Talk:Palestinian views on the peace process/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed text

Other [high-level officials] have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

Not backed up by the article.

Bald-faced falsehood. RK 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well that's productive. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Many Palestinian officials, such as Yasir Arafat have called for peace in English language press releases but also for the eventual destruction of the Israel in Arabic language statements.

So vague as to be meaningless

Huh? This is a vert clear and explicit statement. Martin, we are warnign you. The censorship of this article that you are promoting has already been discussed in depth on the Wiki-En list, and it has been found to be unacceptable. RK

When? Where? In what context? It's just vague weasel words. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

critics claim that they were almost never explicit and unambiguous.

wikipedia:avoid weasel words. "amost never explicit" is completely weasely.

Statements and actions of Arafat and other leaders in the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) during the years since Oslo I was signed might well be construed as saying that the PLO and the PA do not hope for, or intend to achieve, a permanent peace with the State of Israel.

Weasely. "might well be construed". And they might not. The construal or misconstrual of statements does not inform us about Palestinian views of the peace process.

These views may be distinct from the views of the common Palestinian citizen, according to a large number of observers in Israel and the West.

Weasely. They may be. They may not be. Sharon may be the devil incarnate... or he may not be. Uninformative.

Many of the following statements refer to making the territory of pre-1967 Israel into a Palestinian state; some have hypothesized that this is only a claim that Palestinians want to annex some Israeli territory into a new Palestinian state; however, the internal documents and statements of principles that the Palestinians refer to include the entire territory of the West Bank and Gaza as their goal. No documents from Palestinian sources exist which make lesser claims.

This is just logically inconsistent. Pre-1967 Israel did not include the West Bank or Gaza Strip, so the whole para is a non-sequitur.

A leading PLO official has recently emerged

"Recently" is bad temporal context. Changed to give rough dates. He's not a leading PLO official any more, either. So, good marks for accuracy.

their demand for millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to immigrate into Israel

Let's just say right to return, and cease the scaremongering.

Readers may compare this press release to his Arabic statements (below) where he states that any peace treaty must only be temporary.

They don't state that - that's just what you're reading into them.

In 2000, at the Camp David talks sponsored by US President Clinton, Ehud Barak presented a final non-negotiable proposal to the Palestinian leadership. A map of that proposal may be found here: [http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/maps/finalstatus/2000campdavid.jpg]

I fail to see how the actions of an Israeli PM inform us about the beliefs of Palestinians.

In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning: "Be blessed, O Gaza, and celebrate, for your sons are returning after a long celebration. O Lod, O Haifa, O Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning." (Ma'ariv, September 7, 1995)

So Arafat hopes to retain, at least in part, the right to return. And how does this mean that the peace process is temporary?

Arafat has also compared the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, signed and then later discarded. In the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Quds on May 10, 1998. Arafat was asked: "Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?" Arafat replied: "No .... no. Allah's messenger Mohammed accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat declared that the Oslo accords are comparable to "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement.. .we must learn from his steps.. .We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed."

Speaking in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa on May 10, 1994, Arafat stated that the Oslo Accord was akin to the temporary truce between Muhammad and the Quraish tribe: "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce...But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort." (Ha?aretz, May 23, 1994)

As noted above, these three paragraphs are trial by interpretation and innuendo, and on a par with using Bush's word "crusade" to beat him round the head. I'm fine with people doing either of these things, but we shouldn't pretend that it's neutral.

Neither report denies, however, the extreme chauvinism and nationalism predominant in the Palestinian textbooks.

Double negative. States as fact that the textbooks are extremely nationalistic, and uses as "proof" of this that the reports don't deny this "fact". The lack of a denial is not the same as support.

Above removed for reasons stated. Martin 19:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

the map "wipes out symbolically... a member-state" of the WHO, the Post remarked. (Washington Post, May 1, 1989).

Six words with an elipsis between them is a rather pathetic "quote". The readers should be intelligent enough to figure out the significance. Removed. Martin 19:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A quote does not need to be long to be informative. The point is that such quotes are providing crucial information. RK 21:44, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe this particular quote provides any information, crucial or otherwise. Martin 22:19, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion dispute

The inclusion dispute has been solved. The article is to exist at this location.

from talk:Palestine

At VfD, it was suggested that Palestinian views of the peace process be merged into this article. The article currently redirects here, but the original text can be got from the page history should anyone want to do the merging.

I am sad that people are trying to censor and hide the views of Arab Palestinians. I know that the majority of Wikipedia users are anti-Zionist, if not anti-Semitic, but come on. It is ugly and dishonest to lie about and misrepresent the beliefs of the Palestinians. Why are you censoring and hiding their own views, in their own words? Your ugly anti-Zionist bias is reprehensible. We are obligated to let the facts speak for themselves; we must not censor and delete all information about Arabs that makes us uncomfortable. For shame. Your attempt to deceive Wikipedia readers has been reverted. RK 15:05, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, yes, accusing others of your own misdeeds, the hallmark of fascists.

You know damn well how easy it is to misuse quotes for propaganda purposes if the context is not clearly made obvious to the reader:

• How representative is the quote for the group that is supposedly represented by the person who made it?
• Was this person elected or something?
• Or does he/she belong to some sort of fringe group?
• Or does the representation come from the support this person got from the group in question?
• In what form is this support?
• What was the reason for this support?
• How thought-out is the quote?
• Was it said at the spur of the moment after some kind of (possible traumatic) event?
• Or are similar quotes repeated by this person or others supposedly belonging to the group that is being associated with the quote in question?
• etc.

Despite what you may think guilt by association is not a valid argument, so if you're planning to put a quote in an article, better make sure it comes with plenty of contextual information.

Personally, I think you're disgusting for smearing people in order to make ethnic cleansing look somehow acceptable. -- 213.231.204.211 18:02, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the right place to merge Palestinian views of the peace process into. This article describes Palestine - the historic geographical region - and is not the place for Palestinian (or other) views on any peace process. As an alternative, I would suggest either Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Palestinian. uriber 20:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agree with Uriber except that I don't think Palestinian is the right place either. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the obvious choice, though most of Palestinian views of the peace process is so awful that merging with /dev/null would be even better. --Zero 13:32, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see the material in this article merged back into the parent article under the section "The Peace Process". If that section becomes too long, it then can be spun out in a separate article, such as The Israeli-Palestine Peace Process. The information serves little purpose in its current isolation.

--Viajero 21:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

• Palestinian views of the peace process -- The little of objective value in this rant should be merged with another article and the remainder given a timely burial. -- Viajero 01:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The article was created as an op-ed piece and there is no chance that it could ever be fixed. --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Agree. Anjouli 05:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, but most definitely partially merged with another article, such as Proposals for a Palestinian StateLeumi 04:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge JackLynch 05:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela asked me where I think this should be merged to. I said maybe Palestine, but I want some other input, if anybody has any. Thanks. JackLynch

What is the point of this article?

Why does this article exist? I propose merging what little of it is of value into Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Also, the two external links generate errors on the remote site. -- Viajero 12:24, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I won't complain. -- zero 14:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most recent (from this page)

Actually, after reading a bunch of comments and versions of the article, I think it should be merged into a larger article about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a whole. I don't think I can serve as an unbiased mediator, if nonbias is required. If the purpose is to just organize calmer discussions, which I'm not sure it is, then I might still be able to be a mediator. LDan

Wikipedia is a written compendium of human knowledge. Palestinian views of the peace process are not human knowledge because Palistinian views on the peace process vary from palistinian to palistinian.

Individual viewpoints for people can be known, but the viewpoint of a nation is impossible to define.

Therefore this should be a place to dichotomize views of important individuals only. Bensaccount 19:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

The article is currently not being mediated. Bensaccount 22:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have made a formal request for mediation on this article to the Wiki-En list, and have asked LittleDan and Ed Poor to mediate. RK 21:41, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be a mediator if you want. I'm not sure I can do that good a job, as this is obviously my first time as a mediator :). I'm not really sure how much I can do as a mediator, but if it's within my power, I'd like to stop RK or anyone else from telling people not to talk, whatever the reason. Even if a Nazi comes here, they can still debate on this issue (I'm saying this as a Jew myself (but that shouldn't make me biased, I hope. I still haven't formed opinions on this issue yet)). LDan

Actually, after reading a bunch of comments and versions of the article, I think it should be merged into a larger article about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a whole. I don't think I can serve as an unbiased mediator, if nonbias is required. If the purpose is to just organize calmer discussions, which I'm not sure it is, then I might still be able to be a mediator. LDan

Dan, I really think it does not matter whether you have an opinion on the matter yourself, as long as you 1) do not have a strong opinion on the matter to the point of finding yourself supporting one of the two disputants pov and 2) do not feel in a very negative way about one of the disputant, to the point you won't behave with honesty toward his pov. Apparently, this is not the case either for the article, nor for Martin or Robert; so I am sure you can help :-) Anthere

My goals for mediation are not specifically related to this article. I don't feel that no bias is essential (or else RK and myself would likely never agree on a mediator), but I feel that we need someone who has no strong opinions on the underlying issues - someone who doesn't care, basically, or at least is willing to completely cover up their opinions for the duration. Martin 22:19, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am really conflicted (and therefore I don't have strong opinions) on the Israel issue, is that what you mean? I'm willing to do hide my views on this specific article, but that doesn't seem to matter. What are your goals for mediation anyway? It seems that RK wants to get rid of alleged Nazis in Wikipedia and allow Wikipedia to expose Palestinians as the terrorists they are (in his opinion); what point are you trying to make, Martin? LDan 03:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dan, please do not fall for the distortions that certain people are spreading about me. The position you mention above is not my position; if you wish to know what I believe just ask. Better yet, see the edits I made. My edits do not make any such claims; my repeated edits specifically stated that all Palestinians are not terrorists, and that all Palestinians do not want to destroy the State of Israel. Unlike Martin, I accept the fact that many groups of Palestinians exist, and each has their own beliefs and agenda. Unlike Martin, I allow Palestinians to speak for themselves, and believe that our articles should show the full range of views that exist within the Palestinian community. I find it curious that this is considered acceptable within the mainstream academic worls, within the Arab press and Arab commmunity, but only here on Wikipedia it is disallowed as "anti-Palestinian." RK 15:25, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

These characterisation of my beliefs are incorrect. Martin 17:43, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Robert is right Dan. If you wish to know what he believes, ask him. Similarly, if you wish to know what he thinks of Martin position and behavior, ask him. Then, do the same with Martin :-) Anthere

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I was actually guessing that view from your mailing list posts, not others' distoritions, but I guess I just misinterpreted you. LDan 16:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the separate issue you mentioned, I do believe that it is inappropriate to allow "Christian Identity adherents and/or Nazis to spread anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, bigotry and Holocaust denial on Wikipedia. They may be free to come and falsify history, but the rest of us are free to disagree with them, and we are encouarged to explain how and why their views are rejected in the mainstream. I don't see how this is a problem. Until recently, this was the consensus of almost all Wikipedia contributors. RK

Are they allowed to present their views in an NPOV fashion? I take back what I said before about not calling people Nazis if you wish to do so just for discussion. LDan 16:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will state my goals for mediation in private, once myself and RK have agreed on a mutually acceptable mediator. From what you say, LittleDan, I would have no problems with you mediating, as I do not believe that "nonbias" on this specific article is required. However, if you wish to recuse yourself, I would not want you to mediate if you do not feel you are capable of the task. I would also, as I mentioned before, be happy for TUF-KAT to mediate. Martin 13:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why keep your goals secret? Wikipedia is a public project. The fact that you have secret goals scares me. RK 15:25, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Martin. I think everyone is aware now that you would accept TufKat as a mediator; but obviously it is not the case of RK; I also think Tuf himself do not feel very confortable with the idea. So, it is probably best not to talk about that option any more. Anthere

It's not that kind of secret goal, it's just that he doesn't want to be accused of being a Nazi. Whether this is true or not I will not say, because one of you wouldl get mad at me. Since RK invited me to be a mediator (and I don't think he's withdrawn that), Martin accepted, and Ed hasn't responded, I guess would be a reasonable candidate for mediator. Would you have any objections to TUF-KAT being the mediator instead? He was much more involved in the process of setting up mediation than I was.

If either of you want to send me something privately (if you choose me over TUF-KAT for mediation), just email me at LittleDanEhren @ yahoo . com, with the spaces removed. LDan 16:55, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Robert, the point is not for Martin to keep the goals secrets, but rather to discuss them privately. It is perhaps best that Martin explains his position to Dan, and that you explain your position to Dan, and that Dan check whether he has understood both of your positions. Do you agree with talking privately to Dan only, or do you prefer the process to be open ? We wish, for many reasons that I can explain to you if you wish, that mediation process is kept private. What is your opinion ? Anthere

My goals for mediation are not secret, and I have made them public in the past, but I do not believe that stating them publically at this point in time would be in the best interests of Wikipedia and the mediation process. Martin 17:43, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Treaty of Hudaibiya

Since you insist on references, here is Will Durant -- a reliable source, yes? -- on Muhammad's violation of the truce (The Age of Faith, p. 170; all emphasis in all quotes is my own):

"Mohammed alleged that a tribe allied with the Quraish had attacked a Moslem tribe, and thereby voided the truce (630)."

Clear enough? Want more references? Here's Tor Andrae (Mohammed: The Man and His Faith, pp. 163-4):

"Finally Mohammed himself told his friend that he intended to fight the Quraish because they had broken the truce by attacking one of his allies."

Third time's the charm; here's Malise Ruthven (Islam in the World, p. 58):

"Incidents over blood-money and clashes between beduin clients of Muhammad and the Quraish were making it [the truce of Hudaibiya] unworkable."

I think I make my objections clear. The article's current interpretation of Arafat's allusions to the treaty of Hudaibiya is wrong; it could just as easily be interpreted to mean "We're going to hold to the treaty as long as Israel does" -- but that's not what the article says, is it? --MIRV (talk) 00:00, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

March reverts

I reverted RK's (unmarked) revert for the reasons discussed at great length by a number of Wikipedians in the archive. Martin 22:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the article, "Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper is still censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable. On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo Wales writes about this; he supports the keeping the content that Martin keeps censoring. RK 18:11, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo writes:

But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time.

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo then wrote:

I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality.

Pro-Arab, left-wing Wikipedians, like Martin Harper, are violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority views, are censored and deleted. In contrast, the material I have contributed shows a wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up their own mind. In the recent past, others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin Harper is doing this all over again. RK

In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo writes: Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004

"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views and background information is given.

Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*.

In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of Israel.

We can only come to understand that better when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word."

There you have from Jimbo. Martin Harper is violating Wikipedia policy by cnesorship. Sysops, please control him. RK 18:11, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, Jimbo was speaking about deletion of the article outright. I have edited the article. To be sure, I have edited it mercilessly, but nevertheless Jimbo's comments don't apply: I have improved the text, just as Jimbo requests people to do. Robert's response has been to revert and throw around accusations of censorship.

Secondly, Jimbo is speaking about an earlier dispute: the current dispute is not between "delete" and "don't delete", but rather between two versions. I maintain that the version supported by RK is inferior, for reasons that have been discussed at some length in the archive.

Thirdly, Jimbo retracted his comments, acknowledging that he was heavily biased on the matter. Martin 19:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

• (RK) Reverted first
• (RK) Reverted the most
• If the edits reverted by RK were not vandalism, then RK is the only one at fault here.

For a complete history of discussion on the reverts [read above] --user:Bensaccount

This material has been the subject of many reverts, over several months, and these reverts have been discussed in many places. The above is far from a complete history.

"Fault" is not an issue here. Writing an encyclopedia article is. Martin 01:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article consists mostly of a lot of junk someone has copied from some propaganda site. Readers who are interested in an impartial viewpoint on these issues are warned that this is not it.

No, it is merely an NPOV discussion of the various views that Palestinians have of the peace process with Israel. It clearly and fairly describes their points of view in their own words. As discussed in depth on the Wiki-En list, it has been censored many times for left-wing, anti-Israel purposes. That kind of censorship will no longer be tolerated. RK 14:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally it is quite normal in Israel to find maps that show all of Israel+West Bank+Gaza labelled as "Israel". I have one that is just an ordinary road map. Such maps appear even on Israeli government web sites, for example on http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00me0 (look at the map with Israel shown green). At http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dtq0 you can see a map that, despite marking areas A and B, shows the whole place as "Israel". There are very many other examples. Mention of Palestinian maps like this without noting the corresponding Israeli practice is a good litmus test of NPOV in Wikipedia articles. zero 00:34, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fine, but do Israeli maps delete the existence of Jordan and Egypt, and also label them as "Greater Israel"? (No) Does the State of Israel teach its public school children to sing songs about "the Arab enemy that must be crushed", and the conquest of its neighboring nations? (No) I do agree that this article should be NPOV, but if you really want to compare Palestinian practices with Israeli practices, it will have to deal with these issues as well. RK

I disagree with Zero0000. Many Palestinian officials have publicly stated that the entire peace process is just one phase in the total destruction of the state of Israel. Like many people I have met, most of whom happen to be on the political left, Zero0000 seems to be bothered by the fact that these ideas (unpopular with those in the West) are being made public. But we must not project our own beliefs onto others. Whether we like it or not, to most Arabs in the Middle East, the views quoted in this article are not shameful. Further, these views are necessary to report on in any NPOV article on this subject. Readers should know that when Palestinians and Israelies mention the "peace process", they often are using the exact same words to refer to very different goals. We should allow Arabs to speak for themselves, allow Israelis to speak for themselves, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. What is wrong with that? RK 22:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The first thing that's wrong with it (the article) is that you do not allow Arabs to speak for themselves at all. You only quote Arabs who say things that you want them to say. Even if all your quotations were correct and in context, your process of selection means that the final product is just as misleading as if you faked them. And anyway I very much doubt the truth of some of your quotations and I'm absolutely certain that many of them are missing vital context. Of course there are many Arabs whose position is one of complete rejectionism. The degree to which their opinions are popular depends on the circumstances. After Oslo there was overwhelming public support amongst the Palestinian public for a deal with Israel, but it faded over the next few years. The same is true of many Israelis. Sharon's rejection of the very idea of a Palestinian state was quoted widely until he became PM and pretended to hold a different opinion. zero 12:33, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) The second thing that's wrong is that you have absolutely no standards when it comes to repeating material that you like from other sources. There is a war going on and both sides are making up propaganda like in all wars, but you are happily presenting the propaganda from one side as if it is fact. Well, lots of it is not fact. There are frequent examples of intentional mistranslations and omitted context. I don't believe you have any source other than Israeli advocacy outlets for a large number of the things you post. zero 12:33, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sources are from translations of Arab newspapers and other Arab media. Much more Arab press is now available in English than ever before. RK 14:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is now considerably less lame than a month ago. However, the problem I still have with it is that the way the various POVs are presented implies that the fate of the peace process depends on the goodwill of the Palestinians, which appears uncertain, and hence Israel is the victim of their apparent duplicity. Let's be real: Israel is the occupying force here and has far, far greater military might (not to speak of economic power). The Palestinians are virtually mendicants. Hence it is ludicrous to quote Faisal Husseini calling for "the liberation of all Palestine from the river to the sea" without placing it within the governing geopolitical reality: Israel is armed to the teeth, backed by the even more powerful USA, and has between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.

Your anti-Israel political rant is of no help here. If you can't be productive, then why are you here? Please do not start a fight. RK

Palestinian textbooks

Just a peek at the last sentence here, Neither report denies, however, the extreme chauvinism and nationalism predominant in the Palestinian textbooks, should be enough to indicate that this material is POV. We do not need a long list of quotes or misquotes intended to push an agenda.Danny 06:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anon commentary

I just stumbled onto this article (I usually try to steer clear of things like this). But it would be wrong to remain silent on this one, Danny. This is nothing whatsoever wrong or innacurate with the last sentence of the material you have censored (it is factually accurate, just read the textbooks; if you don't like the adjectives then change those, but they are actually understated!), nor with the bulk of the quotations. The material is entirely relevant to the subject at hand. It is shameful of you to have played the silly game of expunging the material time and again. I don't intend to play that game or get involved in this any further, but I do hope that others with not only add back the material but make sure that Danny agrees to no more censorship based on his obviously extreme political biases. This is a real test for Wikipedia. (anon)

Martin's objections

I've skimmed through some of the material, and a couple of section struck me as obviously inappropriate: Under the heading of Palestinians who think that the peace talks are temporary, Arafat is stated as comparing "the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, signed and then later discarded". This seems roughly equivalent to taking Bush's comments about a crusade on terror and thus deducing that Bush supports Christian armies invading and conquering Islamic nations. To be sure, some people have interpreted Bush's words in that light, just as some have interpreted Arafat's words as implying rejection of a permanent peace. But Wikipedia shouldn't take either point of view, and by giving these particular words special significance, and by placing them in such a titled section, it does take a point of view.

I do not follow this; this cannot be true. These remarks were written before Bush made his remarks on the subject. The problem is that you refuses to believe Yassir Arafat when he describes his own beliefs, and you keep attributing beliefs to himt hat he explicitly denies. You have no justification for this. RK 14:21, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am making an argument by analogy RK. Do keep up. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, what's the correct reaction to this particular section? Well, deletion. NPOVing them would mean saying essentially "Arafat has compared the Oslo accords to peace treaties that Mohammed signed, and various people have speculated about what he might mean by this", which is entirely neutral, but completely useless at informing the reader about Palestinian views of the peace process.

It provides a lot of information about what he believes; he believes that the peace process is only temporary, like those treaties, and will result in the total destruction of his perceived enemies, the Jews. Leaving out his beliefs is censorship due to your left-wing pro-Arab views. As discussed on the Wiki-En list, this is censorship and is forbidden. RK

No, that is your point of view on what he believes. You're reading between the lines in a way that not everyone agrees with.

Here's another example: "In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning". Fantastic, but why is it an indication that Arafat thinks the peace process is temporary. Arafat could easily be referring to the right to return, hoping that Palestinians would peacefully be allowed to (re-)enter these cities. Placing it under the heading of Palestinians who believe the peace talks are temporary is potentially misleading. Again, some people might interpret those words in that way, but Wikipedia cannot take a view.

That would only make sense if you denied his explicit words. You cannot take sentence fragments out of context, and rewrite his statement to mean the opposite of what he said. Your "interpretation" is wishful thinking. RK

So show us the context that shows my interpretation must be wrong. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to demonstrate that Arafat (or others) believes (or believed) that the peace talks will be temporary, that's fine: find quotes where they say "these peace talks are temporary - eventually we hope to destroy Israel". That's clear, and provided a reference is given and it isn't taken out of context, everyone can agree what it means. Martin 23:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) (breaking own advice, but what the hey)

We did find such quotes, yet you, Danny, Zero and others deleted them. As Jimbo repeatedly pointed out on the Wiki-En list, these actions are unjustifiable acts of censorship. Your censorship will be reverted. RK 14:25, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, you found quotes that you could interpret as saying that. Find quotes where Arafat explicitly says what you want him to have said, and all will be well. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The deleted material seems pretty POV to me, or at least some of it does. I'd also say that an encyclopedia has no particular business having long lists of completely out of context quotations. john 02:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion

I know little about this subject, but even I can see that the article, as it stands, is horribly biased. Let's see:

• Arafat said on the PA's Voice of Palestine radio station in 1995, "The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated." (Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995)

What does he mean by "Palestine"? Was he referring to historic Palestine (which would include Israel), or was he referring to the lands on which a modern state of Palestine would be set up (the West Bank and Gaza, parts of which are still under Israeli control)? The quote does not make this clear.

Your question is already answered in this and in our other articles on this topic. Arafta is explicitly referring to all of historic Palestine, which includes all of the State of Israel. In fact, Arafat's own maps, and the official maps of the PA, show this very clearly. You need to calm down and just read the article. I get the idea that you are trying to wish away inconvenient facts. RK

Israel's maps sometimes show the West Bank as part of Israel, but we know that when Israeli politicians talk about "Israel" they typically mean the state of Israel. The same applies here. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• In a 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be returning: "Be blessed, O Gaza, and celebrate, for your sons are returning after a long celebration. O Lod, O Haifa, O Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning." (Ma'ariv, September 7, 1995)

Someone else already raised this question, but: is he referring to the right of return, or to the conquest by force of the cities named? Again, it's not clear.

Again, see above. His statements are crystal clear, as are his maps, as are the sermons of official PA Imams preached in PA funded mosques. They have made hundreds of speeches, sermons and essays about this. They are talking about the total destruction of the State of Israel. Please read the articles and follow the provided weblinks. Please take the time to do some research on this subject, and read the words of Palestinians, by Palestinians. You are substituing wishful thinking for their own words. RK

Some disagree with your point of view on how crystal clear these words are. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• In an interview with the Palestinian Arab newspaper Al Ayyam on January 1,1998, when asked his view of the Oslo agreement, Arafat replied: "Since the decision of the Palestinian National Council at its 12th meeting in 1974, the PLO has adopted the political solution of establishing a National Authority over any territory from which the occupation withdraws."

See first point above.

• PA cabinet minister Abdul Aziz Shaheen told the official PA newspaper Al-Havat Al-Jadida (January 4, 1998): "The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state which, in its turn, will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land." Ditto.

Huh? Palestians define "the entire Palestinian land" as including all of historic Palestine, which includes all of the State of Israel. That is their own point of view. Please stop attributing beliefs to Palestinians which they themselves deny. That is not honest. RK

That's a generalisation. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Arafat was asked: "Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?" Arafat replied: "No .... no. Allah's messenger Mohammed accepted the al-Khudaibiya peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

Are there any other characteristics of these treaties that might be relevant? Look at this example from the article on Saladin, referring to the treaty with Richard:

"The two came to an agreement over Jerusalem in 1192, whereby it would remain in Muslim hands but would be open to Christian pilgrimages."

Hmm. . .

• "when the Prophet Mohammed made the Khudaibiya agreement. . .we must learn from his steps. . .We respect agreements the way that the Prophet Mohammed respected the agreements which he signed."

Muhammad broke the treaty, yes, but why? Wasn't it after the other signatories attacked his allies? (I assume this is the same "treaty of al-Hudaybiyah" referred to in the article on Muhammad.)

• Neither report denies, however, the extreme chauvinism and nationalism predominant in the Palestinian textbooks.

This is obvious POV. One man's "chauvinism and nationalism" is another's healthy patriotism, and you know that as well as I.

• The usage maps showing all of Israel labeled as "Palestine" by the PA is notorious.

See zero's objections above.

Zero's comments were shown to be incorrect.

So that's just the more obvious bias of the article. Suggestions for fixing it? --MIRV 19:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Responses to all of RK's comments on this section: My questions were asked in honest ignorance: I truly did not know what was meant by "Palestine" in the quotes from Arafat; I did not know whether he meant "historic Palestine" (i.e. including Israel) or not, and the obvious distortions of this article (the two quotes on the historic treaties, the "nationalism and chauvinism" -- note that my objections on these points are still unanswered) left me doubting the veracity of the remaining text. RK, could you answer my first, second, and third questions again, this time with specific references and citations instead of invective, abuse, and vague generalities? --MIRV (talk) 21:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page format

The discussion page is now organized. The format is simple so don't go and post how the article is NPOV in the copyright section. --Bensaccount

Discussion

As a newcomer to this page (which seems controversial) I am trying to understand what is going on. I find the best way to do this is to organize the problems into catagories and bold the main statements from each comment. Bensaccount 19:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably the best way is just to view the diffs, in this case. The inclusion dispute is largely old hat: now I've ruthlessly edited this article, those who were calling for its wholesale deletion seem happy enough to live with its existence. Martin 21:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought your seperation into archives was productive, but I don't think your summaries were particularly useful, and I think they could have been misleading, so I removed them. Martin 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The summaries were not missleading. They were general comments about where the discussions were heading. Some were not even written by me. The comment about reversion is directly from the reversion page. The points about NPOV are necessary (the discussion is extremely non-productive). Put the summaries back or dispute this or I will put them back.Bensaccount 23:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you decide to take out all the sections for no reason like that, it will just result in the whole mess starting over again. Bensaccount 23:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you think the summaries are misleading fix them so they are not. Bensaccount 23:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*sigh* It wasn't for "no reason": there was a reason, and I explained it. I felt that your summaries were misleading and unproductive. I felt a straight archive was more useful in this case.

Anyway, I've fixed the summaries, as you asked. Martin 23:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the reversion section? The purpose of these sections is to focus the discussion instead of going around in circles. The reversion section (as the summary implied) should be about whether or not the changes were vandalism. Now the reversion section is once again going in circles. Understand? Bensaccount 00:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's your perspective. Mine is that who started reverting first (RK), who reverted the most (RK again) and whether any of the edits were vandalism (they weren't) is unlikely to be productive. Better to say, we have two versions of the article, should we pick one, or the other, or perhaps a third that is yet to be written? Martin 00:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No that is not my perspective.

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

I got this directly from the reversion article. If you want to argue this point go take it up at Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version

What you said, however, IS a POV. Bensaccount 00:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also can you stop taking away the discussion subsection. It is necessary to seperate the discussion from the summary.Bensaccount 00:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am bringing back the reversion section. It is not "my perspective". Bensaccount 00:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just because something may be true, doesn't mean that it's productive, or that it is a useful summary. Martin 01:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is useful because it illustrates what reversions are, (there seems to be more of an argument about NPOV in this section). If a section is about reversions it should be about reversions not NPOV. Hence the definition must be known. Bensaccount 02:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then link to revert. Reverts are not defined as something to avoid - that's just a recommendation. And text stating that RK may be to blame is unlikely to be helpful, regardless of whether it is true. Martin 02:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section on reverts should explain who reverted and what a revert is and what is wrong with it!!!!!! (I am bringing it back). Bensaccount 02:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why??????

If you want to express your moral outrage at reverts, surely wikipedia talk:revert is the suitable place for that, not here?

On second thought, perhaps what you are trying to say is that the actual reversion issue is no longer of importance (and never was) on this article. I will assume that this is true, but if reversion problems start up I am bringing back the summary. Bensaccount 02:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

By an amazing co-incidence, the material about Faisal in this article contains an identical selection of quotes as [1]. Choice of this many quotes from a single interview involves a creative act and is therefore copyrightable. Material removed as a possible copyright infringement. Martin 22:58, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely false. This article contains nowhere near enough material to count as a copyright violation. This issue has been discussed before. Our limited quoting is well within US Copyright fair use allowances. In fact, for non-profit works, we have considerable more leeway than for-profit works. Again, you are censoring quotes for political purposes. As discussed above, your censorship is not acceptable. RK 14:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Selection of quotes is copyrightable. The GFDL means that content has to be free for all our sub-licensees, not just us. However, we can simply link to that article, which is what I've done. Martin 15:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've just added a brief summary of the externally linked article to this one, which I believe works well. Martin 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intro and article location

Palestinian views of the peace process are the documented views of Palistenians on the peace process

Palestinian views of the peace process are the views of Palestinians on the peace process, whether documented or not. Of course, this article need to discuss documented views, because it needs to be verifiable, but I think that sentence is confusing, implying that all views are documented, or that only documented views are "proper" views, somehow. Martin 01:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the problem that arises from having an article about documented palistinian views on a page entitled palistinian views. Bensaccount 02:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your edited version seems to handle this problem well. Bensaccount 02:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need to say "documented" in article titles. For example, we have Tony Blair, not documented facts about Tony Blair, even though our article should (ideally) consist solely of the latter. "documented" should go without saying, given that we're an encyclopedia. Martin 02:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You dont seem to understand. This article is claiming to be about something it is not about. Tony blair is not doing that. Bensaccount 02:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In other words, the Tony blair article is about Tony blair. The Palistinian views article is not necessarily about palistinian views. Its about DOCUMENTED palistinian views. Bensaccount 02:20, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I get this confusion a lot. Some people have trouble understanding second order explanations.

There is a certain standard for inclusion of information in the Tony Blair article: it has to be neutral, informative, verifiable, and so forth. I believe that we should apply the same standard to information about Palestinian views of the peace process as we do to information about Tony Blair. No lower standards, of course, but no higher standards either. Martin 02:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will keep this simple:

An article about X is the definition of X. An article about a point of view on X is the definition of the point of view on X. Whether or not the definition uses documented sources is not the issue here. Bensaccount 03:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An article about The peace process is a definition of the peace process. An article about Palestinian views of the peace process is the definition of Palestinian views of the peace process.

This article is about documented Palestinian views of the peace process and therefore should be Documented Palestinian views of the peace process The article Palestinian views of the peace process should not exist because such things are not known. Bensaccount 03:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it back.

Your first point is irrelevant: "documented" is already implied, because this is an encyclopedia.

Views do vary between Palestinians. That's why there's a plural, and it's not Palestinian view of the peace process. Martin 13:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Documented is not already implied; An article about X is the definition of X. An article about a point of view on X is the definition of the point of view on X. Whether or not the definition uses documented sources is not the issue here. [User:Bensaccount|Bensaccount]] 03:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word views in the current title doesn't imply documented wiews. Bensaccount 15:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I think you admitted this yourself at one point).

Martin is obviously correct on the name. I also dislike "documented" because it gives a sense of accuracy and balance which does not correspond to the rubbish that this page is mostly composed of. --Zero 13:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the third point of the name change; it will stop the rubbish. Bensaccount 15:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you admit that views vary between Palistinians, Martin. Therefore you also must admit that these views can not all be known considering the large number of Palestinians and the fact that they all have varying views. You really have no point there. Bensaccount 15:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, views vary between Palestinians, and not all information about all views can be known. Similarly, dogs vary between examples of that species, and not all information about all dogs can be known. However, we have dog, not documented dogs. The analogy holds.

The fact that this is an encyclopedia implies documented (along with, say, "verifiable", "factual", and "not stuff I just made up"). Martin 16:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intro and article location

Views of Palestinians or documented views of Palestinians

This page has twice been moved to Documented Palestinian views of the peace process. The first time it was moved back on the basis that:

1. This article about documented Palestinian views of the peace process defines the subject using verifyable sources and therefore suddenly these selected documented views become the views of EVERY Palestinian. (Yes, I know it makes no sense but this was the reason).
2. Some people think that although views vary from Palestinian to Palestinian, it is still possible to get every Palestinian's view in this article. (Impossible)
3. This article should be entitled Palestinian views of the peace process, so that any rubbish POV can be posted here.

The reasons for this move are:

1. This article is about documented Palestinian views of the peace process and therefore should be entitled Documented Palestinian views of the peace process.
2. The article Palestinian views of the peace process should not exist because these views vary between Palestinians.
3. The new title doesn't allow any Palestinian who has a view on the peace process to post rubbish on the page. Bensaccount 15:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

28/03/04 Discussion

The old title didn't allow anyone to post their personal views either, just as the article cat doesn't allow me to post information about my pet cat. Moved back, as supported by Zero000. Martin 16:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But the article Canadian views on pet cats would entitle me to post my view there. (I decided against creating this page to say my cat is fat because it would be impossible to know the view that every Canadian cat owner holds about his or her pet cat). Bensaccount 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I still think this article should be moved. Bensaccount 14:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think Canadian views on pet cats would entitle you to write "Ben thinks cats are ugly". Your opinion on cats isn't informative (because you're not a cat expert, etc). So adding "documented" to the title doesn't help prevent you from adding your views, because you are already prevented by the nature of Wikipedia, and our general policies and guidelines. IE: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Does that answer your question? Martin 23:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being a Canadian does semantically entitle me to write my views on a page entitled Canadian views. What makes you think that Canadian views refers to only the views of important Canadians? Bensaccount 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Those semantics only apply if you take the article's title out of context. In the context of an encyclopedia, the semantics are clear: an article entitled "Canadian views on pet cats" will contain only encyclopedic information on Canadian views on pet cats. Your views are not encyclopedic.

Similarly, our article on cat will contain only encyclopedic information on cats. Non-encyclopedic information, such as that at User:MyRedDice/cat skinning, won't make the grade. The cases are equivalent. Martin 21:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion to be continued at Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic_subject Bensaccount 22:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace process or Oslo accords

This article is not limited to the Oslo accords, it also attempts to define the documented Palestinian views of more recent attempts towards peace (although these attempts aren't subsectioned). Bensaccount

Article format

The article format has been defined. This article needs to classify by people whose views are documented (ie. important people & general population). Bensaccount

Past attempts

The article made a failed attempt to dichotomize the peace process into its events and define the documented Palestinian views on each event. Bensaccount 03:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article also makes a slightly better attempt to dichotomize the peace process by the Palestinians whos views are documented. This is the classification system that is now used throughout the article. Bensaccount 03:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

State of affairs 28/03/04

The talk page has been organized. The article has been organized. The title has been fixed. The article sections need to be examined for NPOV (see NPOV dispute).

It is not an easy task to write about this subject. It is hard to gather polls and documented views.

I think that much of the current content should disappear in a puff of POV.

A non-biased article under this title will no-doubt be much smaller to start with and much less "informative". Bensaccount 16:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales speaks out against censorship of this article

In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is still censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable. On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this very situation:

"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time."

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo Wales wrote:

"I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality."

People like Martin Harper, are violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority views, are censored and deleted. In contrast, the material I have contributed shows a wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up their own mind. In the recent past, others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin Harper is doing this all over again. This is vandalism and censorship. RK 14:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo Wales writes on Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004 "The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views and background information is given.

"Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*."

"In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of Israel. We can only come to understand that better when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word."

Martin's response

As I said before last time you copy and pasted Jimbo's words out of context like that, I agree with Jimbo that this article should not be deleted, but should be improved. I have improved the article in a variety of ways. Your reverts are not helpful. Martin 15:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Martin Haper is being disingenuous. Jimbo Wales's words are quoted in full context. Martin has not "improved" the article; he has simply deleted almost every fact and quote, in order to promote his pro-Arab, anti-Israel political agenda. His non-stop reverts and censorship must be stopped. RK 15:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am not lying, as a careful review of the evidence will demonstrate. If anyone believes RK's accusations, I will be happy to refute them in detail. Otherwise, I shall not respond further. Martin 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although I may not agree with everything Martin changes, he provides reasonable arguments for his edits. You however, RK, just made a major revert for no reason whatsoever. Quoting Jimbo doesn't explain the need for a major revert here. There was progress being made on this page. Reverting was not necessary. Bensaccount 15:27, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Martin Harper reverted most of the material in this article weeks ago, and has repeatedly reverted and deleted the material since then. Please check the edit history. His claims to the contrary are false. Aren't you aware of the history of this article? Please see the discussions on the Wiki-En list archive! It is unfair to blame me for Martin's reverts and censorship. Censoring this article to promote Martin's pro-Arab political causes is not progress. RK 15:45, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have since made some contributions to the current version that was being worked on recently before you reverted. I dont care what happened weeks ago. Those are my edits you are reverting and I know they arent vandalsim. (And dont delete text on this page that isnt yours). Bensaccount 15:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. Martin 16:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You need to care about what happened weeks ago; there is a huge difference between blaming the right person and the wrong person? I am not the one removing vast amounts of material, and reverting any new addition. It is only Marti Harper (MyRedDice) who was doing that. I was merely restoring what he kept deleting. RK 15:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

• If the edits reverted by RK were not vandalism, then RK is the only one at fault here. --Bensaccount

But it is Martin that keeps reverting and deleting material. Just see the Wiki-En archives. This point isn't even debateable; this is a historical fact. RK 15:58, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Martin didn't revert my material. You did. Bensaccount 16:14, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RK, if you keep wiping out nearly six months of work by any number of people (your latest revisions are identical to those from January, less the inclusion dispute header), I'm just going to roll your edits back. Take your own advice and stop constantly reverting this page. And I swear I've said this before Jimbo doesn't settle article content disputes by royal fiat (for which he deserves many accolades)—so quit appealing to his comments as if they were the final word on the matter. —No-One Jones 12:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I won't let pro-Arab, pro-Arafat cronies vandalize thispage by systematically deleting all facts and quotes which they do not approve of. You can play word games all you like, but the simple fact is this: You contantly delete and censor every Arab quote which does not promote your political views. You only include those qotes which promote your own political views. In every other article on Wikipedia, that is a violation of NPOV. I will not stand by and allow you to continue your abuse of Wikipedia to push your personal beliefs. RK 13:13, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

As Jimbo Wales says "Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*."

I agree that this article should be improved. I also believe that reverting to a six-month-old version, thereby eradicating 51 separate edits by ~half a dozen different editors, does not count as improvement—unless every one of those edits damaged the article, which somehow I doubt. And don't make hollow threats to ban me, please; they just make you look silly. —No-One Jones 13:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry guys, but it seems to me reversion war was not a very good choice. Hence the protection. SweetLittleFluffyThing 14:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Versions

Well, I did a section-by-section comparison of the two versions here, and despite the appearance of the diffs, they are actually quite similar. I think a comparison and discussion of each section separately would help to work out a revision acceptable to all editors. We can try it with the intro and see how it works. (Version 1 is the revision of 13:14, 13 Jun 2004, by RK; Version 2 is the revision of 02:48, 30 May 2004, by Tagishsimon.)

Introduction - competing versions

Version 1

Version 2

This article discusses various Palestinian views of the peace process with Israel, aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some high-level officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) have said that their peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a variety of Palestinian views of the peace process. This article discusses the views held by important Palestinian figures as documented in interviews or in other sources, and by the general population as documented by polls.

Comments and suggested revisions

This should be easy:

Since this section is meant to serve as a summary of the article's contents, it may need revisiting later, after the rest of the article has taken shape.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are a variety of Palestinian views of the peace process. This article discusses the views held by the general population, as documented by polls, and those held by important Palestinian figures, as documented in interviews or in other sources. Some high-level officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

I integrated the information from the two versions, with tweaks to the structure of the second sentence, removal of the unnecessary bolding and duplicate links, and the addition of a link to peace process. Further comments and/or suggested revisions, please. —No-One Jones 16:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dispute this:

others have said that it is only a temporary measure designed for the ultimate purpose of destroying Israel.

I believe this is one interpretation of certain comments by PA officials, but not necessarilly a correct one, and would thus prefer to remove this entire sentence. For example, some Palestinians hope to achieve a "one state solution" and rely on demographics to eventually remove the current Jewish character of Israel - but it is a point of view that such demographic changes would "destroy Israel".

Regardless of this, I also feel that this sentence places undue emphasis on a single aspect of Palestinian views of the peace process (and narrowly within the PA at that), which indirectly promotes a certain point of view, as has been noted in the talk page before now. There are many broad brush things that could be said about Palestinian views, truthfully or not, and I don't feel precedence should be given to any particular characterisation. Martin 00:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is however better without the bold. Martin 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Valid points all. How about this instead:

Some Palestinian leaders have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel; others have maintained, throughout the entire process, their goal of destroying Israel.

This summarizes the full range of views, from "we want peace" to "we want to destroy Israel", without relying on disputed or distorted interpretations. (The "others" in the second half of the sentence are, of course, Hamas and PIJ, whose views are, as far as I know, not in dispute.) —No-One Jones 18:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That would definately be more acceptable to me - though "others" should be "other Palestinians" to be clear, I think. However, my concern remains that this is highlighting only one aspect of the disagreement between Palestinians. Another one might be between those Palestinians who believe that believe the current peace process to be a route to permanent peace, and those who believe that Israel is (to mirror similar Israeli quotes) "not a partner for peace". Or between those who view the proposed Gaza pullout to be a genuine concession, and (the majority IIRC) who take a more cynical view.

Which reminds me, the "views of Hamas" sections needs to explicitly state Hamas's current view - we correctly state that their end goal is to overthrow Israel, but don't mention their current statement that they officially support a "strategic" peace, with the eventual overthrow of Israel "left to future generations". Which is of course exactly the view that Robert (incorrectly, I believe) attributes to PA leaders. Martin 22:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is good, but we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here; once these views are laid out in detail in the body of the article (as they currently are not), working them into the introduction should be easy. (Also I want to change their goal to the goal if we're going to say "other Palestinians"—otherwise the sentence suggests that all Palestinians share the goal of destroying Israel.) —No-One Jones 22:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. Thumbs up then, for now! :) Martin

Now we just need RK's input. . . :-/—No-One Jones 06:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Israeli Intelligence Assessment

This is a proposed additional section based on a number of sources, especially on the Haaretz articles here, here, and here.

The dispute over the ultimate motivations of the Palestinian leadership is fought even within the upper echelons of the Israeli intelligence establishment. In June 2004, a public debate broke out between a number of recently retired intelligence leaders, notably Amos Gilad - who headed the research division of Military Intelligence (MI) between 1996 and 2001, and was coordinator of activities in the territories from 2001-03, and Amos Malka - who was head of MI from mid-1998 to the end of 2001, and was Gilad's direct superior. Gilad expressed the belief that the destruction of Israel was the only acceptable outcome to Arafat and his supporters, and in particular that Arafat would never agree to less than a massive return of Palestinian refugees to their former places of living. Malka, on the other hand, claimed that Gilad's opinion was not based on any intelligence research; rather that his department's internal assessment was that Arafat would accept a Palestinian state comprising most of the occupied territories, a compromise on Jerusalem, and formal acceptance with token implementation of the right of return. Malka claimed that the Palestinian leadership used measured doses of violence as a technique to prod the diplomatic process forward - an assessment that Gilad vigorously denied. Each of the two found high-profile supporters.

I like this. Should it go under views of the PA? Martin 19:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or in Amos Gilad and Amos Malka? Martin 18:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Husseini

The first essay referenced in the article can be found at: [2]. A link and summary is better than a long quote. Perhaps fuller quotes could be provided at Faisal Husseini?

Robert has used selective quoting from Amir, who himself selectively quotes. The result is not neutral. It fails to mention Husseini's note about the powerlessness of the pre-Oslo Palestine liberation movement, his fear that the US and Israel would seek to exploit that, his description of the Oslo accords as being small, weak and ugly, from a Palestinian perspective, his praise for "gradual diplomatic goals", or his faith in returning to Israel, settling, and striking new roots, as the eventual means to ensure the "liberation" of Palestine. Husseini is not alone in noticing the Palestinian demographic edge, on all sides of the struggle.

While I am unclear that Amir is any more neutral than Robert, I would prefer to link to his original analysis, rather than including our own analysis (necessarilly highly controversial) of his analysis, as that will ensure that any bias that does exist is attributed to Amir, rather than to Wikipedia. Perhaps Robert could write his personal interpretation elsewhere, and we could link to it, in parallel to Amir's, and any other reviews of Husseini's public statements. Compare Jews in the New Testament. Martin 17:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 4 edit war

The edit war of July 4, 2004, which led to this page being protected, centered on the amount of material to include regarding Faisal Husseini. Hopefully we can resolve this through consensus, rather than reverts.

The short version is as follows:

Faisal Husseini, former Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem, was well known in Israeli circles as a Palestinian dove and moderate. He was an extremely high-ranking official who represented the most liberal faction of the Palestinian Authority. He stated that "Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states." On 24 June 2000, in an taped interview with journalist Shafik Ahmed Ali, given to the Egyptian newspaper el Arav, Faisal Husseini compared the Oslo accords to a "Trojan horse", and stated "the strategic goal is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea". [Amir, 2001]

The long version is like this:

Faisal Husseini, former Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem, was well known in Israeli circles as a Palestinian dove and moderate. He was an extremely high-ranking official who represented the most liberal faction of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, The LA Times ran an editorial by him "The Holy City Must Be Ruled Fairly" which states: No single group should be able to claim either religious or political exclusivity in Jerusalem....Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states. In our vision, East Jerusalem, as defined by the 1948-1967 borders, would be under Palestinian sovereignty, while West Jerusalem would be under Israeli sovereignty....Creating shared administrative arrangements is especially important in the Old City of Jerusalem, as this concentrated area evokes the most passion among Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, the following quotes come from the June 24, 2000 issue of el Arav, an Egyptian newspaper. In a taped interview with journalist Shafik Ahmed Ali he stated: "The Oslo agreements were a Trojan Horse....The strategic goal is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." When asked about the intentions of Arafat and the Oslo peace deal signed in 1993, Husseini recounted the classical Greek story of the Trojan horse: "we all know what happened afterwards. Had the US and Israel understood before Oslo that all that remained of the Palestine liberation movement and the Pan-Arab movement was the Trojan Horse named Arafat or the PLO, they would have never opened their fortified gates and let him in." Husseini stated that he told Israelis and Americans "Get on the horse and don't ask what it is made of. Get on the horse, and your entry inside will turn into the dawn of an era of building and not an era of the end of hope!" Husseini stated that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian factions to view the peace process as only "temporary" and "gradual" steps. "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them." He said that the final goal of the Palestinian Authority is still the "liberation of all Palestine from the river [Jordan] to the sea [Mediterranean],...[even if it takes] 1,000 years, or generations upon generations."

So what's the consensus? They both seem factually accurate and NPOV to me. Is one version much more preferable than another? Quadell (talk) 20:34, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Section I removed

I just removed a totally unsourced section that said:

==Faisal Husseini==

Faisal Husseini, former Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem, was well known in Israeli circles as a Palestinian dove and moderate. He was an extremely high-ranking official who represented the most liberal faction of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial by him, "The Holy City Must Be Ruled Fairly," which states:

"No single group should be able to claim either religious or political exclusivity in Jerusalem .... Palestinians believe that Jerusalem should be a shared, open city; two capitals for two states. In our vision, East Jerusalem, as defined by the 1948-1967 borders, would be under Palestinian sovereignty, while West Jerusalem would be under Israeli sovereignty .... Creating shared administrative arrangements is especially important in the Old City of Jerusalem, as this concentrated area evokes the most passion among Jews, Christians and Muslims."

However, the following quotes come from the June 24, 2000 issue of el Arav, an Egyptian newspaper. In a taped interview with journalist Shafik Ahmed Ali he stated,"The Oslo agreements were a Trojan Horse .... The strategic goal is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea." When asked about the intentions of Arafat and the Oslo peace deal signed in 1993, Husseini recounted the classical Greek story of the Trojan horse:

"we all know what happened afterwards. Had the US and Israel understood before Oslo that all that remained of the Palestine liberation movement and the Pan-Arab movement was the Trojan Horse named Arafat or the PLO, they would have never opened their fortified gates and let him in." Husseini stated that he told Israelis and Americans "Get on the horse and don't ask what it is made of. Get on the horse, and your entry inside will turn into the dawn of an era of building and not an era of the end of hope!"

Husseini stated that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian factions to view the peace process as only "temporary" and "gradual" steps. "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them." He said that the final goal of the Palestinian Authority is still the "liberation of all Palestine from the river [Jordan] to the sea [Mediterranean],...[even if it takes] 1,000 years, or generations upon generations."

Since it is without any source it currently has no value. Add it back if it can be sourced.--SJP 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag cleanup

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag - problems with the article

I have re tagged the article, as it is extremely biased. I have attempted to list my objections.

• 1.The citations and view points are almost entirely from Israeli and American sources. Palestinian blogs are used to support this.
• 2.The lede is - "While some Palestinian leaders have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel, others have maintained that their goal is to destroy Israel". This does not reflect Palestinian views of the peace process, and does not summarise the article's content, but pushes an Israeli POV.
• 3.The section on refugees is bizarre. It does not mention the 1948 Palestinian exodus, nor the large number of stateless refugees.
• 4.The structure of the article is illogical.
• 5.The article is obsessed with the existence or non-existence of the state of Israel, but fails to demonstrate it's importance to Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
• 6.The article fails to give Palestinian views of the peace process.
• 7.The Maps and textbooks contains no information relevant to Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first line of the section "Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" makes no mention of views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It should be removed, or rewritten.-

"The stated goal of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is to conquer Israel and replace it with an Islamist state."93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not enough. There has to be an on-going dispute or blatant POV issues to warrant a tag, trust me I know this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My trust in you is reduced by you removing the tag, with the edit summary "reverting drive by". If you read this page, and the archive, you will find both on-going disputes, and accusations of blatant POV issues. Please deal with the issues I have raised, before removing the tag.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your message on my page. Please read this: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute - Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added only as a last resort.

While the tag has to be removed under wikipedia policy, I'd like to address the above points anyways.

• 1 Irrelevant. Nationality/region of media has little to do with wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Israel has the highest level of press freedom in the Middle East according to Reporters without Borders, though Freedomhouse ranks the country considerably higher. The Palestinian territories administered by the PA are classified as "not free" and rank in the bottom ~140 according to RWB. For the most part, blogs are unacceptable references on wikipedia.

• 2 I really don't understand what you are saying. Israel has a "functioning" relationship with the Palestinian Authority in the WB under various peace agreements, such as the Oslo Accords, but Hamas does not recognize Israel and has repeatedly stated within its charter and organization that their goal is to destroy the state and kill Jews (not just Israelis).

• 3 I don't know. That may be an issue but is less of a POV concern.

• 4 Again, nothing to do with POV.

• 5 Well, I do not think that is the case but feel free to edit.

• 6 Considering the Palestinian POV is a series of agendas ranging from eliminating the Jewish state to collaborating the Israelis I think the article does a good job of covering the bases without going overboard.

• 7 Okay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This thing is an utterly absurd hit piece and makes a mockery of Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 05:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the pov tag, untill the above are dealt with in line with specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

goal to destory Israel

The line in the lead reads, "While some Palestinian leaders have said that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel, others, such as Israel's Likkud party, have maintained that their goal is to destroy Israel." This sentence incorporates two facts: (1) the official stance that the peace process is legitimate and (2) some commentators skepticism of this stance. The statement is sourced to a reliable source. There can be no denying that some people believe that, at least among certain Palestinians, the goal of the peace process is to destroy Israel. I've also cited the info to Bernard Lewis. I hope this clears things up. --GHcool (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the article is about "Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", and not about the stance of the right-wing Likud party or any other parties' assessment of true/untrue intentions of Palestinian leaders in the peace process(es). In this regard, I am supporting the opinion of Factsontheground. However, I would propose two options to improve this article: change the name of the article into Israeli and Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; or Political stances on peace processes in the Israeli-Palestinian confict". In the latter option, the article presumes to present all views, and will not be limited only to parties involved in the conflict. Personally I would prefer this option expecting that there might be new separate articles started in future on each and every stances regarding our topic. Julian Weizmann (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Israeli views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has its own article. The "Israeli views" article is a respectable length and I don't think it can efficiently fit the Palestinian views as well without becoming too long. The Likud party (and Bernard Lewis) are referring to the views explicitly expressed by such actors as Hamas and other elements within the PA saying that the peace process is a means to the end of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback GHcool! I will definately read the article that you provided me! rgs, Julian Weizmann (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, GHcool. I have thoroughly read this article and found that article discusses Palestinian views, through the Israel perspective, which makes the article called 'Israeli view over the Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Which, of course, sounds rediculous.

What I propose is to discuss the article in length and agree upon the content of the article. best, Julian Weizmann (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some SERIOUS work!

At the moment this article suffers from being very POV, using extremely dated sources, making poorly sourced comments in Wikipedia's own voice, and, most critically, conflating two distinct things: a) the views of Palestinians based on what they themselves, and b) the interpretation by some commentators that Palestinian expressions of their own views are not to be taken at face value. On this last point, I think the two really need to be separated out so that we have sections on what Palestinians say that are distinct from reception of these views by commentators. Running them together is terribly misrepresentative as it means that nowhere in the article do we hear what the Palestinians say without this being directly glossed by third-party interpretations which certainly must be dealt with but shouldn't be given the weight they currently are. 92.226.45.66 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to work through from the first section. First off, I've updated the headline quote to provide something more up to date and to represent the change in public stance since the old quote, which I removed. Second, do we really need the Hamas flag? What does it add? I assume the point is to associate Hamas with Jihadism but this can surely be done in the text (especially as the jihad link to the old quote has now gone and the formatting is rather ugly with the flag there). Third, first sentence only provides a source for the Hamas charter, is this in common with PIJ? If not we need to either add another source that does cover PIJ or remove the comment that includes them. I've had a look for their charter but have not been able to find it. Anyone have a link? Four, the final sentence of the first paragraph is horribly point of view and can't possibly be justified as being included in the editorial voice on the basis of a single source, especially as it runs counter to what Hamas themselves say. I'm going to change 'Jewish life' to 'Jewish political life', as at the moment it sounds like the editorial voice is claiming that Hamas are genocidal but hopefully we can sort the whole sentence out after some discussion. 92.226.45.66 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've ended up removing the whole sentence as it simply doesn't correlate with what is said in the source and the source is not, in any case, sufficient grounds for making statements in wikipedia's editorial voice.

I'm also removing the NYT commentary on the 2008 announcement as this has been superceded by the 2010 announcement, which makes claims about what Hamas will not say in the future irrelevant.92.226.45.66 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Hamas and PIJ are elided into a single section?92.226.45.66 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your criticisms in order:

Separating the Palestinian views from the commentary

Its not a terrible idea, but I think the narrative flow of the article would suffer as a result. I think the way the article is organized is fine the way it stands now.

I have to say, respectfully, that I disagree. It was the difficulty of working out what the Palestinian positions are that motivated me to start editing this article. In the PLO section (which, by the way, I think needs to be made rather less central - what we really need is a Fatah/PA section as putting the central focus on Arafat when he has been dead for eight years and things have moved on seems unbalanced) there is two or three times more material on interpretations of the Palestinian views than there is on the views themselves. The use of a quote from 1970 that reflects some current interpretations but not the current public stance is indicative of the problem. I guess this issue will become a bit more "live" when we move on from the Hamas section, but given the topic of the article I think priority really has to be given to publicly expressed current views with interpretative glosses on those views as a secondary feature.85.179.35.70 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hamas flag

I think it adds color and flavor to the article similarly to the way Arafat's picture does.

Agreed. It's fine now that there is no format clash with the quotations.85.179.35.70 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PIJ

I agree that the information on PIJ really needs to be expanded and updated.

I'll see what I can dig up but a quick Google didn't yield much of value. I can't even find their charter!85.179.35.70 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, we have this passage in the Forward article:

"In a number of cases, Abu Marzook — who is one of three prime candidates in upcoming internal elections for Hamas’s top leadership spot — offered words that differ on a practical level with the organization’s actual stance or behavior. The discrepancy could cut either way: In his call for a hudna with Israel, Abu Marzook sounded almost beseechingly dovish, even though his underlying conditions and details suggested a considerably more hard-line stance. On the other hand, his defense of Hamas’s right to launch operations targeting civilians compared with the absence of such attacks in recent years within Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries."

Given that one of the things identified as a discrepancy is the thing we cite in the article, I think this needs to be mentioned in order to make it clear that he is not representing the official Hamas position. However, I'm currently a bit baffled as to what the official position is. Is it the one advanced by Haniyeh in 2010 or is that one unorthodox as well and there is something explicit coming from their council or from the current leader? 85.179.35.70 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC) By the way, both of these IP addresses are user:BothHandsBlack. The first bunch of edits I made while accidentally logged out and I thought I would stick with the IP address for consistency but now that has changed I shall start editing logged in again (if I can remember - my computer currently logs me out every 15mins or so!).85.179.35.70 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate to have to state the obvious, but Hamas has never ever been anything but against the peace process despite Haniyeh's 2010 statement. Indeed, his statement is does not even contradict this contempt for the peace process. --GHcool (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we really need sources on their stance. One can be against the peace process in a wide range of ways and we need to specify what the official position is as there is a world of difference between an absolutist stance that rejects any moves towards peace and a stance that is based on an ideological rejection but involves a practical willingness to come to terms, such as the view Haniyeh articulated. The job of the article is to identify precisely these details.BothHandsBlack (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)