "Jewish" and maybe move the line to another part of the lead but it is something that deserves prominence as sources do it.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- And it appears that JJG thought he was balancing a harsh line from his edit summary ("Adding additional cause for I-A conflict, sourced. I'd rather the lede stick to the bare facts of the 6-Day War but since we're on a slippery slope...". Why is that line there anyways? Wouldn't it be better lower in the lead? It could be argued that that line focuses on general concerns of the region and is too much for the lead. I think it should be in since it is related fallout but it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. IF adding that part of the background was blatantly POV then it could be said that the preceding lines were POV as well. I say keep them both but move them to appropriate parts of the lead. We could also axe both and discuss it only in the body but that should not be necessary.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I would agree that the refusal of some Arab countries to recognize Israel as a state is an impediment to peace in the region, but that's not what this sentence talks about. It needs to be read in context. The sentence before it talks about the immediate results of the war ("At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, ... the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ... and the Golan Heights"). This sentence talks about the long term impact of those results ("The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem... are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict"). The refusal of some Arab nations to recognize Israel wasn't a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, it was a result of the foundation of Israel in 1948, and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the Palestinian refugees to return (most neighboring Arab countries viewed thousands of foreign refugees as a drain on their own resources). However, this sentence could be improved. First, it would be good if it was preceded by a count of how many Palestinian refugees were created in 1967; if there weren't many, I wouldn't mention them in this sentence. Second, the entire end of this sentence ("...raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs") is long-winded and veering off topic, and would probably be best removed. My two cents on the matter, anyways. ← George 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly George, the occupation of Arab territory was a direct result of this conflict. It is self-evidently relevant to the topic of this conflict. The line inserted by Jiujitsuguy is both poorly sourced and wholly irrelevant to this conflict. nableezy - 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I would agree that the refusal of some Arab countries to recognize Israel as a state is an impediment to peace in the region, but that's not what this sentence talks about. It needs to be read in context. The sentence before it talks about the immediate results of the war ("At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, ... the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ... and the Golan Heights"). This sentence talks about the long term impact of those results ("The status of the Israeli-occupied territories and the concurrent refugee problem... are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict"). The refusal of some Arab nations to recognize Israel wasn't a result of the Six-Day War in 1967, it was a result of the foundation of Israel in 1948, and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the Palestinian refugees to return (most neighboring Arab countries viewed thousands of foreign refugees as a drain on their own resources). However, this sentence could be improved. First, it would be good if it was preceded by a count of how many Palestinian refugees were created in 1967; if there weren't many, I wouldn't mention them in this sentence. Second, the entire end of this sentence ("...raising issues in international law, and having far-reaching consequences in global affairs") is long-winded and veering off topic, and would probably be best removed. My two cents on the matter, anyways. ← George 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Disputed label
"The Six-Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war," is not supported by many of the sources in that that overly lengthy footnote. "Preemptive strike" is. There is a difference. Luckily, there are plenty of sources and the lead already says "The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War." Israel's claim should follow that though. All those sources should also be integrated into the body since it is similar to Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill with such a massive amount of text attempting to support one line.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't a massive amount of text; you obviously haven't perused Jiujitusguy's contributions to the article. The reason there are several cites and a bit of extra verbiage is because it is hotly disputed in some circles. And I did look at the sources; they support the assertion.
- C'mon. Please. Can we get off the lead and move on to another section? The body text should drive what's in the lead, rather than vice-versa. As we write the body text, scores more relevant cites will emerge etc. And (for example) the importance of the Soviet disinformation will become more clear, and we'll be able to think of a good way to summarize that aspect, etc.• Ling.Nut 07:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to work on the body. The lead currently has a line takes the sources out of context. I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. If you don;t wan to discuss it then fine. I am happy to fix it myself but would rather not be overly bold.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Out of context == "preemptive war"? If that's the case, then wait five minutes. I'll get you more. Holy crap. I feel like Jiujitsuguy. • Ling.Nut 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are 44 sources for it and only 3 call it a preemptive war. Now if those three are sufficient then that might be fine. I honestly don't know if they are or are not. However, the other 41 need to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- OH WAIT. I'm sorry! You ARE talking about Jiujitsuguy's cites, not mine! I misunderstood. Yes, about 41 of those need to be removed. But I am not interested in the squabbling that will result. It's a low-priority issue... If you wanna rmv them, start a new thread titled "Trim the 44 cites to preemptive war to the three best ones" and ask for a !vote. I'll agree. It will pass easily, due to the numeric makeup of the two camps of editors. But expect massive amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth. • Ling.Nut 08:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Originally I simply didn't see them but decided to do a ctrl+f to double check. I still don't know if those are good enough and I don't think it matters but I could be wrong. So part 1:
- Feel free to work on the body. The lead currently has a line takes the sources out of context. I don't care what the reasoning behind it is. If you don;t wan to discuss it then fine. I am happy to fix it myself but would rather not be overly bold.Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Remove 41 of the 44 sources used to call it a preemptive war when they instead say preemptive strike
Yes there is a difference and it is overkill.Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not all the sources! Just all but three or so. There are tons of sources that call it a "preemptive war". Google it yourself, in Google scholar. • Ling.Nut 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oops: 41 of the 44.Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Do the three sources calling it a preemptive war make it noteworthy enough for the lead?
Not sure myselfCptnono (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those sources may suck, but obtaining better ones is a snap. It should definitely stay in the lead. • Ling.Nut 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Israel's claim that Egypt struck first
"The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War." is already in the lead. Should "Israel says that Egypt had made a offensive thrust with tanks and aircraft." or something similar be added to the line.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The lede will never be perfect. We cannot cover every little detail. No more verbiage, please. • Ling.Nut 08:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Israel promised Jordan that if they did not attack Israel first, Israel would not touch Jordanian positions. After asking for 24 hours to think about it, Jordanian troops opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western Jerusalem, as well as targeting the center of the country. In addition, Jordanian troops seized government houses and the headquarters of the U.N. in Jerusalem."1967-Six Day War, HistoryCentral.com. URL accessed May 14, 2006.
- Shlaim 2001, p. 245.
- Avi Shlaim, 2007 p 238
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- High-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
- Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Jordan articles
- High-importance Jordan articles
- WikiProject Jordan articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Lebanon articles
- Mid-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)