Talk:Six-Day War

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 [1] 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)

Just ask the Africans if official borders matter after large wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.158.87.32 (talk) 14:33, 26 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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)

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: [2] Thoughts? JRHammond (talk) 13:04, 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)

• 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 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:

1. 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 Wikipedia does not assume an editorial voice. This edit gathers support for an editorial position.
2. 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.
3. 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 Wikipedia:

• '"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 Wikipedia 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.[ Eban: "From the moment at which the blockade was posed, active hostilities had commenced, and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights."]
• 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. [Actually, what I kinda hope is that you'll write a nice succinct two or three sentences or even a paragraph about it, with a wikilink to the relevant legal article, then go to that legal article and edit your heart out]. 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. [Also see nableezy's excellent quote above about occupation and legality; this is a very nuanced topic]. • 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 [3], 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)

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 Wikipedia policies:

1. No Wiki policy requires that any article follows any "consensus of international community". In fact, any such consensus is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a pocket encyclopedia of the United Nations.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia only reports all significant viewpoints without taking sides in disputes. You basically advocating that Wikipedia 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)

I'm not. I'm arguing that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

You have to read what I wrote in the context of my above discussion with Ling.Nut, where we examined the implications of a specific event to the current consensus on the dispute over international law. As I made clear in the discussion you and I are having, the determining factor is how the consensus is reflected in the secondary sources. And here, it's quite clear: the view of the international community is uncontroversial, common knowledge. You will find a comparatively minute number of scholars who argue that the lands occupied (and annexed) by Israel should be considered part of its lawful territory. Whether or not the term "borders" is applied, you have to consider its usage in context - for instance, you will most often find that when the writer uses the term to describe the outlines of Israeli territory, this is accompanied by an extensive clarification of the unlawfulness of acquiring territory by war, the presupposition of withdrawal to the armistice line of 1949, the undisputed illegality (sometimes mentioned as war crimes) of annexation and transfer of the indigenous populace to such territories, etc. Here, the consequences of fairly applying WP:WEIGHT becomes apparent: Since the predominant scholarly view refutes the notion of expanding borders by means of warfare, we are obliged to reflect this in our phrasing. If the term borders is used; and I am willing to consider a compromise, as I've stated before; this must be qualified in immediate connection to the term, as is commonplace in the source material. Shoplifter (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

we are obliged to reflect this in our phrasing In this case the word "border" should be used as the most common term for the de facto outer boundary of Israel. you will most often find that when the writer uses the term to describe the outlines of Israeli territory, this is accompanied by an extensive clarification of the unlawfulness This strains credibility. I do not think authors give a lengthy explanation after every word "border" used—there may be dozens of them even in a medium sized book. If want clarity you can simply insert "de facto" before "border", because the lead is not a suitable place for long explanations. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your reasoning is here. Are you saying that, if we assume that the term "borders" is widely used to describe the outlines of Israeli-controlled territory in the secondary sources (which is yet to be proven), WP should use the same description without qualification, even though it is widely qualified in the same sources? In saying that it "strains credibility" that the usage is qualified in the sources next to every instance of the term, how does that affect our choice of phrasing? If a writer begins a treatise by describing an aspect of the conflict, and qualifies his use of terminology, he would surely intend for that reasoning to equally apply to all instances of the same term being used. WP:WEIGHT requires that we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". Do you think it's fair to say, in the lead, that the war provided Israel with new borders, when the scholarly consensus is that it didn't? Respectfully, I don't think you are fully apprised of the implications of applying WP:WEIGHT. As I mentioned, we are obliged to make a fair assessment of the source material to accurately reflect the scholarly consensus. At the bare minimum, there should be some sort of qualification. I would hope this isn't even controversial, given the predominant legal appraisal of the war. Shoplifter (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are again conflating de juro with de facto. Israel has de facto borders that are not recognized by the international community. There is also a consensus that these borders are illegal from the point view of the international law. However nobody disputes that they are de facto borders of Israel. (That would be silly.) Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right (I don't think I conflated that, but it's fine). So do you agree that we should qualify the fact that the borders are not recognized by the international community, as reflected in the source material? Shoplifter (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not think that the word "border" implies that it is a "legal border". But I proposed above to use "de facto border" in the lead instead of "border". As to explanations, the lead is a short summary of the article, so overly lengthy explanations should be avoided. Actually the vague last sentence in the first paragraph (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.) can be replaced with something more specific. It can say, for instance, that Israeli military acquisitions during the war (including its new borders) are considered illegal under international law. Ruslik_Zero 11:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This, I think is a fair resolution. Some sort of caveat in connection to the word border, and a fuller explanation earlier in the lead (it doesn't have to be longish, as you point out). The important thing, I hope we can agree, is clarity. This was my gripe to begin with ("defensible boundaries" does not achieve this.) We don't obscure the issue, and it's a reasonable reflection of the sources to use certain terms, when they are sufficiently defined. Shoplifter (talk) 12:13, 19 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)

De facto the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel in 1967. The disputes centers only about de jure aspect of the conflict. The international community is not happy with the current arrangement do not want it to be in this way, but facts are clear: de facto the territories belong Israel. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The West Bank and Gaza became OCCUPIED by Israel in 1967. De jure and de facto OCCUPIED. This is a non-controversial point of fact. JRHammond (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

De facto is about who really controls the territory not about how it is legally called (The latter is de jure.) Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the progress on this article for some time, and having read through this thread, I have to agree with Ruslik0 that several editors appear to have misconceptions about what Wikipedia is for. UN resolutions may be reliable sources, but they are reliable primary sources for what the UN has resolved about international consensus. Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable secondary sources have to say: we make no new analysis of primary source material here. Secondary sources will almost certainly represent the UN position as important, but the UN has also proven to be ineffectual at times. Our goal is to report the current state of human knowledge according to reliable secondary source, not to state The Truth (TM).

Just to take the latest point as an example: "Suggesting that Israel expanded its "border" as a result of the war would mean that the West Bank and Gaza became part of Israel." What reliable sources state and what Wikipedia reports as a consequence do not suddenly change what is true. The West Bank and Gaza are currently part of Israel to the extent that Israel (in the sense of its government and military forces) currently occupies these territories, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia has no opinion as to whether this is right or wrong, or what a just future settlement would be. We simply report what reliable secondary sources have to say to inform the reader so that they can make up their own mind about the issue. This neither condones nor admonishes the occupation: all such opinions should be attributed to other sources.

The main reason this article is under protection now, in my view, is that some editors have not yet taken these distinctions on board. Please listen to the repeated statements by uninvolved editors to this effect: Wikipedia is not part of the conflict, but an impartial observer, reporting on the best information we have. Geometry guy 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed this when this was posted, if there is a bigger reason for the disagreements on this page I don't know of it -- Geo has put his finger right on it and I encourage all editors to keep the dialog going. --WGFinley (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors reminded to utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions

WP:PSTS allows the use of primary sources that have been reliably published. The government of Israel called the boundaries in the Middle East after the Six Day War "Cease Fire Lines". [4] Efraim Karsh is a secondary source who explains that the boundaries are formally armistices lines, cease fire lines, and separation lines. See Peace in the Middle East: the challenge for Israel, by Efraim Karsh [5] Several international treaties require states to report on any territories that are subject to their jurisdiction. Israel has reported for many years that the West Bank and Gaza are "areas that are not subject to its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. As for "de facto control", Israel claims that "the overwhelming majority of powers and responsibilities in all civil spheres (including economic, social and cultural), as well as a variety of security issues, have been transferred to the Palestinian Council, which in any event is directly responsible and accountable vis-à-vis the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel says the Palestinian Authorities have taken on powers and responsibilities “with due regard to internationally accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law”. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 and E/1990/6/Add.32, paras 5-7.

165 UN member states recognize the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinians over the natural resources of the occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resource. [6] More than 100 countries have recognized the State of Palestine on their own initiative. See for example Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State". UNESCO. 12 May 1989 [7] 111 contracting State parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recently adopted the definition of the crime of aggression contained in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974.[8] That definition says that any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from an invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State is not only illegal, it is criminal. Those are reliably published third-party, or tertiary views. Per WP:ASF and WP:YESPOV. Editors can, and should, assert facts about all of those opinions and clearly distinguish between the majority and minority views. harlan (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The government of Israel called the boundaries in the Middle East after the Six Day War "Cease Fire Lines" What are trying to prove? That "Cease Fire Lines" can not be borders? There is a Military Demarcation Line between North and South Koreas, which for all purposes is the border between two countries, while formally remains a temporary "Cease Fire Line". Karsh on the page 112 writes: ... from offensive, cross-border interventions to a defensive mode of protecting Israeli border. In other words the word "border" is not controversial if used in relation to the outer boundary of Israel. There are other examples from the same book. What you wrote in the second paragraph is interesting but irrelevant for this discussion, because it has no bearing on where the de facto border is. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik, we are not here to discuss your pet theories. If you don't have any sources which explicitly support your views, then please stop spamming the talk page. The statements of the government of Israel that I cited literally contradict everything in your postulation. Here are some additional sources which will hopefully clear-up some of your "misconceptions".

Palestine was a mandated state that was recognized by many other countries, including the United States government. See Kletter v Dulles, United States District Court, District of Colombia - in Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [9]

Palestine shared international borders with other states, including a League of Nations member state (Egypt), and two UN member States (Syria and Lebanon). Israel did not claim, and did not inherit the borders of Palestine. The declassified minutes of "Sitting 3 of the People's Council" of Israel on 14 May 1948 say that David Ben Gurion deliberately chose to evade (he said he chose that word carefully) the issue of borders. He said that he wanted to leave the question of borders open to wartime developments. See Netanel Lorach, Major Knesset Debates, Volume 1, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/University Press of America, ISBN: 0819183423, page 53. Israel did not occupy all of Palestine, and Arab Palestine did not cease to exist (see below)

So, "Israel" had no legally defined borders when it launched attacks across the Egyptian border from the territory of Palestine in 1948, e.g. [10] On page 112 Karsh is talking about those cross-border attacks of earlier years in light of the developments subsequent to 1990 (see page 111). That is the period of diplomacy after the Egypt-Israel Arbitration Tribunal established the location of the border between the two states. The discussion I cited concerned Karsh's views regarding the formal status of the boundaries post-1967, i.e. armistice lines, cease fire lines, and separation lines.

According to D.P. O'Connell (author) and Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Israel was not a successor of the state of Palestine. O'Connell discusses the law of state succession in connection with the concessions; public debts; and international treaty obligations of Palestine. On pages 10-11 O'Connell explains that Israel denied that it was a successor to any previous government. He writes that Israel came into existence by its own act and that resolution 181 contained provisions regulating the change of sovereignty which were never implemented by Israel. "A conference was held at Tel Aviv in July 1949 between Israel and Great Britain for the purpose of settling disputed questions arising from the change of sovereignty. There was not, it was alleged, an organized substitution of one State for another to which rules of international law would apply. Israel came into existence by its own act and exercised sovereignty without having, it transferred from any predecessor." On page 178 O'Connell explains that "Article 28 of the Mandate and the UN resolution of 29 November 1947 provided that the successor government that followed the mandatory administration should honor the treaties and financial obligations incurred by the mandatory during the period of the mandate. [That included boundary treaties with the neighboring states, e.g. Agreement between His Majesty's Government and the French Government respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hámmé, Treaty Series No. 13 (1923), Cmd. 1910.[11] However at a conference convened in Tel Aviv on 4 July 1949 Israel said that it regarded itself in no sense a successor of the Palestine administration." In 1950 Israel formally denounced the mandate era treaties in response to a UN Questionnaire. See page 21 para 23.[12]

You mention the Military Demarcation Line between North and South Korea. The United States, Great Britain, and other countries recognized the political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. They also recognized the sovereignty of the combined entity, "Jordan", over the new territory. See British House of Commons, Jordan and Israel (Government Decision), HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 [13]; US State Department, Digest of International Law, vol 2, 1963, Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), pages 1163-68; Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921.[14]; and Joseph A. Massad, Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001),ISBN 0-231-12323-X, page 229. Jordan was an entity comprised of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. It was a contracting state party to the Geneva Convention. Half of the seats of the lower house of parliament were reserved for representatives from the West Bank. States do not cease to exist simply because they are illegally occupied.[15]

In 1966 the members of the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed, "the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966... constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel." [16]

Article 3(2) of the Peace Treaty between Jordan and Israel established a boundary between the two states "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967." [17] Israel withdrew from Gaza and subsequently declared it an "enemy entity". [18] Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009) recalled resolution 242 and stressed that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 that will be a part of the Palestinian state. The Washington Post recently interviewed Mark Regev and reported that "Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict." Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea. Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law expressed surprise, because that document only applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. [19] harlan (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You continue to purposefully conflate de juro and de facto. This, of course, allows to push your POV while claiming support of so many reliable but absolutely irrelevant sources. Ruslik_Zero 11:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no universally accepted legal difference or definition for the terms de facto or de jure. [20] In the reports that I cited, Israel claimed that the territory is "part and parcel of an armed conflict." That means there are still armed belligerents in the field contesting the control and title of the territory. The majority view is that Israel's de facto boundary is the Green Line and that it can only be changed by mutual consent. You keep making totally unsourced claims about the magical difference between Israel's de facto vs de jure control of the territory of other existing states in 1967. I supplied a map of the 1967 cease fire lines from the State of Israel's MFA website and a reliable secondary source who says the status of the boundaries in the Middle East after the 1967 war were formally armistice lines, cease fire lines, and separation lines. You have avoided repeated requests for citations to a reliable published source that explicitly supports your postulation on Israel's expanded borders. So, it is probably time to either take this discussion to your user talk page or the Fringe theory noticeboard. harlan (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion of the difference between de juro and de facto recognition of a state (not its borders) relevant? I am afraid but your using this source to support your position amounts to WP:SYNC. An please, do not try to silence your opponents by calling their points of view "fringe". As to sources, I cited some elsewhere on this page. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you offered only Karsh as a source for your argument regarding borders, did I overlook any? un☯mi 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between deportation and forcible transfer is recognized in customary international law. Deportation relates to involuntary transfer across national borders, while forcible transfer relates to involuntary transfers within a state. In the Tadic and Milosevic cases, the criteria for recognition of statehood contained in the 1933 Montevideo Convention was applied to determine if the prosecutor had presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction regarding involuntary transfer. See for example The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic - Case No. IT-02-54-T [21] The requirement for a "well defined territory" and tacit (de facto) recognition of the government as evidenced by relations with other states and contact with UN organs were the prime considerations. The fact that the Security Council established the Green Line and considered the raid against the Hebron area an attack on "Jordanian territory" are not without relevance.

One result of the Six Day War was that the population of Palestinian villages like Beit Nuba, `Imwas (Emmaus), and Yalu were displaced, and that UNSC resolution 242 was adopted. Alexander Orakhelashvili has noted that Resolution 242 requires a just settlement for those refugees. ‘Just settlement’ can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians. Orakhelashvili, explains that the Security Council cannot be presumed to have adopted decisions validating mass deportation or displacement because such expulsion or deportation is, and was, a crime against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. In any event, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would prevent the Israeli and Palestinian authorities from adopting a final settlement that violates any norm of customary international law. See Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions", The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1, page 80. I think that disposes of your incompetent claim that I'm engaging WP:SYNTH. This is not supposed to be a chatroom. If you don't have any reliable sources that support your theory, please stop spamming the talk page. harlan (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between deportation and forcible transfer is recognized in customary international law. Deportation relates to involuntary transfer across national borders, while forcible transfer relates to involuntary transfers within a state. I actually do not understand what you are talking about? If you have not yet noticed, we are discussing whether the word "border" can be used to describe the outer "de facto" boundary of Israel. Some people demonstrated a strange aversion to the use of this uncontroversial word. So, I do not understand what a ruling of the ICTY has to do with the question under consideration? I can only guess that you trying to prove that a some Palestinian state currently exists in the WB and Gaza and this state is the same state that USA recognized in 1932. But this is a clear synthesis. Ruslik_Zero 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course primary sources are permitted on Wikipedia - we'd have no plot summaries otherwise! What matters is how primary sources are used. As editors, we all have our own worldviews, and when we read a "fact" or other information, we interpret it according to our worldview. Readers are no different and there is nothing wrong with that per se. However, Wikipedia articles should not be based on the worldviews of the editors, but organized around reliable secondary sources.

A primary source is a reliable source for what it states. It is not a reliable source for the correctness of what it states beyond uncontested facts, and the latter are often found in reliable secondary sources as well. A third party view is not the same thing as a tertiary source: it is a primary source for its own opinion, and a secondary source for material incorporated from other primary sources. It is only a tertiary source where it gathers together secondary source material like an encyclopedia does (in which case it is usually better for Wikipedia to refer to those secondary sources directly, because we do so according to WP:NPOV, whereas the third party is not so constrained).

Primary sources can help us judge the reliability of secondary sources: for instance, we can spot devices such as selective quotation. However, extensive discussion of primary source material, without secondary sources to guide the discussion, may lead to OR by synthesis. Such discussions miss the point of Ruslik's initial post, and my comment above: Wikipedia is for readers, not editors. We are not here to tell The Truth, to put the world right, or to fix what the secondary sources say, but to report what they say and let the reader decide. Geometry guy 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Geometry guy stop spamming the talk page with platitudes and cite a published source (any published source) that is relevant to improving the article.

I'm citing secondary sources that support everything the primary sources say. They explicitly contradict Ruslik's pet theory. You and Ruslik are abusing talk page policy and the WP:ARBPIA reminder that editors must utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions. Those blue things in my posts are citations to material that can be used to improve this article. Where are you hiding yours? harlan (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent reference, so let me quote its other assertions:

"Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors."

"Wikipedia cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict."

"What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict."

"The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated."

I am contributing in good faith to this talk page: "Geometry guy stop spamming the talk page with platitudes" does not assume such good faith. I have no agenda and have not contributed to the article beyond copyediting. The problem with this article is one of entrenched editorial positions. My comments are aimed at bringing this into the light so that editors can resolve them.

If you look honestly in the mirror, you will see both your qualities and your flaws. Geometry guy 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm am discussing very well-known published viewpoints that are relevant to the topic. At this point, good faith requires that you and Ruslik provide published sources to support the hotly disputed and contentious assertions that have been made here and to keep your opinions about the other editors to yourself. harlan (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) You have now twice told me what I should not post on this talk page when my posts have all been entirely acceptable. (2) Ruslik0 and I are independent editors who have not corresponded on or off wiki about this matter, and we are focusing on quite distinct issues. (3) I am assuming other editors are contributing with good faith, but am trying to illuminate the wider picture so that the futility of the dispute and ways forward become more apparent; I am otherwise uninvolved in this dispute. Thank you for taking this on board. Geometry guy 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am really curious about what "hotly disputed and contentious assertion" I have made? Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability It says that "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

The material in the lede on "borders" has been challenged. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explain that talk pages are for polite discussion serving to improve the encyclopedia, and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject. So far, all you have done is express your personal opinions on the subject. The WP:NOR policy on opinions is that Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. If you can't document the acceptance of your ideas and views by at least one reliable source, then they are either fringe theories or original research. harlan (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have documented everything. I advise you to read all the discussion. And, please, stop lecturing others who have more experience with Wiki policy than you has. Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, you write above What reliable sources state and what Wikipedia reports as a consequence do not suddenly change what is true. The West Bank and Gaza are currently part of Israel to the extent that Israel (in the sense of its government and military forces) currently occupies these territories, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia has no opinion as to whether this is right or wrong, or what a just future settlement would be. We simply report what reliable secondary sources have to say to inform the reader so that they can make up their own mind about the issue. This is hard to understand. Of course we follow reliable sources. What we believe to be true, or even what is true is secondary. But only a microscopic fringe of sources would agree with "The West Bank and Gaza are currently part of Israel to the extent that Israel currently occupies these territories." Would we, or did we say that Germany or Iraq were part of the USA when the USA occupied them? So we must avoid any terminology that could be read to imply this uncontroversially incorrect statement.John Z (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

By the power of selective quotation (in the latter part of your reply) you have found me in disagreement with you when I am not. Let me quote the entire sentence with emphasis: "The West Bank and Gaza are currently part of Israel to the extent that Israel (in the sense of its government and military forces) currently occupies these territories, nothing more, nothing less." In other words these territories are no more a part of Israel than the fact that it occupies them.

There is, however, a difference between this occupation and the occupation of Germany and Iraq, in that the occupying nation disputes the status of the occupied territory, and a settlement on national borders has not been agreed by all those involved in the conflict. I am not personally, and never have been, sympathetic to Israel's position, especially the most extreme version. However, to regard Israeli and pro-Israeli views as "fringe" (as some editors apparently want to do) makes no sense to me as an uninvolved editor, because Israel is one of the most significant parties in the dispute. Geometry guy 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. Two problems: saying they are part of Israel is so very far saying it occupies them that even your full statement sounds bizarre, just as it would with US / Iraq. I think that you are confused about Israel's position; Israel now denies it occupies Gaza, its arguments have had some merit. It does not deny that it occupies the West Bank, and in fact has said it does occupy it in military orders and in submissions to its supreme court, which agrees, and in various international agreements.John Z (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It hangs a lot on the meaning of words. If meaning is derived from international law, then any statement that the West Bank is part of Israel sounds bizarre. If instead it is derived from popular perception (in particular, the perception of a typical reader), then it does not sound quite so bizarre, given that Israel has occupied the West Bank for over 40 years. Incidentally, when you say "West Bank", do you include East Jerusalem? Thanks for clarifying my confusions. Geometry guy 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Geometry guy, we are supposed to follow the terminology used by quality sources. The fact is that most sources do clearly state that the territory is occupied, they do not represent the Israeli pov that the annexations are valid. If you have sources that support your position, please present them. un☯mi 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you consider my position to be. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that you are trying to argue against language that includes "Occupied". If this is an erroneous interpretation then you have my apologies, as well as my request that you state your desired outcomes more clearly. Best, un☯mi 01:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted (as I have nowhere argued against such language). My desired outcome is to have an article written with the needs of the typical reader in mind. Geometry guy 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, are your published sources?

Ruslik and Geometry guy, some viewpoints have become so "entrenched" with the majority of peoples everywhere that they have become "compelling" customary international laws. Wikipedia editors are going to mention those in articles about wars. They are relevant, and are given considerable weight in the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

Ruslik, you've demanded that other editors here "adhere to what sources say". However the only published sources you've mentioned are Maoz and Karsh. They do not make any claims that the 1967 cease fire lines have become "the de facto outer boundary of Israel". Can you please supply the citation which documents that statement of yours?

You say that the term "expanded borders" is uncontroversial, since it is based upon effective control. Territorial revisions based upon de facto or effective control are called "prescription". Those claims are inherently controversial.[22] Prescription is never applicable in cases where the inhabitants contest the new claim to the territory. Neither Maoz nor Karsh use the term "expanded borders" or claim that the status of the boundaries in the aftermath of the Six Day War is "uncontroversial". Can you please provide the citation that documents that statement of yours?

Israel's attempts to use a combination of military conquest, the "missing reversioner" theory, and prescription to justify the enlargement of its borders to include East Jerusalem and portions of the West Bank that were subsequently annexed to Jerusalem have been contested by the inhabitants, the former sovereign, and the international community. See for example the discussion of the Wall in "Conquest and Annexation;"[23] and the general disscussion in "Occupation and Prescription" [24]

You said that UN resolutions are not reliable sources because they are written by politicians. Maoz and Karsh are silent on that subject. Legislation in many countries is routinely authored by politicians. Many monist and dualist legal systems integrate UN Security Council resolutions into their domestic law, either directly or through implementing legislation, e.g. [25] The member states have routinely ratified multilateral conventions that are contained in resolutions and have even acquiesced to the establishment of several international criminal tribunals that operate in accordance with the provisions of UN resolutions.

The Stimson Doctrine and the related League of Nations Lytton Commission were not new-fangled ideas. Eyal Benvenisti says that national self-determination was the reason the prohibition on unilateral annexation and the principle of territorial stability were enshrined by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. [26] A dispute between the religious communities of Palestine over the right of access to Christian shrines was the putative cause of the Crimean War. All Ottoman communities were subsequently placed under the protection of European public law, when the Sublime Porte was admitted to participate in the Concert of Europe. See International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO, editor Mohammed Bedjaoui, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, page 7.[27] The ICJ noted that guarantees of freedom of movement across the Green Line can be traced back to safeguarding provisions contained in the 1949 Armistice agreement, the UN partition plan; and the British Mandate. Among other things, those instruments secured the existing rights of the Palestinians that were contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1879). See paragraph 129 [28]

The American states, including the US, had also been incorporating prohibitions of territorial conquest and colonial occupation in their international law ever since the First International Conference of American States in 1890, e.g. [29] I've provided references above which say that the United States and other countries recognized the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. The US said that it had come about as the result of a plebiscite that reflected the will of the two peoples.

§ 202 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says that the United Nations Security Council, acting within its mandatory authority, can impose upon the member states an obligation not to recognize or accept the incorporation of a state into another state as a result of conquest in violation of the Charter. Security Council resolution 242 emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war in accordance with the UN Charter - and the Security Council subsequently decided that all States, including the United States, are under an obligation not to recognize or assist the illegal territorial situations that resulted from Israel's attempts to incorporate lands located beyond the Green Line into its sovereign jurisdiction. See John Dugard, Recognition and the United Nations (Cambridge, UK: Grotius, 1987), page 113. harlan (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1. However the only published sources you've mentioned are Maoz and Karsh. They do not make any claims that the 1967 cease fire lines have become "the de facto outer boundary of Israel" They simply call this "de facto outer boundary of Israel" border of Israel. I have advocated that we use this word, but not confusing words like "perimeter".
2. claim that the status of the boundaries in the aftermath of the Six Day War is "uncontroversial" Please, do not put words into my mouth. I have never said that borders of Israel are uncontroversial, I only said that the word "border" itself is uncontroversial, because it means any line separating two geographical areas. The outer boundary of Israel separates it from the outside world and therefore is a border.
3. You said that UN resolutions are not reliable sources because they are written by politicians. Maoz and Karsh are silent on that subject. They are not Wikipedia editors and are not concerned with this question.
4. Many monist and dualist legal systems integrate UN Security Council resolutions into their domestic law. Does this make them reliable sources? The answer is no. The domestic laws are also not reliable sources.

The last three paragraphs are again about "de juro" aspects of the conflicts that are not under discussion here. Ruslik_Zero 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't have any published sources that support any of your postulations or else you simply refuse to abide by the WP:ARBPIA reminder to utilize published sources when making disputed or contentious claims. I've already provided sources above which explain there is no difference between de facto and de jure control when the controversial principle of "prescription" and "prescriptive borders" are being discussed. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, portions of the West Bank, and the Golan is certainly based upon the doctrine of occupation and prescription. harlan (talk) 06:19, 22 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, 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 ^talk 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)

Yo George! Unbeaten streak baby.

I was looking at the edit and modified my reasoning because I did not realize that JJG was trying on tack it onto a passage on the long term results. I agree JJGs line should not be there. However, that paragraph may need to be in the last paragraph or removed as you suggest. A line about the refusal to recognize the state could be in as the sources point to it being important background info. If we are going to discuss the results in such a fashion than surely such an important part of the background deserves some mention in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay closer attention before making arguments and presenting sources from publishers of books for children. That is not "such an important part of the background". The sources you provided are of low quality. Googling only gives you results for whatever it is you are already looking for. nableezy - 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono - Down with Marathon! And I don't disagree that the results should probably be the last paragraph in the lead.

Nableezy - Really not necessary to put another editor down. We're all working together towards the same goal of creating a great Encyclopedia. ← George ^talk 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone doubt that Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish state was the cause of the Six-Day War? Pre-war rhetoric was fill with blood-curdling chants of "itbach al-yahud" or "slaughter the Jews." This mantra was repeated over and over. Moreover, there was no "occupation" before the Six-Day War. Yet the Arabs, led by Egypt, still called for "throwing the Jews into the sea." So the question is why? why would they want to throw the Jews into the sea if there was no "occupation." the reason stems from the fact that the source of the conflict has nothing to do with the so-called "occupation" and everythingg to do the persistent Arab refusal to recognize a so-called "foreign implant" or Western dhimmi presence in the "plundered soil of Palestine." Therefore, this edit [30] is accurate and adds balance. In truth, I'd rather see the entire sentence that precededs it, 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, removed per the concerns raised by Cptnono. Also, it constitutes WP:SYNTH. It is summary opinion that doesn't belong and it is not encyclopedic. So I propose that either my edit be allowed to remain or in the alternative, the entire aforementioned sentence be removed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can doubt that. Can you explain how it is "synthesis" to say that a result of the war, the occupation of Arab territory, remains a central issue to the conflict. A lead section is supposed to be a summary, so saying it is "summary opinion" is close to meaningless as it is quite obviously not an opinion and being a summary is what it should be. Before answering how it is "synthesis" please read WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 03:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Jiujitsuguy proposal. Israel is a very small country, she is not up to the task to occupy anything. She wants to live in peace, and the only reason for all wars Israel fought has been her fight for her very survival. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Full-on support for a line in the lead about this aspect of the background. It is also clear that the "occupation" stuff would be more chronologically suited later in the lead if it needs to be in. And Nableezy prefers academic sources. I provided a source by educators for people going into college to create the sources he likes. Pretty neutral also. Disregarding it is laughable. Do you want other source? Really? I simply cannot believe that this is even disputed. But if you really really want I will pull up some more. I would rather get back to my soaps though. Has anyone asked for more sources on the occupation being part of the conflict related to this conflict? No, of course not.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for this partial revert[31] Nableezy. I usually give you a hard time about pushing the occupation thing (well usually it is with Israel, but same principle) but that was right on.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it must be balanced... what is this, Al Jazeera Arabic? Either take out all the crap or add in the sentence to show the other side. No brainer. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the removing it altogether for all the reasons previously stated but otherwise support Jiujitsuguy's proposal. Offered the following sentence to replace it: ""Besides adding to an already difficult refugee problem, the Six-Day war had far-reaching political and legal consequences." The refugee problem could be a "see also" and we could simply say that the 6 Day war had "far-reaching political and legal consequences." That would not be arguable, I think. 172.130.28.105 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These arguments are changing too swiftly to keep up with. I opened this section about an edit that introduced text saying the following:

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, as well as continued Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state are central concerns in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The sources for this statement are listed above. This edit presents the view that "Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state" is both a central concern in the I/P conflict today and that it is a result of the 67 war. Now you would like to cite this Arab refusal as a cause of the war, not an effect. That is a different discussion. If you want to discuss what sources say are causes for the war I suggest you at least widen your google search a bit. That is a much more complicated question than your search for a predetermined cause that led you to that fine book published by Gareth Stevens. Yes, the Arab states refused to recognize Israel. Yes, that could merit a mention, but there are many other causes for this war. To the IP, this isnt about a "side", Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" was not an outcome of this conflict, it isnt even a cause of the conflict. Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a state may be part of a cause, but, again, it is not an outcome of the conflict. You are seeking to add "balance" in the form of word counts, as in it says "occupation" once in this sentence so the same sentence must also say "Arab refusal". And on the talk page I ask that you either be more polite or log in with your account so that we can put a username to those barbs. nableezy - 05:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the topic has changed somewhat but luckily we are not bound by what your original intent was. There are tw and a half good questions here: Where does the occupation line go in the lead (if at all in the lead) and should the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a state be mentioned in the lead somewhere since it is so important to the background of the war? Would you prefer if I opened a new section and copy and pasted the responses in? I could simply make the changes as I want to but know that it might be contentious and would prefer the input first.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "occupation line" is following a line discussing the results of the war. The occupation of Arab territory is one of those results and it is one that continues to be a, if not the, defining issue of the overall conflict. Where else would it go? nableezy - 09:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a long term result so if it stays in the lead it should go next to the other line discussing a similar long term result: "The nature and outcome of the war caused a significant realignment in the competition for power between the Arab states, brought secular nationalism into widespread disfavor among Arabs, and led to a concurrent rise in the growth and influence of Islamism in the Arab world." It may be the defining issue for you but for many others it is the bombs and people being shot. I'm not really going to debate opinions with you (I understand how strongly you feel about it).Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an immediate result that has had long-term impact. The line is immediately after one that talks about Israel capturing those territories. You shouldnt try to "debate opinions" with me until you have read more than what a google search told you. nableezy - 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are basically saying "No you are wrong I am right" while disregarding the provided reasoning? I personally think that no matter what you are going to debate but when several editors tell you that that line is misplaced in the lead for different reasons you should consider the solutions available.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And please reread what I said since I mad eit clear that I did not want to debate opinions with you. That is not what we are here to do.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those reasons are spurious and the actual reason two of those editors want to remove that line is because it says occupied. The lead was crafted by many more users who reached a consensus on that version. I am not saying "no, you are wrong", I am saying you havent done enough reading to know what is right, or for that matter to know what is an "opinion" and what is well documented fact. The line is immediately following the occupation of those territories by Israel, there is not a better spot for it. nableezy - 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on here much lately, and lost track of much of this discussion, but quickly reviewing some of the commentary:

• Jiujitsuguy - Your contention is based on a shoddy foundation. Certainly (and unfortunately) there was some racism against Jews. Racism is a great rallying cry for any military campaign, regardless of if its Arab fearful of "evil Jews" or Jews fearful of "evil Arabs". However, from the Arab perspective, the establishment of Israel in 1948 constituted an immediate occupation Palestine - regardless of if the occupiers were Christian, Jew, or Martian. The fact that Palestinian refugees couldn't return to their homes following the 1948 war meant that hundreds of thousands of refugees were camped out in countries that didn't want them, and that couldn't support them. Arab aggression in 1967 was largely driven by an attempt to reclaim former Palestinian land to get rid of the refugees, less so by racism.
• Cptnono - I agree that moving the longer-term results to later in the lead makes more sense.
• Nableezy - I agree that this conversation getting derailed isn't useful. I agree with your original issue with JJG's edit; the discussion on the rest of this should probably spawn new discussions. But also we need to stay civil in these (often touchy) discussions. ← George ^talk 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One editor believes it belongs in the first paragraph while others commenting think it should at the very least be moved and maybe even removed from the lead altogether. It should be removed from the first paragraph to start but I don;t know if it should go with the other information discussing consequences or moved into a later section.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cause versus consequence

I've been looking into Jiujitsuguy's edits. This edit formed the basis of a 48 hour ban from the article, but resulted from Jiujitsuguy's misunderstanding of the reason for the language:

"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."

He thought that language concerned the causes of the war, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wgfinley&diff=prev&oldid=379168895 when the reason it is there in the lede is that the military victory in the Six Day War put Israel in the role of occupier of the lands and raised the issues associated with Military occupation. This error is understandable; at first I couldn't see why adding another cause to the list would be wrong, but it is, as general Arab, or Muslim, antipathy toward Jews is a cause of the whole conflict, the Arab-Israeli Conflict rather than being specific to the Six Day War. The acquisition of large chunks of territory where Israel plays the role of military occupier, and in some cases refuses to recognize that role, is specific to the Six Day War. Fred Talk 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it understandable to think this was a cause of the war when the sentence begins: "At the war's end..."? Not that it matters. I just find it odd that there could be any misunderstanding on that point. JRHammond (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He has a point he's trying to make, and it is a valid point that can certainly be sourced; it just doesn't belong in the lede to this article, at least not when conflated with the consequences of the war. Fred Talk 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it was in the wrong place but I do believe it is important enough to be in the lead per the sources provided above.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources Jiujitsuguy cited say that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was a cause of the Six Day War. So, it looks like WP:Synth editorializing that shouldn't be included in the article. Neither the editorial piece by Ron Prosor nor The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center article contain any mention of the Six Day War. The Council on Foreign Relations article mentions the territory that Israel occupied after the Six Day War, but contains no mention of a "Jewish state". The only mention of the Six Day War in the Haaretz article is this one: "The Palestinians recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, which Jerusalem demands, is meant to bolster Israel's position that rejects the return of Palestinian refugees to areas inside the Green Line - the border before the 1967 Six-Day War."

FYI Henry Siegman summed-up the opposing viewpoint: “The claim that Israel is the incarnation and defender of Jewish values is contradicted by its treatment of an Arab population that has now lived for over two generations under Israel's military subjugation. Israel's problem is not the Palestinian or Arab refusal to recognize it as a Jewish state. It is, rather, the increasing difficulty of Jews familiar with Jewish values to recognize it as a Jewish state.” [32] harlan (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that point is, or why the sentence doesn't belong in the lede. It isn't "conflated with the consequences of the war", it states plainly direct consequences of the war. What's the problem, exactly? JRHammond (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"None of the sources Jiujitsuguy cited say that recognition of Israel as a Jewish State was a cause of the Six Day War." sources have been presented since. It is important background information and there is no reason to omit a single line when it has recieved prominence elsewhere.Cptnono (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no. The source you gave, from a publisher of books for children, does not support the idea that the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" was a cause. The refusal to recognize Israel as a state may be a cause, but it is a cause with causes (the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 members of the native population and the destruction of over 200 villages, ...) If you want to discuss causes for the war great, but do some reading first. Googling for a predetermined cause will not help anything. nableezy - 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is academic. And many of those going into college are legally not children. You like academic. Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[33][34] Just a couple that are not for "children".Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Academic" does not mean what you apparently think it means. Those are not good sources, they arent written by established scholars in the field and they arent published by high quality presses. On top of that, they dont even say what you think they say. nableezy - 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Maybe it would be best to go to the RS noticeboard then because it makes zero sense to discount sources used in college level courses. And there are also other sources but I figured no one would actually dispute that this was part of the background. Are you sure you are not just trying to WP:WIN? Serious question. If you can honestly say you are not then we can keep on discussing it but it just seems so hard to fathom.Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont care about what you think, kindly keep your personal opinions about me personal. Have you not yet realized the subtle difference in the words "recognize as a Jewish state" and "recognize as a state"? Would you like me to explain it again, only this time I use smaller words? nableezy - 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already said that I didn't mind saying state in stead of Jewish state. So is it acceptable if we drop the Jewish part and just say that they did not recognize the state?Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the missing reversioner theory illustrates that non-recognition has always been a two-way street. Resolution 242 applied to Israel's belligerent occupation and the territorial integrity of Jordan, i.e. "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;" harlan (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A major part of the background was that the neighboring states did not recognize Israel. Resolution 242 was after the war.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There really is no inter-temporal issue. UNGA Resolution 194(III) addressed the right of the refugees to return to their country of origin, but Israel treated them as "infiltrators". The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the Palestinian refugees' right of return, every year, right-up until the Six Day War. Then they adopted resolution 242, which still requires a just settlement for the refugees. The General Assembly, the Security Council, and the ICJ have each called upon the member states not to recognize or assist Israel in connection with on-going flagrant violations of international law. The CERD panel of experts called upon Israel to ensure that "the definition of Israel as a Jewish nation state does not result, in any systemic distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin in the enjoyment of human rights" They also urged Israel "to assure equality in the right to return to one's country and in the possession of property." See CERD/C/ISR/CO/13. harlan (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is completely off topic though. Israel not being recognized is an important part of the background. I'm not placing blame by saying which side has done wrong so there isno need to convince me of anything.Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You of course are more than welcome to suggest that the information you are discussing needs to be addressed properly in the article but unless you have specific reasoning to assert that the recognition issue was not a prominent aspect then please stop arguing since no one appears to be arguing against what you are saying.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you raise the issue of recognition in this article, then the views of all the interested parties to the conflict have to be fairly represented. It is no secret that Israel deliberately refused to deal with the Palestinians at the Rhodes and Lausanne conferences and also refused to recognize the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan or the Arab League trustee government in Gaza. Many sources report the view that Israel is simply trying to eliminate the national rights of the Palestinian people under the guise of a peaceful solution to the Palestinian question, e.g. Neil Caplan, The Lausanne Conference, 1949: a case study in Middle East peacemaking, Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University, 1993, pages 41-42. The UN decision regarding non-recognition does not preclude Israel from complying with its international obligations and negotiating an agreed upon settlement in accordance with resolution 242. harlan (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the logic of this whole discussion. From what I understand, the suggestion is to include a statement about Arab nations' refusal to recognize Israel in the lede. What is the relevance for the Six Day War? Information not immediately relevant to the war, either a direct cause or direct consequence, should not be included in the lede. JRHammond (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious you don't follow it! :) You have been ranting about other issues. Not a big deal since it has meandered around so much. So if you take a moment to read the sources provided (I believe it is 4 right now) you will see that they link the recognition issue BEFORE the war as an important aspect of the background. It is even given prominence. So yes we can discuss the other recognition issues of course but right above, it is shown that more than 1 editor believe it deserves a line. JJG was wrong in putting it where he put it but it was the start of not a bad idea.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fact of my stating that I don't follow the logic of the discussion makes it "obvious" that I don't follow it, logically. That's not to say I haven't been following this discussion, as you wrongly imply with your inappropriate "ranting" remark. So, if I understand you correctly, you think that the article should state that the Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state was a significant cause of the war? If that's not correct, please clarify.

Now, turning to the sources, and even setting aside the ridiculous assumption that the demand that the Arabs must accept Israel as a "Jewish state" is valid or reasonable, we find: (1) The Guardian article doesn't even discuss the '67 war, except to an oblique reference to the "reunification" of Jerusalem -- a statement assuming the validity of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, which is rejected by the international community, as reflected in numerous UNSC resolutions stating that Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem are null and void, having no legal basis, and in violation of international law. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[35] (2) The IICC article does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[36] (3) The Haaretz article does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[37] (4) The ACJ letter does not even discuss the '67 war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[38] (5) The CFR backgrounder mentions the '67 in the context of the international consensus that a two-state solution should be based on establishing an independent Palestinian state along the Green Line, with minor and mutually agreed upon changes. There is no further discussion beyond that of the war. Moreover, this is a backgrounder on Hamas, which did not even exist in 1967, and so its statement "Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel" is totally irrelevant. This backgrounder does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was a cause of the '67 war.[39] So, like I said, I don't follow the logic of this entire discussion, which seems to me to be entirely moot. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You just brought up multiple sources that I was not even discussing so I don't follow you. The sources I brought up mention it in the first line. And for the third time: It does not need to say JEWISH state. Just state is fine.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources I referred to are those used by Jiujitsuguy in his edit. My observations apply whether or not "Jewish state" or just "state" is preferred. Those sources are irrelevant and don't support the assertion either way, so that's a moot point. Now, you say those aren't the sources you're referring to. Looking back, I see you cited the following: (1) Great Debates at the United Nations.[40] I presume you're referring to the sentence, "The Arabs refused to recognize Israel." But this statement is in the context of the aftermath of the war. It does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state/state was a cause of the war. (2) Israel's quest for recognition and acceptance in Asia [41] I presume you're referring to the sentence, "While we fully appreciate the dangerous nature of the present situation, it appears to us that the fundamental difficulty that dominates any attempt to find a solution is the refusal of the Arabs to recognize Israel as a sovereign state." But again, this is in the context of "the aftermath of the Six Day War". The source does not assert or support the claim that Arab refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state/state was a cause of the war. Those two are the only sources I see you've offered to support your proposition. Neither support your position, and so your proposition must be rejected. JRHammond (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the ones I presented first are better. "second line!again the second line and this is fromBarron's Educational Series." ( a few days ago) A single line stating that the nonrecognition was important to the background is good enough for the lead. I understand that you view the conflict differently and wish to dispute it but we have he sources verifying its prominence. I'm not making any claim that the Arabs are bad or anything.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Please explain the relevance of this source:[42] (2) This source presents Arab refusal to recognize Israel as background, but does not assert or support the claim that this was a cause of the '67 war: [43]. Now, if you wish merely to insert somewhere in the article that the Arab states refused to recognize Israel, I have no objection, but any such insertion should include a discussion, at least briefly, of their reasons for not doing so. JRHammond (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Both sources have it at the very beginning of their descriptions of the war. Why would we not follow suit? It is a single line that is of importance to the conflict. I could understand why you might be hesitant based on prominence (although I would disagree with you) but I don't see how you could even question the relevance. That makes no sense.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jordanian-occupied"

Epeefleche, in his very first edit to either the article or talk page, reverted my partial revert of the addition of "Jordanian-occupied". If I were paranoid I might be saying there is a pattern of certain users showing up at an article shortly after I edit it. But to the point; Epeefleche, would you care to explain why we should repeat "Jordnian-occupied West Bank" in the article? And also, do you think it would be "accurate and balanced" if I were to add "Israeli-occupied" to every mention of "West Bank" or "East Jerusalem" in a large number of articles, multiple times in each article? nableezy - 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts made without discussion here are in violation of the 1RR on this article and may be reverted. --WGFinley (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Nableezy made a revert first even if it was partial. It should also be noted that that was his second revert of the day. I think it was a fine edit but please do not allude to other editors doing something wrong when you made some mistakes yourself. No block came and it is probably stale but try not to do that in the future, Nableezy. Using the talk page more by all editors is a great idea. We should also address if we are making mention of "occupied" (Israel or Jordan) once in the lead and once in the body since both are usually treated differently MoS wise.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop discussing editor conduct on article talk pages. You have a problem take it to the appropriate venue. This is not it. nableezy - 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So any thoughts on if occupied needs to be in the lead and body once or just the lead?Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is quite hypocritical. Nableezy opened this section himself by questioning editor Epeefleche's conduct, and then defends himself by saying this is not the proper location. Huh? --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I opened the section questioning the edit. Kindly take your insults somewhere else. nableezy - 23:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You ignored this section until 10 hours after my content based follow up. And yes, It is hypocritical. Feel free to shoot me a message and I will explain why if you really all of a sudden are shying away from talking smack on talk pages (which of course is preferred).

So back on topic, see: So any thoughts on if occupied needs to be in the lead and body once or just the lead?Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How about you just stop making personal attacks on article talk pages? You are free to do so on my user talk page, not here. nableezy - 03:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How about you answer if you have any thoughts on it.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would I answer that? It is too trivial a topic for me to waste my time on. If you want to go about making sure there equal mentions of "occupied" you can spend your time trying to do that. nableezy - 05:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

??? It was your revert. You the started a discussion about it that you insist is content based. So content wise, what do you think?Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit repeated "Jordanian occupied" in the exact same context, the only two times the attack as-Samu is mentioned in the article. That was sloppy writing and I removed it the second time it was in, meaning that it stayed in the lead. Honestly, I should have changed which one I removed, Jordan's occupation of the WB is only background info in this conflict and doesnt merit mentioning in the lead. But my removing the material, the edit summary, and the section opening should have already made clear to you what I thought so why are asking me to waste more time on this subject? I dont care, that is the answer. nableezy - 06:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does not describe the territory between the partition plan and armistice demarcation lines as "Israeli occupied", e.g. "Jordanian troops opened a heavy-artillery barrage on western [Israeli-occupied] Jerusalem, & etc." The UN Security Council resolution regarding the es-Samu raid actually said: Observing that this incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel" [44]

"Jordan" was a legally recognized entity established as a result of the political union between the central districts of Arab Palestine (aka the West Bank) and Transjordan. It is ludicrous to claim that the indigenous Palestinians occupied themselves as a belligerent power after the 1948 civil war. The UN General Assembly voted unanimously to accept the credentials of the government of Jordan, which was constitutionally comprised of elected representatives from the East and West Banks. There is ample evidence available from third party verifiable primary and secondary sources which say that the governments of France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR had all recognized the post-armistice plebiscite and political union. For example, in 1978 the government of the United States published a memorandum, dated June 5, 1950, in the FRUS explaining that it recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the territory [45]. The notion that "Jordan" occupied the West Bank is part of the controversial Israeli "missing reversioner" theory. [46] harlan (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article

The article is called "Six Day War--Israeli perspective" by Judith Klinghoffer (who should really have her own article) from the History News Network. It would be interesting to see a similar article from the POV of the other side, since one is not quite sure what was going on in the minds of Nasser, the Soviet Union, or even the U.S. 172.190.51.198 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change Re: UNSC Res 242

I intend to again make this correction to the article once the protection is removed: [47]. So if anyone has any objections, please state them here. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

On another note, I have been blocked for a week for making this edit, correcting a point of fact supported by numerous authoritative sources, and User:WGFinley reverted it back to the unsourced (and demonstrably false) version. Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to create an environment in which editors can maintain and improve the quality of articles. It is a serious problem that admins see fit to "enforce" policies for the sake of enforcing policies not only with complete disregard for, but directly contrary to their clear purpose and intent. This a further issue I would like to address and find a solution to, so that those of us working in good faith to improve this article can do so. JRHammond (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have an objection, but it's based purely on formatting matters, rather than propositional truth or lack of truth. I quickly copy/pasted your footnote to my sandbox, and it makes a pretty good start for a new, separate article on that topic... which is precisely what I believe should be done with it. It would be quite OK, in a footnote, to have one sentence and a link to the new article. In fact, I would prefer it... to anticipate possible objections that there are other sections of the notes that are big enough to swallow a small Welsh village, I would say that working together with Jiujitsuguy to trim that humongous section of notes (replacing them with 2 or 3 higher-quality ones) is definitely an item on the To Do list.• Ling.Nut 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine how the Russian language version contains the word "the", although there could be some alternative formulation that means the same thing. Fred Talk 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I hear ya. I avoided making the edit a very lengthy one in the article, but at the same time felt it was necessary to deal with an objection on sources to provided a great deal of detail demonstrating the point in the footnote. I understand it will need cleaning up, but I figured that could happen once the attempts to revert it back to the false statement have finally stopped. Your alternative suggestion of starting a new section for this is something I have no objection to, although I believe there is already a Wikipedia article on that very topic. I was trying to keep the discussion of it here brief. But I'm all for it. JRHammond (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and there are 151 (not kidding) articles or lists that link to it. Maybe one of those is your best bet... • Ling.Nut 14:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gonna stick to Six Day War article, myself. Hard enough to find time for even one article, much less 151. JRHammond (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, but I have to return to my point: I would Oppose your addition, strictly 'cause the article is too stuffed full of factoids and long lists as it is. Too.. much.. stuff. • Ling.Nut 13:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll tidy up the references. I trust that will satisfy your objection. JRHammond (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

you have never addressed my objections above so I won't bother repeating myself like a broken record. the edit is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I would still be unhappy. My goals are for the article to be crisp, clean, bland, NPOV, well-written, coherent, cohesive, etc. Now, just because I'm "unhappy" doesn't mean I would engage in a revert-war. What it does mean is that at some point I would be actively engaged in searching for a cleaner approach. Until then, I would certainly let the edit stand, unless someone somehow pointed out a factual error. • Ling.Nut 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

and i have pointed out errors in the past, which were ignored. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that you removed well-sourced material on your own personal say-so and then offered a number of non-sequitur quotes that did not directly refer to the subject of your edit. If this article needs to be locked-down to protect it from confirmed editors, then we need to ask IPs to cooperate by not trying to prolong editorial conflicts on the basis of unsourced tendentious arguments. harlan (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

stop "flooding" the talk page harlan. the edit war at the 242 article is calling you. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm kinda lost in this little exchange. I don't see any objections by 174.112.83.21; perhaps they were archived? You don't have to log in, but things might be less confusing if you did. If everyone is civil and constructive, then we can have an end to the series of blocks that have been handed out to more than one editor. That wold be infinitely preferable. [OH, if any editors want to tack a snide "told you so" or "I know you are, but what am I?" or whatever on to my remarks, please resist the urge. I want the sniping to stop.]. • Ling.Nut 05:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please state your objection, User:174.112.83.21. User:Ling.Nut, I don't understand the problem. You think the edit is not crisp? What does that mean? Not bland? What does that mean? Not NPOV? In what way? Not well-written? How not? Not coherent? How not? Not cohesive? How not? If you're going to say you object, Ling.Nut, you need to explain what that objection is, specifically, so that I can try to address your concern. JRHammond (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Probably too long for a footnote, and more importantly, almost certainly belongs in some article other than this one (with a link to that article here, of course). In the other article, it would presumable be body text rather than a long footnote.. • Ling.Nut 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So, like I said, I'll clean up the footnote. It will be short and succinct, just citing the sources without the excerpts from those sources. That will completely satisfy that objection. As for your opinion that it belongs in another article, I would direct your attention to the fact that this is not an addition to the article. It's a correction to material that already exists in the current version. That current information is false. I wish to correct the factual error. Consider the consequence that your objection could mean the current false information would remain. Is that what you want? Reconsider the basis for your objection, please. JRHammond (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've had some time to read the source (Yehuda Blum) for the opposing position. In the opinion of a non-lawyer (an important point, see later text), it marshals a compelling argument. At the same time, you seem to be marshaling a compelling (categorically different) argument using different sources. At this time, and probably on an ongoing basis, NEITHER argument can stand as Wikipedia's position. I am not a lawyer. I have no proof that you are a lawyer, and even if I did, it seems very clear that legal opinion differs. Before you claim UNDUE I'll state that this question needs a great deal of research. How many sources echo Yehuda Blum's position? Perhaps many; perhaps few. It will take a considerable amount of time to find out. Which sources are more authoritative (if any such thing actually exists)? It will take time to find out. Which sources are biased? It will take time to find out. And in the midst of all this need for research, I'd be willing to bet a dollar that neither you nor I nor any Wikipedian can ever come to a definitive answer on this legal question. We are not lawyers, and Wikipedia is not a legal document...so what's to be done? I suggest this: A single sentence saying that interpretations of 242 vary, and a link to a separate article that attempts to untangle it. These point-by-point arguments (for both sides) do not belong in THIS ARTICLE. The current body text needs to be rmv'd as well; this article should not draw conclusions and should not even marshal arguments. It should link to another article, which attempts to do that. • Ling.Nut 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of Yehuda Blum's argument on the point:

In any event, while French was admittedly a working language of the Security Council in 1967, having regard to the legislative history of the resolution and to the fact that the French version is ambiguous on this point, the original English version must be considered as the “basic language” of the resolution.

Now, Ling.Nut, since you find this argument "compelling", kindly explain to us in what way the French version is "ambiguous" on the point in question. And then explain to us why its "ambiguousness" means that the French version is not authoritative, despite being an official language of the UN Security Council, and despite that official language having equal force under international law. JRHammond (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your characterization of Blum is inadequate. I see weeks of time-wasting in our future, no matter which path I choose: if I don't answer your objections, you'll cry foul (unfairly); if I do, you'll spend weeks attempting to fisk them. I remain unmoved: every single word of this point-by-point argument, from both sides, should be shipped to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. It does not logically belong as part of an article on the Six-Day War (although it deserves a one-sentence mention); it is a tangled legal argument regarding the consequences. • Ling.Nut 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I didn't characterize Blum in any way. I observed that the entirety of Blum's argument for why the French version is not authoritative is this: In any event, while French was admittedly a working language of the Security Council in 1967, having regard to the legislative history of the resolution and to the fact that the French version is ambiguous on this point, the original English version must be considered as the “basic language” of the resolution. Now, since you object to my edit on the basis that you find the argument of the former Israeli ambassador to the UN "compelling", please explain to us in what way the French version is "ambiguous". If you wish not to waste time, just kindly answer this very simple question. Your opinion about what I hypothetically might do in the future is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm asking you a question that goes to the heart of your objection, so please just answer the question.

Now, you're pitting a self-serving argument from an Israeli official as having equal authority/merit/credibility/weight as the following:

* 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 [48]

* 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 [49]

* "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 [50]

* "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 [51]

* "[F]rom the strictly legal viewpoint, the French version of the resolution [242] 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 [52]

* 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"." This is a statement on the record at an official UNSC meeting during the discussion on 242, which was not challenged by any other delegate, including Israel's. [53]

* 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

* Professor Michale Lynk states in "Conceived in Law: The Legal Foundations of Resolution 242", that "Since English and French have equal and primary status at the Security Council, a legal interpretation must strive for a meaning that harmonizes any possible distinctions between the different linguistic texts of a resolution.(47) Plainly, the harmonious meaning would be the complete-withdrawal reading, which is also, as shall be argued, the only reading that is consistent with the inadmissibility principle". Footnote 47 states, "This rule derives from Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [entered into force 27 January 1980]. The Article stipulates that the terms of a treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text and, where a difference in meaning arises between the different authentic linguistic texts, 'the meaning which best reconciles the tests, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.'"[54]

* Michael C. Wood, a member of the International Law Commission, a U.N. body,[55][56] observes that draft UNSC resolutions are in the final stage "circulated as an official Council document" and "will ... exist in the six official languages of the United Nations. The draft will almost invariably have begun in English only (though drafts often record that their original langauges were French as well as English); at some point along the way they may begin to appear in French (prepared either by the French Mission or the Secretariat)." Wood observes the fact that "there are six official and working languages of the Security Council, and resolutions of the Council are adopted and published in all six. In principle, all six language versions are authentic."

* Wood notes futher that "Only the Security Council, or some body authorized to do so by the Council, may give an authentic interpretation in the true sense. As the Permanent Court said, 'it is an established principle that the right of giving an authoritative interpretation of a legal rule (le droit d'interpreter authentiquement) belongs soley to the person or body who has power to modify or suppress it'."[57], and it is a demonstrable point of fact that most UNSC members who voted on 242 interpreted as meaning that Israel must fully withdrawal from all of the territories it occupied, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.[58]

Any interpretation contrary to that, in which 242 calls only for a partial and not complete withdraw fro those territories, is irreconcilable with that principle, which is clearly stated in the preamble to 242. As Lord Caradon observed, "it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the 'inadmissibility of territory by war' and that meant thatthere could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war."[59] Blum's self-serving interpretation is thus irrelevant, even if his argument that the French version is "ambiguous" had any ounce of merit, which it does not. His private interpretation is directly contradicted by peer-reviewed journal articles written by prominent authorities on international law, by authorities representing U.N. bodies, and by bodies of international law itself. Your lending of equal weight to Blum's totally baseless argument is unreasonable, and your objection on that basis must be dismissed.

The bottom line is this: The article as it currently reads states as a fact that the French version of the resolution is not authoritative. That is false. The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. This error needs to be corrected. So, Ling.Nut, are you going to cooperate to help or hinder the correction of this error? JRHammond (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21, again, please state your objection. You have this opportunity, now, to state the basis of your objection. Merely stating that you object, without explanation, is not a sufficient basis for this edit not to be implemented. Please state your objection so we may take it into consideration. Naturally, if you are unwilling to state your objection, we will not be able to consider it in making a final decision to approve/disapprove of my proposed fix. Speak now or forever hold your peace. JRHammond (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR. i'm not going to repeat myself over and over. ling has added legitimate concerns here too. and boris below. you don't have consensus for your pov change. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

and by the way, you keep repeating yourself like a broken record "please explain how the french is ambiguous". do you speak french? i guess not, because if you did, it would be crystal clear to you why "des territoires" is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This material does not belong here. It belongs to the article about the specific resolution. If a short footnote is absolutely necessary, it should convey both points of view. - BorisG (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JRHammmond's suggestion reads one-sided. There are ways to convey clearly both points of view without saying that one is correct while the other is wrong. JRHammmond's interpretation of international law in this specific case reads like original research. To avoid original research, you should only refer to statements directly about 242, not about international law in general. The approach taken by JRHammmond is to say 'Some people have argued... However, in fact...' I am not quoting directly but that is the approach adopted by JRHammmond. Please rephrase it to make it more balanced. All points of view supported by reliable sources must be presented. This is especially important for such a contentious issue where expert opinions are known to diverge. - BorisG (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21, I support the request to you to concisely state your objections. You say 'above' but we cannot find them. - BorisG (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JRHammmond, another problem with your approach is that you somehow imply that because the French version contains 'des', and is equally authoritative, it somehow means that the resolution implies 'all the territories'. But this is less than convincing. First, even if the two texts have equal standing, they do contradict each other. Second, what does 'des' really mean? This requires much more detailed analysis than can be accommodated in this article. Maybe we should avoid this altogether? There is a separate article on 242 after all. - BorisG (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User:174.112.83.21 Please state your objection so it can be taken into consideration. If you're not willing to state your objection, we can't very well consider it. Also, it's not enough to claim that the French text is "ambiguous". One must demonstrate that claim has merit. You haven't done so, or even attempted to do so. So your objection on that basis has no validity. User:BorisG, nothing in my proposed fix implies a conclusive interpretation of the resolution. It merely states the fact that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. That is a fact, and the current false statement must be removed. I disagree that there is any contradiction between the two versions, but like you said, that's another issue and I'm fine with avoiding it altogether. The bottom line is that the current, unsourced, and demonstrably false statement that the French is not authoritative must be corrected. We cannot allow such a false statement to remain in the article. If other people have alternative solutions they'd like to propose, I'm all ears. Until then, I'd like to achieve a consensus on my own suggested solution. JRHammond (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate the problem and my reiterate/amend my proposed solution. The current article states: The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] 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.

There a numerous problems here. The first sentence is at best misleading. It's true that territorial adjustments were expected, but this does not mean the UNSC agreed that Israel could retain some of the occupied territory. The only territory Israel was envisioned to retain was that obtained through minor and mutually agreed changes to the Green Line. The great majority of UNSC members were explicit about their intent being that Israel must fully withdraw from the territories occupied, and that this is the only valid interpretation of the resolution, since any other would be irreconcilable with the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. That the word "the" was not used was deliberate -- the U.S. was responsible for drawing up this language, and it did so because it wanted Israel to accept the resolution. Israel objected to the "the", so the U.S. pushed for its draft text, which was incorporated into Lord Caradon's draft text, which was the one finally adopted. There is nothing in the relevant documentary record (the time prior and up to the passage of 242) to support the claim that the "the" was removed because the framers intended that Israel could keep some territory, apart from what I already noted, minor and mutually agreed revisions to the final border. This should be made clearer in the wording of the article.

More importantly, the second sentence is simply false. The statement that "according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document" is demonstrably false. Under international law, the French version is equally valid and authoritative as the English. See sources and discussion provided above. For these reasons, I propose the following fixes:

(1) Remove this entire section.

(2) Revise it to read more correctly and accurately. I suggest: The framers of Resolution 242 envisioned a withdraw of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and a final settlement on borders in which minor and mutually agreed revisions to the Green Line would be made. Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, arguing that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés"), that most Security Council members were explicit that their intent in voting in favor of the resolution was to see Israel fully withdraw from the territories, and that the opposing interpretation of 242 that it allowed for Israel to keep some of the territory is irreconcilable with the preambular emphasis on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" under international law.

I feel option (2) is better because simply taking out this section might result in certain editors trying to revert it back in. If others think option (1) is better, fine, we'll do that. A well-sourced replacement with consensus approval instead might help prevent such from occurring, though. This proposed fix is factual, well-sourced, and neutral. Please express approval or disapproval. If the latter, please explain your objection(s) so they may be taken into consideration so we may arrive at a consensus solution. Again, I'm open to alternative suggestions, but I think my proposal is at least a good place to start. JRHammond (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Approve. Stating the obvious, just to kick it off. JRHammond (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I still believe the above suggestion is long, one sided and contains too much speculation/research. I suggest the following: Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés"). References to both arguments should also be included. - BorisG (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Length is one thing. But how is it "one sided"? I disagree. And what "speculation" is there? There is none. And "research"? Do you mean WP:OR? Nothing in my proposed change is OR. I've provided sources for every fact mentioned, there is no synthesis, and I draw no conclusions. However, that said, I like your alternative suggestion. I'm willing to use yours as our working model for the proposed change. I'll start a new section to clean this up and lessen any potential confusion. JRHammond (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond, intention of framers is speculation, because it is not known for sure to anyone. You youself suggested above that ommission of 'the' was deliberate. If so, and if members of UNSC voted for it, then that speaks of their intentions. Anyway, if we can have a compromise, that's good. - BorisG (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Boris, it's not speculation when the framers explicitly stated their intention. I've been over this before. Yes, the compromise is good. Thanks for your cooperation. [60] JRHammond (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Current working draft proposal

Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés").

Approve. JRHammond (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Approve. BorisG (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very leery; basically disapprove

Grammatical aspects of the resolution have generated differing interpretations regarding whether it leaves open the possibility that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war <footnote here> <note says>The absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the English version of the resolution (and the presence of the definite article "des" in the French version), see [link to article],</note>'' • Ling.Nut 13:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Ling.Nut's proposal more than my own. Not only it is brief, but it also explicitly refers to the long standing (and somewhat odd) debate on the minute grammatic descrepancy. This is not so clear in either JRHammond's or my own version. I support Ling.Nut's version. - BorisG (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly object. This lends an equal WP:WEIGHT to a fringe view dependent upon demonstrably false arguments. That is absolutely inappropriate. I don't think it serves to raise the issue and not briefly outline it. Might as well just not mention it at all. If it's going to be mentioned, it should be discussed at least briefly. One extra sentence doing so should not be an issue. Also, Ling.Nut, you say you are "leery", and "basically disapprove", but offer no explanation. Please do so. If I understand your reasons I can take them into consideration, but I can't very well do so when you don't explain your leeriness and objection. JRHammond (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that WP:YESPOV requires that the majority and minority viewpoints be clearly identified in this case. The current version of the article cites remarks that were reportedly made by Gordan Brown to the Jerusalem Post in 1970 regarding "phrasing" of the resolution. I would recommend we substitute a more relevant quote that has already been discussed here and at WP:RSN. Brown addresses the negotiations; the meaning of the resolution; the authenticity of the French version; and the scope of any territorial revisions:

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 [61]

Article 13 of the UN Charter tasks the General Assembly with promoting the progressive codification of international law. It adopted GA resolution 686 (VII), "Ways And Means For Making The Evidence Of Customary International Law More Readily Available" It mandated that a répertoire of the practice of UN organs be prepared under the supervision of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [62] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which says that the preamble of resolution 242 contains two substantial measures that govern the final settlement.[63] See for example on page 5:

• "IV Measures for Settlement"
  • "A." Call for compliance with principles and purposes of the Charter
    • Situation in the Middle East(II)
      • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble, para 1(ii), second part para 2(c)"
  • "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement"
    • "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement"
      • "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war,
        • Situation in the Middle East(II):
          • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble"

Paragraph 3 of the Summary Legal Position of the State of Israel in the ICJ Wall case recited Blum's theory that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable in the Palestinian Territory because Israel did not recognize Jordanian sovereignty. See Annex 1 [64] The Judges unanimously disagreed (15-0) and said the Geneva Conventions apply. 14-0 joined in the majority opinion which cited the Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force, and its corollary in customary international law regarding the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. harlan (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what Harlan is talking about. But to JRHammond, I would quote from WP:YESPOV: An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. and It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. Arguably, it is at least a significant minority's view that lack of 'the' in the English version is deliberate and that this version has more authority. You may not like Wikipedia policies on this, but you've got to follow them. You know, certain authors assert that the earth is flat []... but some recent studies dispute this []. Welcome to Wikipedia :) - BorisG (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose any wording that definitively suggests that the French wording unambiguously states Israel should withdraw from all territories. The wording "des territoires occupes" is ambiguous and anyone with knowledge of the French language should understand this. JRHammond continues to ignore arguments against his edit that he cannot refute. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think my wording still needs trimming a bit. But here, JR, is my objection: I want to encapsulate this article. I want to ship all peripheral controversies to the place where they logically belong (in more literal terms, to a different Wikipedia article). This article is a huge mess and we have spent more time arguing over details than is warranted. This entire controversy about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is (gasp!) completely irrelevant to this article, which is about the Six-day War, and is NOT about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. I suggest that this article take NO SIDES in the controversy. I furthermore suggest that all point-counterpoint argument on this controversy be deported. I suggest we have one and only one excruciatingly neutral sentence, and a nice pretty blue link to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in the body text (not necessarily in a footnote). • Ling.Nut 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BorisG, you may not like Wikipedia policies, but you've got to follow them. My point precisely. According to WP:YESPOV, the POVs should be presented "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The Israeli argument that the absence of the definite article means it could keep some of the territory is a fringe view rejected by a majority of authoritative sources -- including the only true authoritative sources regarding interpretation of UNSC resolutions, the majority of UNSC members (see my response to anon IP guy below). Hence my objection to Ling.Nut's version, which affords the ludicrous Israeli POV equal weight. The minority view should be expressed as the minority view. Also, to even regard this as a viewpoint is to lend more credibility to it than it affords, because this really is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact, and the fact is that 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied during the war. The fact is also that the French version is equally authoritative (see discussion above). This facts cannot be credibly disputed. They are incontrovertible. The fact is that there's a minority position that rejects the UNSC's own interpretation of its own resolution. Now if people want to take that seriously, okay, I'm willing to compromise and agree to it being represented in the article. But it must comply with WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV. On that basis, I oppose Ling.Nut's proposal. In fact, even the compromise proposed rewording is extremely generous to the Israeli POV. That was an extremely generous compromise for the fringe view. But at least it outlines the situation accurately, even if only extremely briefly and insufficiently. Anyone unfamiliar with the issues who read Ling.Nut's version would be no closer to understanding the situation. And footnotes are for sources and addendum. Its not appropriate to put an explanatory note in the footnote, as it belongs in the body itself. People shouldn't have to go to the footnotes in order to understand a statement made in the article. If this information is going to be included, it should be included in the body. If it isn't worthy of inclusion in the body, then just omit the whole discussion altogether. That would be a preferable solution. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Guy, you offer no explanation of how "des territoires occupes" is ambiguous on the point in question. Merely saying so does not make it so. Moreover, your argument that "anyone with knowledge of the French language should understand" that this is ambiguous falls flat on its face. To demonstrate your fallacy, one need only observe the fact that Armand Berard, the French representative at the U.N. at the time of 242's adoption -- who speaks French, by the way -- stated explicitly: "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"."

Furthermore, as already noted, "Only the Security Council, or some body authorized to do so by the Council, may give an authentic interpretation in the true sense." (Michael C. Wood)[65] Again, most UNSC members stated explicitly their view that the resolution called for a complete withdrawal, and that any other interpretation was irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.[66] Your objection, being baseless, is dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• As for YESPOV – NO. At least, not here. Go over to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and shout YESPOV until you are blue in the face. I suggest that you will have more success there than here. • Ling.Nut 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, you are being most unreasonable. You proposed the above for Six Day War, not for the Resolution 242 article. WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV apply to this Six Day War article, and you cannot argue that the policy doesn't apply here. My objection stands. Your version does not comply with Wikipedia policy in this regard, because it affords equal eight to a fringe view. JRHammond (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ling.Nut, your objection that "peripheral controversies" shouldn't be referred to in this article is unreasonable. This is why Wikipedia articles link to each other. Shall we not mention the Suez Crisis, for instance, because it is a "peripheral controversy"? And who decides what is "peripheral" and what is not? Who decides what is "controversy" and what is not? To your further objection that the whole discussion is irrelevant because the article is about the '67 war and not 242, I would observe that 242 was a direct consequence of the war. You favor including discussion of other consequences of the war, so I see no grounds for dismissal of this one on that basis. However, as I've said repeatedly, not discussing it at all would be preferable to granting the fringe view equal weight, so I'm all for simply removing this whole bit. My only reservation about that is that not having something about it might mean people trying to revert to include it again, including inclusion of the false statement currently existing in the article. Having something there, at least a brief discussion, would help to prevent that. JRHammond (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I never said we shouldn't mention it; in fact, I explicitly said that we should (and indeed, must) mention it. I said that the arguments about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 are logically bounded within the article about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. I have slowly come to realize that this article has a fatal case of "topic creep." And as for "periphery versus not periphery", exercises that help writers to identify the main topic of an article/paragraph/sentence are rife in high school composition books (though students seldom heed them, as college professors know, to their chagrin). Those exercises would all cry in one voice that although United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 can and must be briefly mentioned in this article, debate about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 belongs in an article about United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. • Ling.Nut 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, you argued that the whole discussion was, quote, "completely irrelevant". So I'm not sure how I was supposed to interpret that as being an argument favoring its inclusion. Now, I completely agree with you that a fuller discussion of 242 belongs with the 242 article. However, we are talking here about two sentences. The compromise version proposed by User:BorisG is two sentences. Your own counter-proposal is precisely two sentences (with one relegated to a footnote). So I hardly think your objection on those grounds warrants serious consideration. JRHammond (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I move that the "edit protected" template be used to correct article, replacing the current falsehood with User:BorisG's compromise solution: Some have argued that the absence of the definite article "the" before the words "territories occupied" in the resolution meant that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war. Others reject this argument, pointing out that the French version of the resolution, which is equally authoritative under international law, does contain the definite article ("des territoires occupés").

Summing up any objections raised to this fix: (a) Ling.Nut is worried about length and relevancy, noting that there exists an article dedicated to the topic of UNSC Res 242. However, the proposed fix is not long, a mere two sentences, and the resolution as a direct consequence of the Six Day War is perfectly relevant, so I fail to see any problem on either basis here. The fact that an article on 242 exists does not mean it cannot/should not be noted briefly here, any more than the fact there is an article on the Suez Crisis means no mention should be made of that war in the Six Day War article. (b) Anonymous IP objected on the basis that the French version is "ambiguous". This is that editor's own private opinion, and has no basis. As I observed, the French delegate to the UNSC himself stated explicitly that the French version is unambiguous in its wording. The UN documentary record trumps Anonymous IP as a source. The current false information should not be permitted to remain in the article any longer. The above fix is perfectly reasonable (factually correct, neutral, and brief), and I maintain that all raised objections to it have been satisfactorily addressed. Without further objection, I will employ the template to have it fixed. JRHammond (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

JRH, the fact that you reject all other opinions does not constitute consensus. Ling.nut is actually right, the resolution is relevant but the controversy not so much. You seem to be missing this point. The controversy is discussed in detail in the article on the resolution, along with many other details of the resolution which we, rightly, omit here. I am sorry but your references to one POV as being fringe or ludicrous reveal your strong bias towards one particular POV. This is wrong and you probably should not be editing this article at all. But this is not for me to judge, of course. Anyway, here is a neutral account from a very authoritative book The United Nations Security Council and war: the evolution of thought and Practice since 1945: Resolulion 242 asserted the non-admissibility of the acquisition or territory through force, and stipulated that Israel should ultimately return 'territories' occupied through the course of the 1967 conflict. Famously, the English language version of Resolution 242 did not specify that Israel should return 'the' territories, though the French language version does - the formulation 'the territories' was understood by Israel to constitute too precise a reference to all of the land east or the 1967 ceasefire line. The French language version is used to support a broad interpretation of Resolution 242, particularly by Arab states, such that Israel is required by Resolution 242 to return all of the lands seized during the 1967 war to gain peace and recognition. This interpretation, however, is at odds with the account of Lord Caradon who made it dear that the definitive article 'the' was deliberately excised from the resolution to gain consensus within the Security Council. The Soviets accepted the resolution, stating in their vote that they did so on the basis of the interpretation that the reference to 'territories' encompassed all the territories gained in 1967, an interpretation explicitly rejected by the US and the UK in their vote. Rarely has a definite article been of such import in international politics. By the way I do not understand your concern that if we leave it out, someone will insert the old verison back in (with the definite article even in the Russian language, where there are no articles:). But by the same token, what stops them from replacing your new text with the old one? Maybe there are some protections I am not aware of? - BorisG (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BorisG, I would observe that you are here objecting to the implementation of wording that you yourself proposed and that you yourself have already approved. Now, dismissing your ad hominem arguments, your argument here rests on the basis that the interpretation of 242 "that Israel is required ... to return all of the lands seized during the 1967 war" "is at odds with the account of Lord Caradon". That is demonstrably false. Lord Caradon has never taken up the position that the absence of the definite article meant that Israel could retain some of the territories occupied (and the source doesn't actually demonstrate anything to the contrary, inasmuch as assertions are distinct from facts). Caradon has said the "the" was deliberately not included. That is true. I'll grant your source that. But Caradon has never stipulated that this decision meant that Israel could retain territories. On the contrary, Caradon's view was that "it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the 'inadmissibility of territory by war' and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war". In fact, according to the then Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Gideon Rafael, Lord Caradon actually tried to insert the definite article "the" before "territories", but Israelis and Americans rejected this wording. It was not Caradon's view that the absence of the definite article meant Israel could annex some of the territory occupied, but only that there might be a final settlement on borders that involved minor and mutually beneficial revisions to the 1949 armistice lines.[67] The foundational premise of your argument here is demonstrably false.

However, I would be satisfied, may it please you, to simply remove the text in question, without replacing it. Whereas you've expressed approval for this already, and whereas Ling.Nut has expressed that the entire thing is "completely irrelevant" anyways and repeatedly expressed his desire to keep the article brief, bland, etc., etc., and whereas no other editors have objected to this secondarily proposed solution, and whereas the current wording contains a false statement, I will move to have it removed, rather than replaced. Any replacement text can continue to be discussed if others wish, but there's no sense permitting false and misleading information to remain in the article in the meantime. JRHammond (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently the Six Day War article, under the "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation" section, states: The framers of Resolution 242 recognized that some territorial adjustments were likely, and therefore deliberately[j] 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.

The claim that the French version of the text of UNSC Resolution 242 is not authoritative is false. French is an official and working language of the U.N. Security Council, and French texts of resolutions are equally authoritative as English texts of resolutions. This is an incontrovertible point of fact under international law.[68] The option of replacing these two sentences has been discussed, but disagreement over the replacement wording remains.[69][70] Whereas the assertion here is false, and whereas even those who might inexplicably deny the fact that this assertion is false must concede that there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy (to say the least) and that it is contested and has no consensus approval to remain, I move for it's immediate removal from the article, either permanently, or until a suitable replacement wording can be agreed upon. This is the only reasonable course of action at this point to further the goal of improving the article. JRHammond (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

These numbers are highly illogical plus false considering that it says 1,000 israelis were killed while 23,000 arabs were killed that doesnt make since. This article is a highly israeli point of view someone needs the real story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerftwman1 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

how did you come to the conclusion that this doesn't make sense? lol... 174.112.83.21 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Suez Crisis aftermath

(1) After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.[25]

This sentence does not accurately reflect the UNEF mandate. UNEF was established by the General Assembly under Resolution 1000 (November 5, 1956), which "Establishes a United Nations Command for an Emergency International Force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of General Assembly resolution 997 (ES-I) of 2 November 1956" [71]

Resolution 997 noted "the disregard on many occasions by parties to the Israel-Arab armistice agreements of 1949 of the terms of such agreements, and that the armed forces of Israel have penetrated deeply into Egyptian territory in violation of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel of 24 February 1949". It urged a cease-fire, urged withdrawal from Egyptian territory.[72]

The assertion that UNEF was established to prevent attacks on Israel from Egyptian soil flips reality on its head. UNEF was established in the wake of Israel's invasion of Egypt, in direct response to that attack. JRHammond (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed fix (to include the appropriate reference, above): After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".

Approve. JRHammond (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) After the 1956 war, the region returned to an uneasy balance without the resolution of any of the underlying issues. At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel. Syria, aligned with the Soviet bloc, began sponsoring guerrilla raids on Israel in the early 1960s as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Ba'ath Party.[27] Even after nearly two decades of its existence, no neighboring Arab country of Israel was willing to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel or accept its existence. Tunisian President Habib Bourgiba suggested in a speech in Jericho in 1965 that the Arab world should face reality and negotiate with Israel, but this was rejected by the other Arab countries.[28][29]

This paragraph not only implies that the "underlying issues" leading to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 included Arab refusal to recognize Israel, but affords this great weight, to the exclusion of other issues. I don't believe this assertion is supportable. The underlying issues were that the British and French wanted to control the canal, and Egypt wanted to exercise sovereignty over it; Egypt nationalized the canal, so Egypt and France went to Israel and engaged in a conspiracy to invade Egypt; Israel, for its part, was motivated by territorial conquest (indeed, Israel attempted to colonize the Sinai between the invasion and its later withdrawal). The notion that Israel invaded Egypt because Egypt didn't officially recognize Israel is fairly preposterous. Even if it had some merit and was supported by sources, there is an issue of WP:WEIGHT here. The primary issues leading to the war should have greater weight than more minor issues afforded little (or no) weight from sources. JRHammond (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph not only implies that the "underlying issues" leading to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 included Arab refusal to recognize Israel, but affords this great weight, to the exclusion of other issues. In my reading, it doesn't imply this at all. It implies that for Israel, the underlying issue was frequent attacks from Arab countries. The issues for France and Bretain are irrelevant here. - BorisG (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Boris, it states that the "underlying issues" of the '56 war were not addressed, and then states that "At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel." The entire rest of the paragraph after that topic sentence on "underlying issues" is devoted to discussing that issue of non-recognition. I fail to see how this does not imply that Arab non-recognition was among the "underlying issues" referred to. It certainly does. If all that follows the topic sentence has nothing to do with that topic ("underlying issues"), then they shouldn't be in the same paragraph, and there should be some kind of segue from the one topic to the next, so as to avoid the implication if it was unintended (which I highly doubt was the case). JRHammond (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

JRH, if you want to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to learn the most elementary facts related to the conflict. The area of Eilat was designated as part of the Jewish state by the 1947 partition plan, and the town itself had been under Israeli control since 1949, when Israeli forces raised their flag there. It was not 'acquired' as a result of the 1956 war. HupHollandHup (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hup, the 1947 partition proposal was just that -- a proposal. It was rejected. It had no force of law. It lent Israel no legal claim to Eilat, which remained Egyptian territory until 1949. But thank you for the correction. It was indeed 1949 when Israel took that ground by conquest (inadmissible under international law), despite the cease-fire, not 1956. A momentary lapse of reason on my part. The correction has been appended above. My point remains, which perhaps you would care to address. JRHammond (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The partition plan , which forms the basis for your claims elsewhere , gave Israel this land - how could it be taken 'by conquest'? If the plan gave Israel "no legal claim to Eilat" it gave it no claim to any land - is that what you are arguing? Thatis surely a fringe position, if ever there was one. And conversely, how could it be "Egyptian territory" if Egypt was only there after invading? I don't think you know what you are talking about. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. UN General Assembly resolution 181 adopted the recommendation of the report of the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which explicitly rejected the right to self determination of the majority Arab population of Palestine (the minority Jews owned 7% of the land at the time, the majority Arabs 85%). The resolution was a recommendation. Needless to say, to have any legitimacy, the proposal would have to be accepted by both parties. It was not (the Zionists accepted it as a step towards the total conquest of Palestine, the Arabs rejected it on the basis of its blatant inequity, taking land from the Arabs to give it to the Jews and the necessity of surrendering their right to self-determination). Furthermore, even if it had partitioned Palestine, instead of being merely an adoption of a recommendation, it would have no legal authority, as only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding. Moreover, even had it actually partitioned Palestine (it didn't) and had been legally binding (it wasn't), any such action would have been in violation of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and therefore null and void. These are the facts. You are wrong. And I don't think you know what you are talking about. Thus, I would return to you the compliment you offered me: If you wish to be taken seriously, it would behoove you to learn the most elementary facts related to the conflict. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am quite right. The UNSCOP plan was a recommendation - but once it was voted on by the UNGA and passed, it was no longer just a "recommendation". If we accept your position, Israel has no legal claim to any part of its territory (and, neither do the Palestinians have any legal claim to the territories the UN repeatedly refers to as "Occupied Palestinian Territory") - this is such a fringe position that I know of literally no-one, on either side of the conflict, who supports it. At the same time, you find it possible to argue that Eilat was 'Egyptian territory', by virtue of Egyptian invading forces holding it. There are only two option here: either you have no clue what you are talking about or (b) you are not interested in any encyclopedic content, merely anti-Israeli soapboxing. In either case, you are not to be taken seriously. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't a recommendation? Perhaps that's why the operative clause of 181 stated, "Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;". And I'll close with that. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, I'm not done yet. Furthermore, even if it was as you say, that it wasn't merely a recommendation (which it was), as I also observed, only Security Council resolutions are considered legally binding. Ergo, even if you were correct on that count (which you aren't), you are still mistaken to suggest that UNGA resolutions are legally binding. I notice you didn't bother to even address that little fact previously. So I wanted to reiterate that point. I might as well go ahead and also reiterate that even if it hadn't been merely a recommendation (which it was), and even it UNGA resolutions were considered legally binding (which they aren't), any such action would be in violation of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and thus null and void. But the latter two points are admittedly moot, since the fact is that it was merely a recommendation to begin with. JRHammond (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not a 'recommendation': "The recommendatory function of the General Assembly is not a bar to adopting, in special cases, within the framework of its competence, resolutions establishing an objective regime. The partitioning of Palestine and the internationalization of Jerusalem is an example". - Land and maritime zones of peace in international law, Sūryaprasāda Suvedī, p. 219, Oxford University Press. As I said, you have no clue what you are talking about. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hup, I hate to have to tell you this, but to "recommend" something is to make a "recommendation". I find it ironic you take such a tone of insulting my intelligence while trying to assert that when the resolution "Recommends" a plan, that is not a recommendation. Elementary rules of logic and common sense apply. I would note that it is uncontroversial that Israel came into being on May 14, 1949, when the Zionists unilaterally declared its existence, without specifying borders. You will not find a single source to support the logical corollary to your own argument, which is that Israel must have come into existence on November 29, 1947. So there is yet a further irony (or "hypocrisy" if you prefer) in your suggestion I've expressed a "fringe position".

Your source, needless to say, doesn't support your rather inexplicable claim that when UNGA resolutions "Recommend" something that is not a recommendation. But it does demonstrate certain of my own points. You'll notice it notes that according to the ICJ, "the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers" and that its resolutions are "non-binding".

Returning to the resolution itself, you'll note that in addition to its recommendation to adopt and implement the plan proposed by UNSCOP, it referred the plan to the Security Council. Well, it never made it to the Security Council. The recommendation was never implemented. The source you cited suggests just because it was a recommendation does not mean it could not establish a "regime". It then goes on to discuss Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that discussion is not available on Google. But let's look at that example. Resolution 181 recommended that a "special regime" be established placing Jerusalem under an international trusteeship administered by the United Nations. Did UNGA Resolution 181 itself establish that regime? No, it did not. The UNSC would have had to do that, but, as already noted, the recommended plan never made it to the UNSC.

Now, so far all you've given me is an argument that when the UNGA "Recommends", that is not a recommendation. Your fallacy here is plain enough. But you've also failed to address my other points, which are that, even if the resolution wasn't a recommendation (which it was), UNGA resolutions are not considered legally binding (as your own source notes). Moreover, even if UNGA resolutions were legally binding (which they aren't), any such action, taking land away from the Arabs to give to the Jews, would have been a blatant violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter and other relevant bodies of international law, and thus null and void. The UNGA has no such authority, and you will find nowhere in the U.N. Charter where such authority, to take land away from a people against their express will, is invested in the General Assembly (or the Security Council, for that matter) You will observe that the principle of "equal rights and self-determination of peoples" is encoded in the U.N. Charter. Any rejection of the equal rights and self-determination of the majority Arab inhabitants of Palestine by the UNGA would have been a violation of the very charter under which it operated. UNGA 181 was not a violation of the U.N. Charter because it did not take land away from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. It made a recommendation that this occur; naturally, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both parties for it to have any legal force. Needless to say, it was not accepted by both parties.

Now, what is HupHollandHup's answer to all this? When UNGA resolution 181 "Recommends" that the UNSCOP plan be taken up by the UNSC, that is not a recommendation. That's it? That's your argument? On the basis of its patent idiocy, your objection on the basis that a recommendation is not a recommendation is hereby dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My answer is that an eminent scholar of international law, in a book published by an academic press of the highest order (Oxford University) has written that UNGA 181 established an objective regime. You can call that 'patent idiocy', you can engage in all the original research you like to "prove" that it could not have, but it does not matter. We have a reliable academic source stating, explicitly, that what you've said is wrong, and that's it. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Whereas the paragraph in question is presented entirely from the Israeli POV, without any discussion of the "underlying issues" from the Arab POV, it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I move for its deletion. Alternatively, a brief discussion can be made to Arab refusal to recognize Israel that includes the reasons for that refusal, along with any other "underlying issues" proposed for inclusion.

Remove. JRHammond (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Retain.. There is no reason to remove text supported by RS. Want to add more text? Propose it. - BorisG (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet there is every reason to remove text that blatantly violates WP:NPOV. As your objection doesn't address that fundamental point, it is hereby dismissed. JRHammond (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)