Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

There has been a lot of major, undiscussed edits lately in this article, mainly by anons. One is the deletion of the section Religious basis of the conflict. This section has been discussed ad nauseum above; there was no agreement to remove it. I re-inserted it. Feel free to revert all the other edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I keep reading reading bits and pieces about an air-raid on a convoy in Sudan that was suspected to have been carried out by Israeli warplanes some time in Mid-January. Is this something that falls under the scope of this article? I don't think Israel's involvement in the raid has been publicly confirmed, other then the claims made by unnamed sources in the Time article. [1], [2], [3]. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have, perhaps somewhat hastily, removed the "Cost of conflict" section, which was added a few weeks ago. Should it be there? It doesn't seem very notable - I've never encountered this analysis before, and never heard of this source. What do other editors think? okedem (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here, but just as a suggestion, I think it might not hurt to mention that Israel is receiving more funding from the United States than all other countries in the world put together, I don't have any sources, but I'm sure I could find some. Thanks! LastWarrior2010 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) LW2010

Israel receives little actual funding from the US. It receives some military assistance - funding for purchasing American-made military equipment (effectively subsidizing the American defense industry). Many other countries receive such aid, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, etc. While Israel may be receiving more funding than other countries, it is not receiving more "than all other countries in the world put together".

If you find good, reliable sources, make sure to find sources about US aid to Arab nations, and regarding the Soviet aid to Arab countries, which was of great relevance here. okedem (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement above mine is incorrect Israel, despite having a population of only 6 million, recieves about 1/3rd to 1/2 of US foreign 'aid' (this is taking into account all foreign aid... humanitarian or otherwise). That equates to roughly $1000 for each Israeli citizen (I think I am correct in this assertion... the figure could be higher). Whilst in Ethiopia for example US foreign aid equates to something like $5 per person (I think). If you want I'll look for a specific source.. but I think these statements are approximately correct.86.156.51.15 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually very wrong here I think. According to this video (not a peer reviewed source... but I see no reason to distrust it really) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssGZiADiw10 Israel in the last half a century has recieved more U.S> aid than all the other aid recipients comibined. This equates to $10,000 per Israeli citizen and $58 for each person in South America and Africa.86.156.51.15 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your YouTube video is by a political activism site, and thus not a usable source for such claims.

Israel receives almost no "humanitarian" aid (some tens of millions for settling refugees from the former Soviet republics), and no civilian economic aid. It gets a bit less than 3 billion dollars a year as FMF - money to be used for purchasing military equipment from American companies mostly (26% can be used in Israel itself), and is a sort of subsidy for US industry. Egypt, for instance, gets (in 2009) 1.3 billion as military aid (FMF), and 200 million as economic aid (ESF). It has received (according to the Congressional Research Service - see [4]), on average, 2 billion dollars a year since 1979 (when it effectively switched sides, leaving the Soviets).

According to another report by the Congressional Research Service (see [5], p. 29), Israel was the largest aid recipient after 1976, before Iraq surpassed it in 2003. Israel actually got very little American assistance before 1966 (see this report for a detailed analysis). While Israel was indeed the largest single aid recipient, I doubt it got more than all other combined. Regardless, the relationship is a two-way street, with Israel providing invaluable intelligence in the region, now, as well as back during the Cold War (first hand experience against Soviet weaponry, etc.) For its aid, the US gets a lot of power over Israel - telling it who it can sell weapons to, for instance (wholly Israeli-made weapons, make no mistake). The US even pressures Israel to back off large contracts when it's up against American companies.

Aid is based on interests - until the mid-'60, Israel received a lot of assistance from France. When the Arabs threatened French interests, it stopped cooperating with Israel, and the US stepped in. okedem (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How about adding a section saying how Saudi arabia refuses to negoiate unless Israel gives in to moving to 67 borders first.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13turki.html?scp=4&sq=Saudi%20Arabia&st=cseTannim1 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

but they are doing it from under the table--KAWASAKI 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nader ecl (talk • contribs)

Does anyone understand the inclusion criteria for "have been at war with Israel" in this map? Why is Yemen included but not, e.g., Algeria?Prezbo (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what map you mean, but Algeria was a part of France in 1948 and thus probably never went to war with Israel. According to Arab League and the Arab–Israeli conflict, Yemen was part of the Arab League in 1948 and joined that war, although the Yemeni war effort probably was negligible. Huon (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant File:Arab Israeli Conflict 5.png, which I removed from the infobox after nobody responded to this. If Yemen actually did declare war on Israel in 1948 then their inclusion kind of makes sense; they aren't listed as a belligerent in 1948 Arab–Israeli War so I assumed they weren't. Then again Algeria was also formally in a state of war with Israel at one point, and sent troops to the Suez Canal after the 1973 war, so I think the map is still misleading.Prezbo (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's indeed the 1948 Arab League which apparently is considered to have been at war with Israel in its entirety. According to the Yom Kippur War article several other nations also engaged in the fighting (including North Korea), but probably they didn't formally declare war. It seems somewhat difficult to find reliable sources on who did and didn't declare war on Israel; rather surprising given that those who did (except Egypt and Jordan) probably technically still are at war. Anyway, I don't think the map adds much to the infobox. Huon (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted these because they are unsourced and I consider them both doubtful and harmful. They were quickly restored with citation templates by Hertz1888, with the comment "No evidence given, pro or con". I don't believe the editor who removes unsourced statements has a requirement to disprove them. It is up to the editors who want to keep them to find sources. The two disputed statements, which appeared in the End of 19th century–1948 section, are:

Generally, at first, the Arabs welcomed the Zionists, with their standard of living, education, capital, and jobs.

Many Arabs moved into the region, matching the increase in Jews from Europe.

Sanguinalis (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless a statement is obviously vandalistic, I believe a reasonable time should be allowed after tagging, in order to enable editors to find and provide sourcing, if possible. In the present case, one of the statements was fact-tagged only a day earlier, the other not at all; both are long-standing in the article. Another available variety of tag calls for discussion by marking the text "dubious-discuss". Tags often remain in place for months. Let us be patient. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why tags should be allowed to remain in place for months; "there is no deadline" cuts both ways. Being "long-standing" should count for nothing.Prezbo (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many more unsourced statements in this article that are ludicrious to anyone who knows the history. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The "1967-1973" section is begun with "In the summer of 1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum." That's very confusing. Is it the Sudanese summer? Israeli summer? Is there a universal seasonal system of the globe I am not aware of? Please change 124.180.193.36 (talk)

Well they are both in the Northern Hemisphere, but you're right it is confusing. I've changed it. SlakaJ (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are the archives? This page was created in 2002, right? Johnnyt471 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The archives have a slightly different name - Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict/Archive 6 - note the short dash compared to the long dash in the current one (em-dash? en-dash?). I'm moving them to the new names, so they'll show up in the box. okedem (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnnyt471 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

one thing that is wrong is the claim that Arabs state theyre from Ishmael thats just one claim but the main reaosn why Muslims as a whole not only Arabs recognize themselves as people who should dwell in that land is because it's holy .. clearly the Quran states that the land was for the children of Israel BUT THAT WAS 2000 years ago and the Quran states that God scattered and kept the children of Israel in exile and that they should remain there till the end of time but anyways to view this politically .. Muslims belive that the land is holy and want to have a part in it .. similarly to the christians who don't have any Hebrew ancestry but would like to have a name in Jerusalem the Muslims have the same stance .. while as the Ishmaelite claim isn't really a valid excuse with no Religious or meaningful proof so Id appreciate it if the ediotrs can add what I just said and cancel out that excuse mentioned in the article

thank youMoodswingster (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you review "Solving the Arab-Israeli Conflict' by Walter Phillips. The UN-specified two pre-conditions for peace are acknowleged, namely:

1) The Islamic nations must recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace in the region.
2) Israel must return the Gaza and West Bank areas.

Walter then shows how these pre-conditions conflict with the following aspects of Islamic and Jewish religious traditions.

1) Mohammed’s final command that only one religion must occupy the Arabian Peninsula.
2) Moses’ final command that the Israelites must occupy the Promised land, which includes Gaza and the West Bank.

Previous attempts at finding a peaceful solution have largely ignored these religious traditions, which has forced both sides into negotiating in bad-faith in order to avoid the fatal consequences of making unpopular decisions. Walter Phillips resolves the religious issues and proposes an equitable political solution. A link to the discussion is provided below.

http://researching.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/solving-the-arab-israeli-conflict/ Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.150.201 (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Israel/Palestine in the Arabian Peninsula? Not according to Arabian peninsula article. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

First, regarding the verses from the Qur'an, stating that Allah assigned the holy land to the Jews. It is clearly stated in the scripture, and accepted by some Muslim academics. The suggested edit clearly states that this reading is an interpretation by some commentators. Why should we consider this a fringe view? On the contrary, I would say that the original scripture is so straightforward, that the responsibility to explain would be on anyone trying to interpret it otherwise.

Second, regarding Arab immigration into Palestine in the 1920's. The claim is supported by two references, the first being a peer-reviewed journal, and the second a page on a private website written by Dr. Ami Isserof, considered an expert on the subject by this impartial site. According to Zero, this claim has been discredited by most scholars - in other words, there was no Arab immigration into Palestine during this period. Where is the evidence to support this? And why wasn't it added as a counter-opinion, instead of just reverting the changes? Objectiff (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a summary of a very complex issue that has a large number of wp articles devoted to it. It is essential that the page concentrate on issues that have had a significant importance to the subject. The attitude of Islam to the ancient history of the Jews and Palestine has almost no historical significance. Not only is it debated among scholars, it become a mere footnote when Palestine became sacred to Muslims. It is a severe misrepresentation to focus on a few words in the Quran and ignore the larger question. Zero^talk 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't ignore the larger question - that's why there is a paragraph on Muslim religious claims later in the section. The fact that the Qur'an itself repeats the Jewish religious claim is very relevant to this paragraph. These verses are significant, though I can certainly understand why Muslims who oppose Israel would have avoided emphasizing them. Objectiff (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamic religious claims relating to the period of the conflict (past century or so) are clearly relevant. You want to insert something that most Muslims would deny is relevant. It is also easy to quote the Bible and Jewish writers to "prove" that Jews were supposed to never return to Palestine until Moshiach comes, but we shouldn't present that as a fact either. Zero^talk 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "prove" that Jews have a divine right to the land, any more than the Torah does. But it does prove that the Quran says that God assigned the land to the Jews, whether most Muslims consider it relevant or not. Objectiff (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The question of Arab immigration to Palestine is covered at Demographics of Palestine. Only a few extreme writers (like Joan Peters, who relied on economist Fred Gottheil for her bizarre calculations) deny that that great bulk of increase of the Arab population was due to natural increase. Ami Isseroff (whose expertise on this subject is strictly amateur) doesn't deny that either; also note his conclusion "The major conclusion is 'The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times'". Any text that only refers to immigration is unacceptable, and to focus on it as primarily a reaction to Jewish development (as if the British didn't exist) is just propaganda. Zero^talk 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit you removed only mentioned that Arab immigration did happen, due to the improving conditions in Palestine. There was no mention of Jewish or British development. Isseroff's article, as well as the one from MEQ, do not deny that there was also a lot of natural population growth in Palestine. They just show that immigration took place as well. Objectiff (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish increase was mostly by immigration, while the Arab increase was mostly natural. This is opposite, but your edits portrayed them as parallel. Zero^talk 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Where? All my edit said was there was Arab immigration to Palestine during that period, which is perfectly understandable, given the improving economy and standard of living. Nothing about parallel, nothing about the development being only Jewish. Objectiff (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to portray Arab opposition to Zionism as Nazism, on account of the wartime collaboration of a few Arab leaders, is truly disgusting and can't be tolerated. Zero^talk 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So the documented, undisputed collabaration with the Nazis by the official leader of Arabs in Palestine, including his part in recruiting many thousands of Muslims for the SS, his enthusiastic support for the final solution in Europe, and the joint Nazi-Arab plan to apply it to the Jews of Palestine, has no bearing on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Truly, disgusting and intolerable. Objectiff (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a word for smearing a whole group of people on account of the actions of one. Zero^talk 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit didn't smear anyone. It brought out a fact that is extremely relevant to the conflict. Al-Husayni was the leader of the Arabs in Palestine, and a mentor to Arafat. What could be more relevant than that? And again, I am in no way generalizing this to all Arabs or all Palestinians, and neither did that edit. Objectiff (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. "his enthusiastic support for the final solution in Europe"? That is really a bit rich. And is a single persons view in any case more relevant than Plan Dalet, the Deir Yassin massacre, or the Al-Dawayima massacre, (none of which are mentioned in the article)? Seriously; give it up. Huldra (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with Zero. This is a top level overview article that should only have the solidest info. The Arab immigration claim is a well known partisan WP:FRINGE theory with no place here.John Z (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess. It needs a complete rewrite. Gatoclass (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I can accept that the immigration issue, being disputed and exaggerated (though still true to a degree), would not be mentioned in a top-level overview article. I believe it is relevant that the Qur'an itself supports the Jewish religious claim to the land - whether Muslims emphasize it or not (and of course they wouldn't, how could they then continue their propaganda that claims of Jewish history in Israel were invented to support Zionism?). As far as the Nazi issue, of course Al-Husayni's extreme antisemitic position had significant bearing on the conflict, including his heavy influence on Arafat. Not to mention that hard-core, genocidal antisemitism continues to be preached in many places throughout the Arab and Muslim world today. Muslim / Arab antisemitism has played a huge role in the conflict throughout, and deserves discussion in this overview. If you really think saying that Al-Husayni enthusiastically supported the final solution is "a bit rich", then read up on the topic (you could start, for instance, with the references that Zero removed), and you will find your opinion speedily corrected. These edits being inappropriate for a top-level article (in other words, more suited for specific sub-topics), however, was not mentioned as a reason for striking any of them (or several other edits reverted by Zero) until I brought it to the discussion page, and then it was brought up by other editors. It is crystal clear to me that Zero patrols these pages, striking edits that don't accord with his POV, while excusing them through any WP policy justifications he can come up with. See WP:ROWN, WP:DRNC, WP:BRDWRONG. Objectiff (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How can the conflict be over a centuriy old if isreal was created in the 40's Please do not try and make this conflict a historical conflict as a more than century ago there was very little conflict between the arabs and jews, this conflict started with the palastinian exodus and the creation of Isreal81.154.98.169 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it started with the riots and murders the Arabs perpetrated on Jews in Palestine, like the 1929 Hebron massacre. The history section explains this. okedem (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Even supposing that were so: it's still not over a century. Why this gross negligence to detail? --ganjadi (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, if your claims were true, it would make it an "Arab-Jewsih conflict" and NOT and "Arab-Israeli Conflict." No matter how you slice it, Israel still did not exist. Otherwise, we should also have a page on "Christian-Israeli Conflict", "European-Israeli Conflict" and/or "Western World-Israeli Conflict" that each lasted over 2000 years. Take your pick. Biraqleet (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since 1929 is less than a century ago, and this article doesn't mention any hostilities before World War 1 at the earliest, I also think this claim should be corrected. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

violence has been going on since at least 1921. Diplomatic conflict has been going one since at least 1915. Both ought to be documented here, IMNSHO. I wouldn't be surprised if there were incidents before those dates that which I am unaware of. As far as the naming goes, I think that Arab-Israeli is preferable. Articles should be named by their present day common names, without regard to the names that were in use at the time. A similar situation exists in the History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and many other places. I'll note that Isreal isn't the only word that had changed while this conflict has been ongoing. "Palestinian" has changed its meaning as well. In all cases, I think that articles should be named by their modern common names, even if those names postdate the actual thing that they refer to.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"incidents... of which I am unaware of" that isn't an argument that holds any relevence. Its pretty streight forward - Israel has only existed since the war, ie less than 100 years. Previous clashes between Arabs and Jews is a different context, and although relevant in understanding the background of conflict in the region, is not justification to claim "over 100 years of conflict" especially since the earliest examples of such conflict are less than 100 years ago anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.114.149.162 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What we call the Israeli-Arab conflict today is the same conflict that existed between Arabs and Zionists at the beginning of the last century. There is no shortage of sources that say as much. Similarly, the Palestinian people existed before the 1948, not withstanding the fact that the phrase "Palestinian" changed meaning at approximately that time. The time frame of a conflict (or of a people) is not necessarily coterminous with the time frame of the presently accepted naming convention. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There can be no conflict with a nation that won't exist for 40 years. That is the only fact that matters, and to say otherwise is puerile. The article needs to be changed if Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and historically accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Relates (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arab–Israeli conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "haaretz-at least":

• From Gaza flotilla raid: Amos Harel (May 31, 2010). "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us". Haaretz. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip: Amos Harel (31 May 2010). "Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us". Haaretz. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should be named the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for the following reasons: 1) We do not call the Korean War the "Chinese American War". Other than a few very specific instances, the entire conflict has taken place in either Palestine or Israel 2) Today Israel has peaceful relations which most Arab governments - only Syria and Iran are openly hostile, and Iran is not even an Arab country. So the Arab-Israel nature of the war ended in 1979-80, after the Iranian revolution and the Camp David Accords 3) Showing a map of the entire Arab world is not representative of the real situation - only a few of the Arab countries have ever been directly involved in the conflict 95.21.74.221 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also an article on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most of the conflict in the first forty years was between Israeli and Arab governments. It was only in the late 1980s/early 1990s that the conflict began to focus more on the Palestinians. Most Arab governments do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Only Egypt and Jordan do. Thus, there is clearly tension between most of the Arab world and Israel, which opens up the possibility of war in the future. I agree that not all Arab countries went to war against Israel, but all or almost all Arab governments supported the wars against Israel (even if they were not directly involved). Finally, there is a separate article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thus for the reasons stated above this article should have its current name kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.186.219 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the name is not a good one. After all there are Israeli Arabs. As for the above comment that claims it was only in the 80's that it started to be a conflict between Palestinians and israelis; that is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the above comment carefully. It did not say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started in the 1980s. It said that the Arab-Israeli conflict began to focus more on the Palestinians since the 1980s. After all, between 1948 and 1987 the main points of conflict and tension were between Israel and other Arab states/armies, NOT between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian issue only became prominent in the late 1980s after the Palestinians began the First Intifada. And the name of the article is a good one. A large part of the fighting of the Arab-Israeli conflict occurred not between Israelis and Palestinians, but between Israelis and other Arabs. Even as recently as five years ago there was outright war between Israel and Hezbollah. Renaming this conflict as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be misleading and an insult to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.208.63 (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"the average Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of $23,000 in 2010"

the GDP per capita of israel is 29,500$ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.111.205 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there so much unsightly white space at the top of this article? It looks like at least two blank lines. I tried to edit it, but the extra space is not apparent in the edit box. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing i was taught from a very young age is that if you want to be respected you have to give mutual respect which has not be accorded to palestine why is the question i am forced to ask throughout this ongoing conflict. What i see is palestine asking to be reconized as an independant state and israel saying that it some how some way affects their security which they know is bull, either that or they really beleive that in which case they are sadly mistaken. To summarize i think peace can only be acheived on equal ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.100.136 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue this discussion here unless relating it to editing & improving the article. As it says at top of page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Hertz1888 (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

nableezy - really? care to self-rv or what? please explain so we can understand....thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, and no I do not care to self-revert. Any more questions for a specific user can be directed to that user's talk page. In the meantime, please refactor the title of this section. nableezy - 19:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a minor edit war in progress with neither side using discussion. Both versions of the text seem reasonable. If one side decides to discuss what they are doing, and the other does not, I'll support that side. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Socks of banned/blocked users are trying to change the article. That's what happening. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On the substance, the line is a user's personal editorializing meant to contradict sourced content. The sentence is about those who trace the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the start of large-scale immigration of Jews into Palestine. A Wikipedia user wishes to qualify that with Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia. That is, a user is making an argument against sources. That isnt acceptable here, and this sort of editorializing, if allowed to stand, opens the door to endless possibilities that no serious editor should accept. nableezy - 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Which of the sources contradicts "religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia"? I also view the Arab Israeli conflict as beginning with the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism in the closing years of the 19th century. But it is hardly uncommon to find sources that trace it back to antiquity. A line that acknowledges this, and then dismisses it, could plausibly improve the article. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think I said that a source disputes that religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia, I dont think that is under dispute. The problem is not that the material is or is not true, the problem is that its placement and wording is meant to rebut what the sources do say about the Arab-Israeli conflict specifically, not about religious conflict in general. This is purely editorializing by an random person on the internet, and unless a source can be brought that connects that line to the argument that this conflict began with the rise of massive Jewish immigration to Palestine it has no place here. nableezy - 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I don't understand. What is being rebutted? Jsolinsky (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that the conflict began with large-scale Jewish immigration in to Palestine. You really dont understand how starting the sentence with Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia does this? Really? Can you tell me why the sentence on sources tracing the start of the conflict should be prefaced with that clause? And are there any sources connecting the two thoughts? nableezy - 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as sources, three of the first four books I pulled up on Google Books trace the conflict back to ancient times. I think that most comprehensive treatments of the struggle mention events predating the past two centuries.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the use of the world "although" suggests that this is a minority view, and not one endorsed by the article. If anything, I think the use of the word "some" is a bit weak. What if we used something like this: "Although religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia, the modern Arab-Israeli conflict began with the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism towards the end of the last nineteenth century." Such a statement clearly acknowledges AND DISMISSES the ties to ancient civilizations as part of the modern conflict. Jsolinsky (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just implemented this. Let me emphasize that I have no problem with representing the broad range of opinion concerning the scope and reasons for the conflict within the body of the article. But I think that the Lede should very quickly get around to stating what the article is about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that I think it would be good for the introduction to clearly state a time frame for its contents. While we can surely find individual books that place a wide variety of time bounds on the conflict (and we may wish to cover this in the body of the article), readers of the article's introduction need to know which events are covered (so they can look elsewhere for anything outside of the time period we choose). In other words, we are not just informing users about what the literature says, we are also informing them about the scope of this Wikipedia entry. Jsolinsky (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that remains unsourced editorializing. Are there any sources that counter the view that the conflict began with large scale Jewish immigration in to Palestine with religious conflict that dates back centuries? If not then the article cannot contrast those arguments. nableezy - 16:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick comments. Firstly, the statement "religious conflict in the Middle East dates back millenia" is a banality. Is there any place in the world where religious conflict doesn't date back millenia? It adds nothing to the reader's understanding. Secondly, regardlesss of what "religious conflicts" may or may not have occurred over "millenia", that tells us nothing about the origins of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the topic of this article. Thirdly, one is obliged to point out the obvious, that the statement is unsourced and thereby violates wiki policy. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, date conventions are not to be changed except through discussion and consensus. Accordingly, I am going to revert the recent change to BC. If somebody wishes to make arguments supporting a change, please use this space. In my opinion, discussing biblical times using a nomenclature that is tied to one particular religion, is probably not an optimal choice. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged Ahmadiyya views on Arab–Israeli conflict to be merged with the main article on the conflict; however the former's currently rightfully prodded and I'm not sure there's much to salvage or if there's a more specific page to which the content could be merged. It'd be nice if someone clued-up could take a look. – hysteria18 (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hertz1888

I revised the article in two ways

1 My understanding is that there were two separate Mandates and most articles on Wikipedia appear to be based on that basis e.g the article on Mandatory Palestine. If my understanding is correct a reference to Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan River is a tautology. This does not particularly concern me and for the time being at least, I can let the matter rest here.

2 My second revision dealt with the contents of the Cablegram dated 15 May 1948. While the Arab States stated that the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine, Nowhere in the Cablegram is it stated that it is their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine", in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. Rather the Arab Governments say that they find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

I note that the paragraph talks about a Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. A reading of the Report of 3 September 1947, and of the Resolution of 29 November 1947 indicates it is rather an Arab and Jewish, two-state, UN Plan. I shall make the appropriate amendment. I await you comment on the point 2. Trahelliven (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not at cross-purposes, then. My reservations are solely in regard to point 1; I have no objection to your clarifying point 2. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arab-Israeli conflict isn't just a conflict between the military of Israel and the militaries of the Arab states. If this article is about the whole conflict since 1947 then the infobox should include the host of paramilitary groups involved.

On the Israeli/Jewish side during the 1947-1948 war we had Haganah, Irgun and Lehi and afterwards the Jewish Underground, Kingdom of Israel and South Lebanon Army, among others. On the other side we hav' Arab nationalist paramilitaries, Palestinian nationalist paramilitaries and Islamist paramilitaries. They include Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Arab Liberation Army, Army of Islam (Gaza Strip), Army of the Holy War, DFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, PFLP and a slew of others. Only some of theze groups hav' been supported by the Arab League. ~Asarlaí 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You report 90,000 in all the arab-israelian war since the start. Are you serious or what? There have been at least the same deaths only in the last Lebanon war and the total estimates are at least 2 million deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.153.253 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious

Those numbers are directly from your head — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.178.6 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2million??? your high count — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.33.15 (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should be called the Muslim Arab / Israeli conflict 98.118.62.140 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't how it's commonly referred to. --Jethro B 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There are both Christian and Muslim Arabs involved in the conflict. Calling it the Muslim Arab/Israeli conflict would be fundamentally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theapplethief (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There were plenty of Christian Arabs involved in the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.81.216 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been discussions in a few pages I noticed on fixing the map on the top right. I figure that this talk page is a better place for this discussion.

I will be working on the new map based on the second image on the right. There are a few things I'm sure to do.

• Fixing national boundary and Arab League countries. This means adding South Sudan, and excluding Western Sahara and South Sudan as members of the league.
• Not adding text or captions, making it language-neutral.

However, there is one point that I'm unsure about its factual accuracy and necessity to be represented on the map, thus I ask for your opinions.

• (comment source) Kuwait, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco were at war with Israel in the past (during the Yom Kippur War they contributed with arms and troops to the Arab contingents).--AndresHerutJaim (talk)

...and thus those countries should be coloured dark green. If not, how to rephrase the dark green category, which now reads "have been in war with Israel"? Hytar (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A good source is required for each and every country that was supposedly at war but wasn't one of the obvious combatants. Providing arms certainly does not count, unless you want to include the USA and other western countries that supplied arms to Israel. Zero^talk 13:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave the war with Israel colorations as is, just do the South Sudan correction - even Western Sahara I'd be tempted to leave since it's de facto part of Morocco (and the Arab League supports that claim), perhaps make it stripped to show its disputed status. Kmusser (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If the article on Arab League is a reference, I would not shade Western Sahara green, or even stripe it with grey. True, even if the Arab League hopes that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, it is still disputed by many international bodies.

So as of now, the decision is to remain the dark-green countries but fix the green ones to exclude South Sudan and Western Sahara. I'll open this topic for one more day, then I'll get to work. Hytar (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long pause, but I have updated the base map and captions as shown in the second picture. What do you think? Is it ready to replace the current map? Hytar (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The name "Southern Syria" was introduced into this article about a year ago, largely replacing "Palestine". I object to it on several grounds. (1) There was never a political entity of that name. (2) For the last decades of the Ottoman period, the official name Syria (Sam) applied to the vilayet of that name which corresponded roughly to modern Syria and Jordan. It did not extend west of the Jordan River, as in this map. (3) Since "Syria" in English writing sometimes referred to the entire region between Turkey and Sinai, the phrase "southern Syria" (usually small "s") can be found referring to this region, but this phase was much less common than "Palestine" and often, during the same time period, "Syria" was not taken to include Palestine (search for the phrases "Syria and Palestine" and "Palestine and Syria" in books of the 19th century to find a large number of examples). That is, the meaning of "southern Syria" was not universally understood in the pre-mandate period. (4) The great majority of modern scholars writing in English about this time period, including Israeli scholars, refer to this region as Palestine just like most writers of the time did. (5) Since the modern meaning of the phrase "southern Syria" is entirely different, by using it we are only causing confusion in the minds of casual visitors to the page. Zero^talk 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is campaign to remove "Palestine" and "Palestinians" from articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I have seen, it's nearly only Greyshark09 who is replacing "Palestine" with "Ottoman Syria" and "Southern Syria". It's really plenty of changes. It also seems that he thinks Palestine and Southern Syria are the same regions. I've seen him put it in parentheses and how he describes it. Others are changing it to "Eretz Israel".

Just compare this to this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is another example. This is from some years ago. Not only is it wrong not to use the term overwhelmingly used (Palestine) but it also confuses much, which this example clearly shows. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it now. Palestine is the common term and well-defined. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have wondered for a long time why we show the light green countries on this map. I finally took the time to read through the archives, and it seems that the reason is because the Arab League made a statement similar to declaring war on Israel in 1948.

But it turns out the none of the light green countries had joined the Arab League at that time - they joined in the 1950s onwards.

So unless someone can give another good reason (i.e. one which wouldn't logically mean we should add Israel's political supporters in light blue), I will remove the light green countries from the map.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this in more detail, the only countries who went directly to all-out war were Egypt, Syria and to a lesser extent Iraq.

Lebanon had a well-documented pre-agreement with Israel prior to the 1948 war, and did not participate in 1967 and 1973.

Jordan also had a pre-agreement in 1948, and did not participate in 1973. In 1967 it was solely on the defensive.

All the rest of the countries appear to be volunteer forces instead of full governmental mobilisation. Does anyone have any sources to suggest the opposite?

I propose we should have Egypt, Syria and Iraq in one colour, Lebanon and Jordan in another, and either (a) all of the rest in one colour with Israel's allies and suppliers in another colour or (b) none of the additional supporter countries highlighted.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Leaves out pertinent information on those countries that had technically been at a state of war against Israel and contributed to wars against Israel (e.g. military supplies, oil embargo, etc.). Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I presume this means you prefer the version where we add the US in light blue (military supplies, economic embargoes), and the UK and France in dark blue (fought alongside in the "Second Arab-Israeli War")? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, no. These countries weren't allied with Israel or openly supporting Israeli warfare against its Arab adversaries. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were. Please see well sourced info at Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel and Suez_Crisis#Forces. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To this same point, can anyone provide an WP:RS showing that the "Arab League" were ever at war with Israel? From what I can see, the declarations of war were country specific, and the idea that the Arab League went to war was based on incorrect dating (recently discredited) of the Azzam Pasha quotation.

If no supporting sources are forthcoming, I will remove the references and also the map as misleading.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you won't continue to make unilateral changes on what largely appears to be your own original research. Plot Spoiler (talk)

So to summarise, I asked you to provide RS to support uncited statements, and you said simply "no". I read that as a statement that you believe it cannot be supported. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the map is original research and it needs to be justified or removed. Oncenawhiles evidence based concerns are valid. Either the evidence exists and it is produced, in which case there is no longer an issue. Or the source evidence is not there and the material should be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I left "citation needed" re certain statements re the Arab League's participation, and after a few days of silence have now removed them.

I'll leave the map for another day or so, but unless someone can explain, for example, what on earth Comoros has to do with this conflict, the map will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, map now removed. New thread below re replacement. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the new map include either:

• Every country involved, such as those who provided military support (e.g. the United States and Soviet Union), those who fought alongside in specific arenas (UK, France, Soviet Union), and those from whom volunteers came to fight (e.g. the countries of the Mahal, and the same on the Arab side)?, or
• Only those countries primarily involved, and if so how do we define primary involvement given this conflict has been going for more than 65 years?

Any comments would be helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See some suggestions on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#How_to_summarise_a_65+_year_complex_conflict_in_a_single_map?. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Because this is such a controversial question without a clear answer, I think we should leave the article as it is now. The article itself addresses which countries Israel has had a war/conflict with, and to which extent. However, I'm not opposed to any of your suggestion. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am troubled by some recent edits by User:Theapplethief:

• I have reverted the addition of a paragraph about the viewpoints of Palestinian Christians.[6] My concern is that this section is "Religious aspects of the conflict" and describes religious views of Christians, Jews and Muslims. The paragraph added described views that were political rather than religious.
• I am concerned about the introduction of casualty figures from If Americans Knew[7]. I doubt that this organization is an RS. These figures appear to come from B'tselem. If we keep these figures then we need to attribute them to B'tselem and, ideally, the citation should be to a newspaper article or a similar reliable secondary source rather than to an advocacy organization.
• I am not sure that Rachel Corrie needs to be discussed in an overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[8]. I don't think this edit presents the case in a neutral way.GabrielF (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right about changing the citations to B'tselem. I do disagree about Rachel Corrie. The page consists of numerous references to violence coming either side of the conflict, and this particular detail is no exception. As for the edit regarding Palestinian Christians, I feel that the group as a whole has been neglected on this page, and I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the possibility of adding it in, for the sake of being both thorough and neutral.Theapplethief (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to adding information about Palestinian Christians, but I don't think that its appropriate in a section that deals specifically with religious viewpoints. I am ambivalent about including Corrie and would like to hear other opinions. GabrielF (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out, that when discussing Christian Zionists, it is pointed out that they support the State of Israel, and they enumerate the reasons. But I think that it could give the false impression that all Christians in the region are supportive of the state of Israel. I do understand your point though, and I would appreciate any help or advice on how to go about including the information, since I'm still learning.Theapplethief (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I find the lack only mention of Christians within the religious aspects of the conflict header being in relation to Christian Zionists very problematic. It's a tautology - of course Christian Zionists support Israel because that is what a Zionist is, a supporter of Israel by definition. Referring to Christian Zionists in such a way suggests that Christians tend to support Israel which is a false proposition. It would be like writing "Christian anti-Zionists support Palestine" and that being the only mention of Christianity in this context: hugely misleading. The founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was himself a Christian. While I understand that could be seen as political rather than religious, on the other hand the biggest Arab city within Israel is Nazareth, which is very much a Christian area, arguably the Christian significance explaining its survival while other Arab populations haven't remained within the borders of Israel. These Christians refer to themselves as Palestinians. Also, Bethlehem, while not holding anywhere like the contention of Jerusalem, is a holy site that presents a religious interest towards the issue. Many Christians still live in that area and go through the same treatment as Palestinian Muslims. I'm not going to edit this article, but I feel either the mention of Christian Zionism should be taken out and that paragraph be specific to Judaism and Islam, or a more expanded discussion of Christianity and the area is needed - explaining Nazereth, Bethlehem, Palestinian Christians in general (that exclusion is really quite shocking), the treatment of Christians within Israel and Palestine , Christian interest from outside the area (e.g. recent events at St James's in London, presence of the Church of Scotland being some examples), the Lebanese Civil War and the tension between Maronite Christians and the growing Palestinian population at the time, treatment of Christians and Islamization in Gaza and yes, Christian Zionism. It could be another paragraph or article in itself. Christianity within this debate is a lot less clear cut and a smaller voice than the other two Aramaic religions, but this isn't a reason for trivialisation or unbalanced statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.48.158 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Should this page be called Muslim-Israeli conflict? 216.221.57.189 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't about that. It's about the conflict between "certain Arab countries and Israel". Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been a wikipedian for a while (check my join-date) and I've been watching many articles closely related to Zionism, Judaism, and Palestine to keep creeping bias from setting in. From being forced to quote Simon Wiesenthal's biography as a "valid cited source" to having any edit of mine reverted that brings to light unfavorable viewpoints on Holocaust survivors (of whom many have profited heavily from their tragedy, as per Finkelstein and Chomsky) to having to remove most of the weasel words from the "Press TV" article that frame it in the context of "Pro-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli" there is no doubt a heavy favorable bias towards Jews on Wikipedia.

I personally think this is not part of some "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense, but rather the fact that at least 80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males, so they have the biases of that particular social class.

Anyway, as soon as I seen the title "Islamic terrorism" for an article, then "Jewish religious terrorism", I've come under the assumption that this encyclopedia will never fully reflect reality, or at least, accurately and report it in a non-biased fashion.

I'm going to step-up my patrol of "Israel-Palestine/Muslim-Jew" articles to be vigilant against the biases that often get ignored (or in fact, are there on purpose to portray a certain opinion) But if wikipedia becomes any more pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish (rather than non-biased) when it comes to dealing with Muslims or Israel, I may just throw in my towel.

Come on: Can we attempt to recruit more English speaking Muslims onto wiki, if that's the only way to counter this pro-western, pro-white, pro-jewish bias?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To further my point, the original "Culture of Israel" article had not a single mention of Arabs, Palestinians, or Islam--despite these demographic groups taking up as much as >20% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Israel

If you notice, all the additions on minorities and Palestinians in the first paragraph were originally put in by me.

Tell me how this isn't biased again?

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

..or maybe no-one bothered to add them until you did? It would only be bias if people were actively deleting the Arabic additions repeatedly. In reality nobody who knows about the Arabic section of Israel bothered to edit the page until you did. Also cut the rubbish about bias will you. Your entire post is riddled with your own bias. "80% of wiki's edits are from white college-educated western males", really do you have a source to back that up? Any facts? any extracted figures from the wiki database? No you don't you just attacked a section of the community because of your own chip against 'White College-Educated Western Males'. Try being less bigoted next time and maybe people will take you more seriously. Mishka Shaw (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's simply the nature of WP to ignore bias, under the grand notion that the world is not real and all knowledge is meaningless opinion and the prevailing edit is just about as good as any other edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.10.127 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In the "Belligerents" section in the infobox under the title "Palestinians" there is a short list of paramilitaries and organizations and "Gaza Strip". Shouldn't there be written ["Hamas" Hamas] and maybe even the "PIJ" instead, what about the involvement of Iran through Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria? In the "Commanders" section the list rarely includes commanders which did not participate in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I think the list better include some prominent leaders who were excluded (in both sides). Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas (maybe Anwar Sadat, Hussein of Jordan and Hamas leaders such as Ahmed Yassin, Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashal too) on the Arab side, and Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu (maybe Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir too) on the Israeli side. Looking for suggestions. EitanTs (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas did not control the Gaza Strip since 1987 nor did it begin to attack then. Neither were Naser and Arafat military commanders. This is why no Israeli Prime Minister or President is mentioned in the infobox. The same is can be said about the War on Terrors infobox. AcidSnow (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion weren't military commanders but the 1st president and PM of Israel respectively. Haj Amin al-Husseini or King Farouk I weren't military commanders either. While you are right about the War on Terror's infobox the same doesn't applies to many other conflicts (WWII for example), is there a specific policy about the subject? Besides, most the commanders on both lists served in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (I noticed only Ehud Barak who hasn't but I might have missed another person or two), while on other hand the list doesn't include Saad el-Shazly the Egyptian cheif of staff during the Yom Kippur/October War (which is considered by many Arabs and Israelis to be the biggest war between Israel and Arab countries after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War).

Hamas launched terrorist attacks against Israel since the 90's [9] as response to the Oslo Agreements and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2006 [10] (won the elections in January and drove the PLO forces out in December). The Israeli disengagement from Gaza did occur before, in Jun-Aug 2005. I'll repeat the argument I gave before, Gaza Strip is a geographical region and not an organization (where the list under the title "Palestinians" includes different organizations beside Gaza Strip). It is not recognized or proclaimed as an independent sovereign entity, not by Hamas nor by PLO (or any other organizations) since it's only a part of the Palestinian territories. Why not list the West Bank if we list Gaza Strip? EitanTs (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia in all the other languages has this useful Israeli Conflict 5.png map for the Arab–Israeli conflict (check "Global file usage"), but Oncenawhile removed it based on an old discussion without a clear result. I can't find logical objections to add this map, I guess Oncenawhile is just splitting hairs to find a reason to delete the map because Israel looks too small compared to its neighbors, which might give the impression that Israel is the "victim" or the "tiny country defending itself from more numerous enemies" (am I right?). How it is possible that all the other Wikipedias are wrong? I don't understand what's the problem. This map of the Middle East shows the countries belonging to the Arab League at the present (after all, this is the ARAB–Israeli conflict), and those which have been at war with Israel in the past. It seems pretty accurate to me. Egypt was at war against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1967-70 and 1973. Jordan fought against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973 (in the last case only indirectly, although it sent troops to the Golan during the Yom Kippur War). Lebanon had a limited participation in 1948. Syria fought in 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Iraq was involved in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen sent troops in 1948. I really don't understand why this is the only Wikipedia which excludes such a practical map. I'm waiting for an answer and other users' opinions.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed replacement map I have linked here is more accurate, and fits your description above, expect that you are incorrect re Yemen in 1948 (who were in the middle of their own internal conflict, and also re Saudi in 1948, where fighters which came were personal volunteers not representatives of the state (similar to the International Brigades in the Spanish civil war). The light green in the proposed map shows your point about Lebanon and Jordan. Both countries had then-secret pre-agreements with Israel in 1948; their participation was to defend the pre-agreed partition borders. And in 1967 Jordan was solely on the defensive.

With respect to the larger map, as is made very clear in the discussion above, the Arab League has never been at war with Israel. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya were French and British colonies in 1948 and did not participate in later conflicts either. As a result, the larger map is inaccurate and, as you correctly imply, propagandistic.

06:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your proposal for several reasons. But let's clarify your incorrect information first. Jordan was on the defensive in 1967?? Yeah, right! On the contrary, Israel was too busy fighting the Egyptians, so it didn't want to open a second front. That's why the Israelis sent a message to king Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war (the king replied by saying "it's too late"). Only when the Jordanian army began shelling Israeli cities – based on the false assumption that Egypt was winning the war – Israel invaded the West Bank. Jordan not only fought fiercely against the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but in both cases this country initiated the hostilities (unlike the Egyptian front for example, which was initiated by Israel in 1967, after a series of threats and provocations). This is a conflict in which the Arab League has active participation, and even those North African countries sent troops and aid to the Arab side in the 1967 and 1973 wars (that's why they should be included, although not in the group of nations that have been "at war with Israel" directly). That's why this is called the Arab–Israeli conflict. Because of your stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts, the most complete of the Wikipedias is the only one which has not a useful map in this article. I'm going to add proper references to restore it.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on you to build consensus here. Statements like "stubborn rejection to recognize widely known facts" do not resolve discussions, nor justify edit warring.

You are wrong about Jordan in 1967. Israel had destroyed their air force in Operation Focus by noon on the first day, before any fighting took place. As Hussein said after the Samu Incident: "if Israel launched another Samu-scale attack against Jordan he would have no alternative but to retaliate or face an internal revolt. If Jordan retaliates, asked Hussein, would not this give Israel a pretext to occupy and hold Jordanian or Occupied territory?". Jordan was never belligerent against Israel, and nor was Lebanon, hence the proposal to colour them differently from Egypt / Syria / Iraq. They are still highlighted on the map, as both countries government's were clearly very involved.

You are wrong about the North African countries. This has already been discussed above. Their governments sent no troops. If you want to include volunteers, then we need to also colour every country from whom Mahal volunteers came. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, apart from the threads above, this has also been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_124#How to summarise a 65+ year complex conflict in a single map? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that Operation Focus targeted only the Egyptian air force at the beginning. Israel carried out a preemptive strike only against Egypt. The Jordanians fired the first bullet (so to say), as well as the Syrians. Only then Israel responded against them (both from the air and on the ground). But I'm not going to enter in that discussion because that's not the main point. Why are you against including all the Arab League countries? Are you seriously doubting that the Arab League (all of their countries) were somehow involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict? Let's assume those North African countries didn't send troops... so what? I'm not suggesting to add them as belligerents! They are included in the map simply because they belong to the Arab League. It is really important if Jordan and Lebanon fought less than Iraq, Egypt or Syria? All of them sent units to fight Israel. And even Kuwait did it (although it's not included in the map). Saudi Arabia and Yemen are included because of the 1948 war. I can't understand why you oppose to this map. It's in all the other Wikipedias because is useful.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:CIRCULAR. The "other wikipedias have it" argument is ridiculous. The linked file has changed over time, and has had the same concerns raised at wikicommonsIsraeli Conflict 5.png.

Unless you can prove that any of the light green countries in your map have been "at war" with Israel, then those countries have no more relevance that Britain and France (who fought alongside Israel in the second incarnation of the Arab Israeli war), and many other countries who have provided logistical, financial and volunteer support to Israel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I would rather agree with Wlglunight93 per WP:OR and agree with Oncenawhile on the historical and analytical point of view. But per wikipedia, we have to follow sources and not try to correct the "mistakes" of historians. So I think wolglunight93 is right.

Note anyway that even if this didn't concern huge contingents :

• Saudi Arabia participated to the 1948 war and sent troops that fought alongside the Egyptians
• Libyan and Algerian aircrafts participated to the Kippur war
• this conflict is too complex to state there is an agressor and a defender particularly for Jordan 1967 whose troops were in the same chain of command as Egyptian ones.

Pluto2012 (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ykantor, please could you read the previous threads on this topic and then let us know your thoughts? To address your edit summary, the question is not just about deleting countries - we could instead add countries. In other words, Britain and France fought alongside Israel in 1956, the USA and other countries provided military and financial support to Israel in all the conflicts. Also Iran has been involved in a low level proxy fight on the other side since 1979. On the other hand, a number of the countries highlighted as being in the "Arab league" have no relevance to the conflict at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For a few examples of the conflict being called the Middle East conflict, please see:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a "Middle East conflict" (a conflict in the Middle East). Many other Mid-east conflicts are also named a "Middle East conflict". It can be also "the Middle East conflict", concerning a conflict discussed in an article:

"Middle East conflict: 500 women and children buried alive by Islamic extremists, claims Iraqi minister" [17] (about Iraqi ISIS conflict)

"Prolonged Middle East conflict could hit broader markets, say bond investors" [18] (about Arab Spring)

"Markets on edge as Middle East conflict escalates" [19] (about Syrian ISIS conflict)

GreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have various issues with bias in this sub-section, which I would like to address, but before editing I want to present them for discussion in “Talk”. 1) The first paragraph states that a new state was declared with no mention of borders. While this is not disputed, the declaration of independence makes a justification link to the UN resolution (181) of November 27, in which borders were indeed defined. The current text creates the impression that there was nothing to govern the extent of the new Jewish state. This is therefore an inappropriate impression. I plan to draw attention to the reference to UN General Assembly resolution 181 in the Israeli declaration of independence with its definition of partition borders. 2) Paragraph two provides that the source of the depopulation of Arab settlements, i.e. refugee creation, is shared between the Arabs and Israel, without assigning decisive causes between the parties. In fact scholarly research is available which can provide a much more perspicacious definition of the reasons for flight. I believe that this should be substituted for the currently vague text. In this regard there is repetition with the subsequent sub-section, and I seek suggestions as to how to resolve this. 3) Paragraph 3 contains unsupported text of expulsions of Jews from Arab countries, and in the case of Algeria fails to explain that the expulsion was not just of Jews, but of all ‘pied noir’, creating the false impression that this expulsion was anti-Semitic. This is easily corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"A Jewish bus equipped with wire screens to protect against rock, glass, and grenade throwing, late 1930s"

This needs source and explanation. It doesn't even say where it is. Was it like the Jewish-only buses operated by the State of the Jewish People today? Keith McClary (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "Jewish bus" was common in that period. There were buses that served locations where Jews lived or worked, and similarly "Arab buses". However the acceptability of this image is doubtful. It comes from a propagandistic book for children [20]. As well as that, the source does not identify the time period. The caption there reads "Jewish residents of Palestine developed some unusual methods of self-defense. To prevent Arabs from tossing grenades into crowded buses, they attached protective screens to the windows." Zero^talk 08:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)