Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Article flagged as disputed

A disputed flag ("The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.") was added by Mr Anonymous below on March 16th 2008.

Article has been heavily buffed from it's previous incarnation. It relies on documents found ONLY at the pro-Israeli UN Watch site, it has removed contextual background on Anne Bayfleski - there are many many more paragraphs on "allegations of anit-israeli bias" than corresponding sections on anti palestiaiaon atricles and - to cap it all the Article is flagged as being "politics of Israel". Couldn't be a more biased re-write. 83.231.209.165 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-write? Go ahead, we're waiting. If you comply with all WP guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, your edits will stay, if not, they will be deleted. Oh and be careful wiht yrou splelinng. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
But you've already imposed ablanket revert on my edits - see your talk page: "Dear 83.245.19.149, I see you knew exactly how to recover your work and re-introduce it in the article. I suspect you are not new to Wikipedia, only sneaky. And, on the subject of rudeness, there is nothing more rude than anonymous edits. See you at the article. Emmanuelm 19:36, 5 November 2007" - So I'll just flag as and leave it for the more polite to edit it. 83.231.210.166 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I cannot wait to read comments & edits on the content of the article. So far, all they want to talk about is the *&^%# title. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of this discussion was moved at bottom of page

Israel, Palestinians... One a state. One a nation.

Is there a good reason that an article that claims to be concerned with the United Nations, as it pertains to the Israel-Palestine conflict, refuses to use the official UN designation: 'Palestine'.. ? A little too suggestive of statehood? Biases aside, that is the obvious designation that should be used to address both parties to the dispute, in an article concerning the UN. ElPax (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to reopen the six months old debate in these pages about the name of the article. For the record, my original title was Israel, Palestine and the United Nations but I lost to a higher number. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked again to refresh my memory. El Pax and Emmanuelm - that's not true It was only Justin (koavf) who wanted the present title and moved it against Emmanuelm's, Malik Shabazz's and my wishes. It's just that nobody bothered to move it back. So it's now 4-1 in favor of the original title; someone should rename it from the present clunky title.John Z (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would support the move back, but I'd prefer using the official UN terminology and calling it "The Question of Palestine and the United Nations." <eleland/talkedits> 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That is, indeed, the approved UN terminology and I think there should be no objection to moving this page to Eleland's proposal. Relata refero (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(In this case, of course, the term "Palestine" is being used in its historical-geographical sense, rather than to refer to any national entity; the term is held over from the very first, pre-Israel UN discussions on the subject.) <eleland/talkedits> 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait! the title should follow the (unwritten, but widely accepted) template in the Category:United Nations relations, which is Country X and the United Nations. In this context, the debate should be between the titles Israel, Palestine and the United Nations vs. Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations.

For the sake of transparency, I will bring this debate to the attention of the pundits of the same debate six months ago. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still strongly prefer "Israel, Palestine and the United Nations" to other choices, including the Question of Palestine and agree with Emmanuelm's argument above. There was an older "Israel and the UN" article. Emmanuelm did a lot of work creating this one and merged the Israel and UN article into it, which I think was a very good idea. The relations of the two to the UN are so intertwined that I think it is impossible to write an "Israel and UN" article and a "Palestine and UN" article without them becoming POV forks. If it were retitled Question of Palestine, that would be considered by many as a Palestine and UN article. I am sure what would happen would be that there would be a new Israel and UN article created and then 2 POV fork articles, just what Emmanuelm avoided.John Z (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My two cents I would prefer that there be two separate articles, if for no other reason than the fact that this one is massive. I am not personally invested enough in this dispute to defend an argument about how it (they) should be named. That having been said, if this article is to be moved, it should be posted at WP:RM and a proper discussion initiated (which did not occur last time, as I recall.) If anyone else desires my input, please post on my talk; I do not suspect that I will follow this further. My utmost and sincere appreciation to Emmanuelm for alerting me to this discussion. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that all of the information here relates to the conflict between the two, and could not be neatly separated. If the UN has made statements, say, the status of Sri Lankan guest workers in Israel, or Christian-Muslim relations in the OPT, it hardly seems relevant to this article. I want to emphasize that the "Question of Palestine" is A) official UN terminology, as used in all UN documents such as this one, B) referring to the geographic region of Palestine, not any national or state party, and predates the emergence of distinct entities called "Israel" and "Palestine." <eleland/talkedits> 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Falk quote

Per this diff and the following sources: [1][2] [3]:

Eleland, please explain why the straightforward, objective, well-sourced statement that Richard Falk compared Israel's actions to that of the Nazis must be replaced with an obtuse and equivocating statement to the same effect.
Michael Safyan (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The only source for "has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust" is the AP/Ha'aretz report. The BBC said that he compared "Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis [...] he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza." As it happens, we have the actual source where Dugard made these claims, and he clearly did not compare Israeli actions to the Nazi Holocaust. What he actually said - after taking two entire paragraphs to explain how "painful for me, as an American Jew," the analogy was - was this:

Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently.

In other words, the reason for the "obtuse and equivocating statement" is that Falk actually made it, rather than the "straightforward, objective" version which the Associated Press / Ha'aretz came up with. He called it an "inflammatory metaphor," adding "I am not suggesting that the comparison should be viewed as literal," (his italics.) It may shock you to hear this, but newspapers aren't always the best source for nuances of this kind.
If you're dead-set against using Dugard's piece to explain what Dugard wrote, then can we at least compromise by using the BBC version? "...expected to be replaced by Richard Falk, who has drawn a comparison between the "massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza" and the Nazi record of collective atrocity." <eleland/talkedits> 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the BBC, "Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians [by Israel] with the Nazi record of collective atrocity...." According to Haaretz/AP, "Falk defended statements he made last summer equating Israel's treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews during the Holocaust." Both of these sources are considered to be reliable for use in Wikipedia. I won't waste time arguing with you whether saying "it is not irresponsible" to make a comparison is the same as actually making that comparison. The fact of the matter is that you are attempting to dispute material from Haaretz/AP and BBC, sources generally accepted as neutral and reliable. Such a position is untenable, and could lead to a very slipper slope where nothing can be sourced, because generally accepted news sources cease to be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion in Wikipedia. Given these sources, your contention that Richard Falk did not actually make these statements is based solely on your assumption that Falk has expressed his opinions on this matter in only one forum, the ZMag article, or that the BBC and Haaretz/AP articles refer specifically to that ZMag article. On what basis do you assume this? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: You seem to be confused about the subject matter; we are talking about Richard Falk, not John Dugard. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Crossed wires, of course. The quotes are all from Falk's piece, just read "Falk" for "Dugard" and it all makes sense... <eleland/talkedits> 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is over the "Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust" article, according to [The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/08/wisrael108.xml] Jewish Telegraph Agency, Canadian Jewish News, and the editorial board of the [4] National Post]. Most of those sources quote the same line that I was quoting.
I'm not saying that we need to discount the Ha'aretz / AP source. I'm saying that there are many sources available, and there's no justification for picking the one which uses the most inflammatory possible summation of his remarks. The text you're using makes it sound like Dugard believes that Olmert is warming up the gas chambers as we speak, which is patently ridiculous, and designed to make him look like a fool.
And I noticed that you accuse me of trying to discount the BBC, but you ignore my suggested compromise of using the BBC's language. <eleland/talkedits> 03:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how these sources support your position. According to The Telegraph, "he [Richard Falk] said it [Israel] was responsible for a 'Holocaust in the making' in Gaza" and "he [Richard Falk] compared it [Israel] last year to Nazi Germany". According to the JTA, "Falk ... likened Israel's closure of Hamas-ruled Gaza to Nazi tactics" and "The Foreign Ministry said it wants Falk to retract his Holocaust comparison". According to CJN, "Richard Falk, an American Jewish academic who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany". According to the National Post article, "In his [Richard Falk's] writings [note plurality], he has repeatedly criticized the Jewish state for waging what he calls a 'holocaust' against Palestinians" (emphasis added). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. The followup move request is clearly going nowhere either. No discussion in days. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This page was originally called "Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations" but was moved to "Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations," presumably on the rationale that Palestine isn't really a country, so it can't be used in the title. Well, OK, but this is an article about the United Nations, and it should use official United Nations terminology. Whenever this issue is discussed at the UN it is under the name of, "The Question of Palestine." I want to note that this naming dates back to before 1948, when the entire region was called "Palestine" and there was no Israel - "Palestinians" referred to both Arabs and Jews in the region. Note that this terminology is used by parties on all sides of the conflict; it is entirely NPOV. In short, this is a much better title than something devised by Wikipedians for Wikipedians, which we can all argue endlessly over, because "Palestine" makes the Israel-aligned editors mad since they think it implies falsely that Palestine is a sovereign independent nation-state, and "Palestinians" makes the Palestine-aligned editors mad since they think it implies falsely that Israel is negotiating with some nationless rabble. <eleland/talkedits> 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still prefer the original title for reasons I explained above. Your presumption about the "arguments" is utterly reasonable, but entirely wrong. :-) The "arguments" weren't anything like one might think, and scarcely existed. I think the present title sounds awful. It was supported and moved by only one editor who is no longer involved, who if anything is pro-Palestinian, against everyone else's preference for the original title. "Palestine" didn't make any Israel-aligned editors mad - the original title was created by an Israel-aligned editor Emmanuelm. "Palestinians" together with Israel and the UN just sounds weird to my ears.John Z (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Oppose: The article deals not only with the relationship between the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations, but also the relationship between Israel and the United Nations. Renaming the article to Question of Palestine at the United Nations would imply a more limited scope. Might you instead consider The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Eleland's point that the term "Palestinian" used to refer to both Arabs and Jews in the region... while that is so, the fact of the matter is that the term "Palestinian" now has an entirely different meaning, and using the historical meaning of a word when it has a different contemporary meaning is likely to cause unnecessary confusion, both to readers and editors. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I cannot understand why this sterile argument about the article title is being revived. It was discussed at length in October 2007 (archived) and again two months ago. No tittle will ever satisfy everyone, so stop trying. Instead, be constructive, improve the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Point 2 against: as it stands now, the article is about both Israel/Jews and Palestine/Palestinians. The proposed new name implies the splitting of the article into two. I cannot understand how one could write an article about one without the other.
  • Point 3 against: the current title follows the unwritten but well accepted template of articles about the UN, which is Country X and the United Nations. See Category:United Nations relations for numerous examples. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Definitely the proposed title is better, the current one could be good for a newspaper and is not even acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I guess. --Checco (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse also Micheal Safyan's proposed title. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Michael's proposed title "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" certainly sounds better than the current one. I still prefer Emmanuelm's original "Israel, Palestine and the UN" which had only one objection to it, because Michael's title would tend to exclude the Arab-Israeli conflict - the role of the UN in the war between Israel and the Arab states, certainly something important. I don't like Arab-Israeli and UN because Palestine is then missing. John Z (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think the current title does invite controversy in what is already one of the world's most controversial subjects. I'm not sure that "Question of Palestine at UN" is the best alternative, though. It is perhaps the most appropriate for those in the UN for UN purposes, but that doesn't make it the best for Wikipedia purposes. I think "Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" is the most neutral, most non-controversial, and most succinct way to sum up what this article is. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. proposed title "Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations" : for the record, I do not mind about this title, nor do I care. This title is inaccurate, like all the other titles. For example, two big issues in the article are i) the membership of Israel to a Regional Group and ii) the UN tolerating anti-semitic discourse. These issues are internal to the UN, not directly linked to the war. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree. These are very much linked. Ever hear of the New antisemitism? The UN's toleration of anti-Semitic discourse is a prime example of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. The UN's exclusion of Israel from regional groups is connected to non-recognition of Israel by the vast majority of Arab states and to anti-Semitic undercurrents. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Since it seems like there are a number of editors who would support, or at least not object to, a page move to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations, I propose we drop consideration of Question of Palestine at the United Nations and, instead, discuss moving the article to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move request: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations

Moved from below at time of closure. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that this article be moved to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations. To support or oppose this move, please leave your comments below.

  • Support: There seems to be general opposition to the current title Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations. I personally dislike the current title for two reasons: the asymmetry between "Israel" and "Palestinians" (it should be "Israel, the Palestinian Authority..." or "Israelis, Palestinians...") and for the grammatical abomination of failing to include a final comma before the "and" in a list with three or more items. I support moving the page to The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the United Nations, since I believe it is the most neutral, accurate, and grammatically correct alternative to the current title. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as it stands now, the article contains two sections not directly related to the conflict: i) Regional Groups and ii) Antisemitism. The article also refers to Lebanon/UNIFIL and Egypt. Renaming the article would imply deletion of these important topics. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2001 Durban's World Conference against Racism

I have removed this paragraph:

"the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands. Another best-selling title was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hundreds of flyers were distributed with a picture of Hitler and the words, "What if I had won? The good thing—there would be no Israel." Appeals to the conference’s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to demand the removal of this anti-Semitic literature went unheeded.[89]"

The source needs checking. I tried searching for it " The UN and the Jews" and it makes no mention of the above. In addition, I do not believe the source is even credible to make it on the wikipedia page.

I also feel the source for the above quote needs verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeLeeDan (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article by Anne Bayefsky, of the EyeontheUN.org fame, is not found in palestinefacts.org, as you pointed out, but is still easily found using Google. I found the original article from Commentary Magazine, which requires a subscription, and the full text at ChristianactionforIsrael.org. I restored the deleted paragraph with a better source. I trust you will be fully satisfied and thank you profusely for your meticulous proofreading. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't know of any primary source detailing this from any media outlets who were present at the conference? Or any scans of these flyers? It find the paragraph quite shocking to be honest with you. Whilst I know the Elders of Zion is freely available around the world, I don't think they would have dared to dispute these along with anti-semitic cartoons, during a UN conference.

I personally feel that the article by Anne Bayefsky, does not comply with WP:NOR. A primary source should make "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". The article is trying to claim the UN is anti-semitic. PeeLeeDan (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary sources. Bayefsky's article is a clear example of a secondary source. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I understand, but I feel we should have a primary source to go along side this claim. It seems quite strange that this hasn't been picked up by any media outlet. If this is a secondary source, then we need to state that within the article....eg the paragraph should start of as According to Professor A.F. Bayefsky, a human rights scholar and activist, the Arab Lawyer’s Union freely distributed books .... PeeLeeDan (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else was written by an anon IP, I deleted it. This article is not the place for a CV of all quoted authors. Anne Bayefsky has her own article where all this information belongs. Note that there is no background in this article about quoted authors Phyllis Bennis, Jacqueline Sfeir, Omar Barghouti, John Dugard and many others. Why pick on Bayefsky?
As for the quality of the source, be bold, find and quote others to balance this one. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one area in which I have an interest in, the UN and anti-semitism. If we can't verify the events which are part of this paragraph, then it shouldn't be part of the article, OR should be phrased as above. I'd rather have one or two paragraph of actual and verified events, rather than many events which are only quoted by authors and can't be verified by primary sources. I therefore propose this paragraph is scrapped.PeeLeeDan (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PeeLee, you'll like this: Bayefsky posts photos of the event from ICARE & the Magenta Foundation, available at eyeontheun.org. Is this primary enough for you? Should this page be added as a source? I think not but will let you decide. I changed my mind and added the link to the text the next day.
Other secondary sources about Durban 2001: ngomonitor.org with a summary of events that describes the same scene; I just added a quote of this source in the article. There is also palestinefacts.org quoting Collin Powell throwing a wide range of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish accusations at the organizers. Google "Durban 2001" for more. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Peelee, one more just for you. I added a quote of Mary Robinson saying there was horrible anti-Semitism present. She was the High Commissioner at the time. She was there.
Finally, I'll address a few of your arguments:
  • The article is trying to claim the UN is anti-semitic. Wikipedia articles should not claim anything, only cite sources that claim something. If you find contrarian sources, please quote them. But, by removing a sourced opinion, you would introduce bias in the article.
  • I'd rather have one or two paragraph of actual and verified events, rather than many events which are only quoted by authors. Wikipedia, as stated in the WP:NOR and WP:VER guidelines, is merely a guide to published authors & their opinions, not some kind of fact checker. The opinions remain the responsibility of the authors themselves, not Wikipedia. You really must read the WP:Verifiability guideline, which starts with: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  • It seems quite strange that this hasn't been picked up by any media outlet. Did you check the date of the conference? from August 31, 2001 until September 8, 2001. Three days later, the world stopped giving a damn about these clowns. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Article flagged as disputed - revisited

This discussion was cut & pasted from above.

This is a dreadful article - and removing the affiliation of Anne Bayefsky as she makes partisan generalisations about UN-Israel relations is just another blatant example.
Amongst the very first things needed is a list of UN resolutions pertaining to the area. It is absurd to categorise them by "target" and not list what each one was about and how they have been implemented (or not, in most cases).
Something else urgently needed is a listing of attacks and killings by Israel all parties of UN personnel. There are alleged to have been 13 of these killed in 2002 alone, including Iain Hook, the British head of reconstruction after Operation Defensive Shield, shot dead inside the UN compound. UN bases have been shelled and bombed in very worrying circumstances.
Even from amongst the factual elements quoted there are ridiculous distortions (eg the death toll for the conflict is perhaps 20 times more than implied/stated) and outright falsehoods eg support for an Israeli state in 1922. Statehood was specifically rejected by the Churchill Memorandum of that year. PRtalk 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
removing the affiliation of Anne Bayefsky...
Actually, including the "affiliation" of Anne Bayefsky constitutes the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem and is POV, since it implies that her position did not derive from expertise in international law and is, instead, based on her "affiliation". If you can find an article which criticizes her decision based on this "affiliation", then quote that criticism with attribution. Otherwise, mentioning this supposed "affiliation" violates WP:OR -- since it attempts to relate an "affiliation" based on one source and imply that it was responsible for a decision in another source --, and it also violates WP:NPOV, by attempting to discredit her view.
a list of UN resolutions pertaining to the area
What kind of UN resolutions? UN Security Council resolutions? UN General Assembly resolutions? UN Human Rights Council resolutions? Should we include all resolutions, or only those resolutions which are considered to be "binding" (i.e. UN General Assembly resolutions for which all affected parties have agreed to the resolution, and all UN Security Council resolutions)?
listing of attacks and killings by Israel of UN personnel
According to whom? Electronic Intifada and Zmag? Should we also list the attacks and killings by Palestinians of UN personnel? Should we also list the UN personnel and UN agencies which, according to Israel, have aided and abetted Palestinian terror attacks? At the very least, could you attempt some semblance of neutrality. I realize that with a name like PalestineRemembered (which you abbreviate "PR"), it is obvious to all that you are a pro-Palestinian partisan warrior; nevertheless, it would be very refreshing to see you write "attacks and killings by both sides of UN personnel", "attacks and killings by all parties of UN personnel", or "attacks and killings by both Israelis and Palestinians of UN personnel" as if you actually cared about neutrality and objectivity. I hope that you consider doing so in the future.
outright falsehoods eg support for an Israeli state in 1922
In case you weren't aware (you really ought to be though, if you want to edit Israel-related and Palestine-related articles), the British Mandate for Palestine ([5]) -- which charged Britain with "putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" -- was issued in 1922. If the League of Nations Palestine Mandate of 1922 does not count as "support for an Israeli state", I don't know what does.
Michael Safyan (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
For everyone's info, there is already a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. It is useful but cannot be considered equivalent to an encyclopedic entry. Other than that, I agree with Michael's answer to PR.
My two cents: You will notice that, for the sake of NPOV, I already quoted a few sources claiming that the UN is pro-Israel (yes, I). If you still think the article lacks balance, be bold, find more contrarian opinions and add them to the text. Note, however, the WP:UNDUE guideline: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. The final article should therefore reflect the current ratio of published opinions. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected a slip I made, I was not aware of any Palestinian killings of UN personnel (a quick Google only finds a number by Israel) but it was wrong of me to imply that only Israel was doing this.
My other points remain highly relevant. May I remind people that I'm an SPA to policy and a move to have me change my name was overwhelmingly rejected. PRtalk 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1919 the General Secretary, and future President, of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow, published a History of Zionism (1600-1918). He also represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference that year. He explained that the national home wasn't supposed to be an independent state:

'The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." ... ...It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent "Jewish State" But this is wholly fallacious. The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme - the only programme in existence.' harlan (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting Some Factual Innacuracies

Over the years, many delegations and national assemblies have expressed sympathy for Zionist aspirations regarding a national home in Palestine. That doesn't mean they endorsed a Jewish State. Further, it seems obvious that there have been any number of plans submitted for a Jewish state (including the UNSCOP minority plan) that were 'wholly unacceptable' to the spokesmen for the Zionist Organizations. Yet that may have been all that the Council of the League of Nations intended when they accepted the terms of the mandate.

The article advances the proposition that support for a Jewish national home was an international form of support for a Jewish state. The historical record shows that UNSCOP found the term 'Jewish National Home' had no known legal connotation.

Dr Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, were members of the Zionist Mission to the 1919 Peace conference. They both provided public and private assurances that the national home didn't mean a Jewish State.

The Foreign Relations of the United States series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions. 'The Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Thursday, 27th February, 1919, at 3 p. m.' was subsequently published. It revealed the official exchange between US Secretary of State Robert Lansing and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, and the other members of the Zionist Mission:

'MR. LANSING asked Dr. Weizmann to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words "Jewish National Home". Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?

DR. WEIZMANN replied in the negative. The Zionist organisation did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration, not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually.The Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that way to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British. Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.' -- United States Department of State Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919: Volume IV (1919), The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, Page 169, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv04&page=169&isize=M

At the time UN resolution 181 recommended partition, the Jewish population was not 'the large majority' of British Palestine and could not have won a referendum on any form of national government.

I mentioned earlier that Nahum Sokolow, published a History of Zionism (1600-1918) in 1919. In the introduction of volume I, he also explained that the Jewish national home wasn't supposed to be an independent state:

'The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law. ... ...It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent "Jewish State" But this is wholly fallacious. The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme - the only programme in existence.'

A search using Google Books turns-up numerous scholarly works which can be used to verify the citation and quote, and it can go in the article, since its in the public domain.

UN Resolution 181 was only supposed to be a recommendation given under Article 10 of the Charter. The formation of UNSCOP was the UK government's idea. see A/286, 3 April 1947 http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/87aaa6be8a3a7015802564ad0037ef57!OpenDocument

President Truman explained that the mandate for enforcement under Chapter VII contained in resolution 181 violated the UN Charter: 'We could not undertake to impose this solution on the people of Palestine by the use of American troops, both on Charter grounds and as a matter of national policy.' http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad167.htm

The General Assembly subsequently revoked the mandate of the UN Commission on Palestine tasked with setting up the provisional governments, so the resolution never went into effect. http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/c5e97ed405ea5d2d802564990059fe0a!OpenDocument

The UNSCOP had briefly studied the meaning of term "Jewish National Home" and reported 'The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. It was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, both of which promised the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" without, however, defining its meaning. The conclusion seems to be inescapable that the vagueness in the wording of both instruments was intentional. The fact that the term "National Home" was employed, instead of the word "State" or "Commonwealth" would indicate that the intention was to place a restrictive construction on the National Home scheme from its very inception. This argument, however, may not be conclusive since "National Home", although not precluding the possibility of establishing a Jewish State in the future, had the advantage of not shocking public opinion outside the Jewish world, and even in many Jewish quarters, as the term "Jewish State" would have done.' UNTIED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A/364, 3 September 1947, para 141. http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/99818751a6a4c9c6852560690077ef61/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3!OpenDocument harlan (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Harlan, are you recommending a change to this article, or are you simply talking? Keep in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about the topic; rather, it is a means to discuss improvements/changes/corrections to the article. Please also keep in mind that the longer the comment, the less likely it is that someone will read it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My purpose is two fold. I'm recording some readily verifiable facts here in order to let others know that I intend to incorporate them in the text of this article. Much of the textual criticism will come from people who want citations. I'm providing some of mine in advance. harlan (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Harlan, you're right that the current "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine by the League of nations" is too strong. This has been debated earlier here, I think, but why not just change it to something including "Jewish National Home" On the other hand, notwithstanding pious public protestations, the idea of a Jewish state certainly was in the minds of many of the Zionists - how could it not be? And the other important parties - the British and the Arabs of Palestine certainly understood that, and understood that the mandate was a step in that direction. I don't see what other inaccuracies you are pointing to exactly. Just what the legal meaning of resolution 181 is, is complex and unclear; one should be careful not to overuse and overinterpret primary sources without the guidance of good secondary sources. Cheers,John Z (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
John, I disagree. "provide support" is not synonymous with "realizing" an idea. The idea of a Jewish state was "supported" by the Balfour declaration and the text of the British Mandate, and was "realized" by resolution 181. This short sentence is as clear, factually correct and NPOV as can be within the confine of brevity. If you can think of an better sentence, edit the text and let us judge.
Harlan, you quote early declarations, made long before the British blocus of Jewish immigration at a time when it was most needed (ever heard of the Exodus (ship)?). From that point on, Jewish self rule was the only goal of Zionists. The UNSCOP was convened during the latter period and agreed, the UN approved.
Everyone please remember that this article about the UN, not about Zionism, Israel, the Jews or the Israeli-Arab conflict. Please limit your edits to UN-related facts & opinions. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I agree on keeping this article about the UN. It's already pretty big, and I think background shouldn't be too long . Emmanuel, I was trying explain Harlan's point. Legally, verbally, the mandate did not explicitly support a Jewish state. However, in the real world, it was a crucial step towards it; our language should ideally reflect both points. Harlan, you recent quote about the SC and enforing GA 181 confuses the speakers. That is the US rep explaining the US position, not the UNSC explaining its position. It really should be fixed.John Z (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

John Z, The record shows that the US representative on the Security Council was not acting or speaking on a unilateral basis. The delegate from Colombia had placed a draft resolution before the Security Council asking for Article 106 consultations.Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of Colombia, 24 February 1948 The US had also introduced a resolution calling for appropriate recommendations. Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the US Representative

The speaker was acting in his official capacity as a (Permanent) member of the UN Security Council, and as a one of the members of the Big Five, under 'Article 106 of the UN Charter'. The inescapable conclusion is that his statement was a binding decision on that particular constitutional issue regarding the UN Charter. harlan (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Harlan, I don't think it proper to call anything but a SC resolution a "binding decision." I am not disputing the interpretation or its relevance, just saying that it is quite unacceptable to not properly attribute it. One should avoid WP:Original research when using such quotations.John Z (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to clarifying the point with any additional material or edit you suggest. THE FRUS is not original research. It has hundreds of pages of declassified background materials together with the State Department's modern-day editorial comments. It shows how executive branch policy and planning developed over time. It frequently contains similar documents from other governments, as well as citations from privately published memoirs, and etc. For example the Legal opinion on Palestine is accompanied by an editorial comment that quotes a published secondary source: (page 747-748).

The FRUS explains how GA 181 was greeted in the Security Council. i.e.

On March 5, 1948, the Security Council refused to pass an American resolution which would have accepted the General Assembly resolution as a basis for Security Council action. Our resolution got only 5 of the necessary 7 votes. During Big Five consultations over the past two weeks, no agreement was reached on a basis for further Security Council action on Palestine. In addition, informal consultations among the non-permanent members of the Security Council indicated very clearly that partition could never get 7 votes in the Security Council.'Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs(Rusk)to the Secretary of State CONFIDENTIAL (WASHINGTON,) March 22, 1948'

The actions of the Security Council in approving the other US recommendations and resolutions during February, March, and April are well known, and part of the UN official chronology. UNITED NATIONS AND PALESTINE Chronology of Major Developments The Security Council did take action to recommend a different temporary political solution than the GA had suggested in much the same way the legal opinion described. That was trusteeship, "without prejudice to the character of the eventual political settlement". The SC called the General Assembly back into session for further consideration of that matter.

It was the General Assembly, itself, that adopted a resolution which 'relieved the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities, and its mandate from the General Assembly'.'RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING HELD ON 14 MAY 1948, A/554' At that point, all of the details of the plan regarding implementation became a legal nullity (there was no mandatory to secure a port and hinterland for the immigrants, and etc.)

I understand that Rabbi Silver blamed the United States for reversing it's policy, but that is not how things actually stood. Jewish reaction to the trusteeship idea harlan (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael the edits are all properly sourced, and made in good faith. You haven't bothered to use the discussion page prior to reverting. I'd be happy to hear what the nature of your objections might be.harlan (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you are tampering with the periodization of UN involvement by deleting the first sentence about UNSCOP and the partition of Palestine. In order to be chronologically correct, this material should be mentioned first, followed by the UN's many later efforts. Secondly, much of the material you have added is entirely unrelated to the UN's involvement. It appears that you are attempting to argue that Israel has no right to exist or that the UN's decision to create the state of Israel was poor, rather than merely stating what decisions were made by the UN. These edits are off topic, unencyclopedic, and violate NPOV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking past me about your own POV. Nothing in my edits has anything to do with Israel's right to exist.

  • The first sentence is incorrect when it states that a mere fact finding or research arm of the General Assembly made the 'decision' to partition a country.
  • The article's early period chronology is was completely wrong. UNSCOP did not result from British rejection of the Peel Commission.
  • UNSCOP did come after the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry, the rejection of the Grady-Morrision Plan, and the failure of the London Conference.
  • The preamble of the final UN resolution itself was a only recommendation to the members of the UN, AND a request to the Security Council. A portion of that request was subsequently DENIED.
  • The Commission tasked with appointing the provisional governments was relieved of its responsibilities before the mandate expired. The Jewish Agency and Vaad Leumi acting under their own authority, and on their own behalf, declared the independence of the State of Israel. It was promptly and legally recognized (notwithstanding any possible UN objections).
  • The Grady-Morrison Plan was developed to implement the provisions of the Anglo-American Inquiry. It contained provisions for the establishment of a ten-year UN Trusteeship under article 79 of the Charter.(That makes it spot-on topic).
  • The Arab League also threatened to submit the matter to the UN under article 79. (That makes it spot-on topic).

If the inclusion of the extraneous material from the preamble of the League of Nations mandate and the reference to the Peel Commission don't bother you, I can't imagine why my edits have. The text of the mandate used in the article is the same as the draft which was submitted to the Secretariat General of the League on 7 December 1920 (UK Archives FO.371/5248). The assurances from Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow that a Jewish state wasn't a necessary part of the Zionist program were given a few months earlier in February 1919. They were speaking to the Council of Four while those governments were drafting the mandate. The article simply needs to say that there was international sympathy and political support for the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The ZOA and WIZO continued to insist on that or other well-known circumlocutions until the early 1940s (then Rabbi Silver became more outspoken than Rabbi Wise). That's when they finally agreed to resolutions calling for a 'Jewish State'.

P.S I understand the Zionist Organization's goal of securing the national home by public law, but states don't get their sovereignty in that way. The League of Nations mandates and/or League of Nations recognition didn't accomplish a thing for Armenia, Kurdistan, or the short-lived independent state of Hedjaz.

harlan (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Harlan, your additions to the "Early years" section are much too detailed for the scope of this section and are off topic. They belong to the History of Israel article, not an article about the UN. I vote to delete everything outside of decisions by the League of Nations (ancestor of the UN) and the UN.
Harlan, did you know that Grady-Morrison or Woodhead are not mentioned in the History of Israel article? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't follow all the details of this, but it seems clear that Harlan's version is preferable to the other one.
In particular, this statement appears to me to be so seriously misleading as to amount to a falsehood: "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine."
There was no such support, and the Churchill Memorandum a few weeks earlier (issued along with the draft of the Mandate that Britain would shortly agree to be bound by) made the views of the British governmente perfectly clear: ""Phrases have been used such as that 'Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. ... His Majesty's Government .. have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated ... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. ... the terms of the [Balfour] Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine." [Cmd. 1700-The Churchill Memorandum dated June 3, 1922.]
Less objectionable, but still worrying are these statements:
1) "Following the rejection by the British of the 1937 Peel Commission recommendations, the UNSCOP was mandated to the region in 1947 by the newly-created United Nations". The British Peel proposal of 1937 is beloved by apologists for Israel, but it was such a total outlier as to be effectively perverse. The record is that, from 1917 to 1946 the British and US were either opposed or perhaps very opposed to a state of Israel. The UN's actions were a sudden and radical departure. And mention should be made that the US, anyway, was trying to roll back the prosals in early 1947.
2) Resolution 181 laid the legal foundation for the creation of the state of Israel. (Perhaps "a state of Israel", but certainly not "the state of Israel"). PRtalk 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Harlan and PR, the degree of details you have brought to one small portion of the historical summary is ridiculously high. It cannot be applied to the whole article, already oversized. What will you write about UNSC 242? About UNGA 3379? Please keep Wikipedia readable -- start deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


I agree withthe sentiments expressed by Emmanuelm and Michael Safyan. Further, this article is about Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations - let's keep various other bodies (e.g: Anglo-American commission, LoN) out of it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You said:
In particular, this statement appears to me to be so seriously misleading as to amount to a falsehood: "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine."

then you said:

There was no such support, and the Churchill Memorandum a few weeks earlier (issued along with the draft of the Mandate that Britain would shortly agree to be bound by) made the views of the British governmente perfectly clear: ""Phrases have been used such as that 'Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. ... His Majesty's Government .. have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated ... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. ... the terms of the [Balfour] Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine." [Cmd. 1700-The Churchill Memorandum dated June 3, 1922.]

However, both these statement agree on support of a Jewish home, and the article text which you criticize is fully in agreement with the official British document which you quote. Specifically :

  • "The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine received its first international support within the 1922 text of the creation of the British mandate of Palestine."
And:
  • ... the terms of the [Balfour] Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine."

Continual political feuding over quotes like this does not help this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just been suggested to me that WP might rid itself of some of the cheating going on if I stand back and leave y'all in peace. Enjoy. PRtalk 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to eliminating all of the early history material - including the mischaracterization of the text of the League of Nations mandate. That misquotes the mandate and has nothing to do with the United Nations. On the other hand, I don't see why the article should be reverted to the former less accurate version. The material after the matter was sent to the Security Council should stay. The creation of the modern state of Israel took place while the events in the UN were happening, but the revoked UN resolution had nothing to do with it. The resolution was mentioned in the declaration of independence because it was a reflection of world opinion, but Israel is not legally bound by it. The constant 'remembering' of 181 since then reflects a desire for a political solution based upon some sort of 'principle' of a division. The plan contained in 181 involving a transfer of power from The United Kingdom to provisional governments is obviously inapplicable to the situation in 2008, and also legally null and void. harlan (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly inserted a lengthy paragraph about the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the response of the Jewish Agency and teh AHC to American and British plans, etc.. - none of which is directly relevant to this article. Multiple editors have objected to this - so it's obviou sthat you need to get consensus for your changes here firts, rather than continuing to edit war them back into the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you and the others be getting permission here before you revert the article to a version that claims that British rejection of the Peel Commission resulted in UNSCOP, and etc? I'm just following the dictum to be bold. I've been discussing my edits here and providing reliable citations all along. harlan (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't about 'getting permission', a concept which does not exist in a wiki that anyone can edit, but about the collaborative procss wikipedia goes by, which is consensus. You appear to have started editing this article yesterday, with some radical changes that have been opposed by multiple editors, so it is clear your changes do not have consensus. By contrast, the statement you are edit warring over (British rejection of Peel leading to UNSCOP) has been in the article at least since February (I didn't check beyond that) - and appears to enjoy consensus. Consensus may change over time - so feel free to cahllenge that statement here, and explain why you think that it wasn't British rejectionism that led to UNSCOP, and you may convince those opposed to that change. In any case, please don't add irrelevant material, such as the lengthy paragraph about the AACI, the response of the Jewish Agency and the AHC, into the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The notion that mentioning the Anglo-American Inquiry is a 'radical' change, or that it was irrelevant to the UN or UNSCOP deliberations doesn't hold much water. The US State Department instructions from Truman stated that entry of 100,000 immigrants was "essential" for any solution. That recommendation didn't originate from the Peel Commission report. The UNSCOP report itself cites the major proposals as The Royal (Peel) Commission, 1937; The Partition (Woodhead) Commission, 1938; The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946; The (Morrison) Plan for Provincial Autonomy, 1946; The (Bevin) Cantonization Plan, 1947. I would suppose that means there was plenty of 'rejectionism' going around. It isn't NPOV to say that all of it was British. It would be helpful to establish some consensus if you would provide a citation to some published source which said that British rejection of the Peel Commision - alone - was responsible for the creation of UNSCOP.harlan (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You replaced a long-standing consensus version with a lengthy paragraph about things which in my opinion and that of others, is not appropriate for this article. In my book, that's a 'radical change' - but I don't want to bicker with you over semantics, as this is a side issue. Any change, radical or not, needs to have consensus, and yours doesn't. I don't think that it is appropriate for an article about Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations to go into any detail, certainly not the level of detail that you have gone into, about the actions of non-UN groups. This isn't Timeline of the Events leading to Partition - but a background section detailing UN actions prior to the establishment of Israel. If your main objection here is to the statement describing British rejectionism as the only reason UNSCOP was formed - tag it with {{Fact}], and we'll see if we can support it with a source. I don't think I'd oppose a change in phrasing from something that implies that it was only British rejectionism, to something that describes them as mostly responsible, while mentioning that other groups also opposed the Peel plan. But again - the thrust of my objections is that this isn't a chronology of the events leading to partition, but rather a short statement describing how and why UNSCOP came to be - which is because the British dropped this hot potato onto the UN's lap. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Harlan, if you have new ideas which you wish to implement, that is fine. I agree with much of what you have written. However, one idea might be to proceed carefully, listening to people's comments and to truly hear their concerns. One response is to provide useful meaningful sources which provide real proof of the significance of your claims. Also, sometimes we can work with people to find viable alternate phrasings which might accomodate both concerns, and to find a compromise which can respond to both some of your ideas and some of theirs. hope that is helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Like most readers, I will be interested in the historiography behind the narrative of whatever the editors leave in the early history portion of the article. It doesn't matter how long the current version has gone unnoticed on the servers, it eventually needs to have some verifiable citations to back up its claims and viewpoint. For example, the Jewish Agency rejected the Peel Commission report as 'totally unworkable' long before the British abandoned the proposal. The Palestinians, also rejected it outright. If the British deserve any blame (at all) there should be some sort of verifiable rationale provided.

Another area where citations are lacking is the claim of international support for a Jewish 'State' - as evidenced by the Palestine mandate. I am not contending that Israel shouldn't exist, but simply saying that it was an uphill struggle all the way. Sympathy for the persecuted or for a shared homeland is not the same thing. Even the government of Israel acknowledges that the mandate didn't recognize the right to a Jewish state: 'Eretz Yisrael agreed to accept the plan, since it recognized the right of the Jewish people to a state and not only a "national home" as stated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.' 'Knesset, Occasions, November 29. Whatever was put into the mandate, or its predecessor, was put there very deliberately, and it made no mention of a Jewish state.

Ben-Gurion's testimony before the Peel Commission regarding the statehood issue and the mandate was: 'We did not say it at the time and we do not say it now'('To the Promised Land', David Goldberg, Penguin, 1996 Edition, page 215). In May of 1942, Ben-Gurion was still being overruled by the Inner Zionist Council when he suggested that the term 'Jewish State' should be substituted for 'Commonwealth' ('Aide Memoire, The British Embassy to the US Department of State, 16 December 1942). The leadership of the Zionist Organization had either been issuing outright denials that they wanted a Jewish state, or else they had been resorting to similar dissimulations since 1911 ('ZION SEEKS NO MORE A SEPARATE STATE; Rather a Home in Palestine, New York Times, 13 October 1911'). The public record is simply full of objections to the idea of a Jewish State coming from the very same government officials who were drafting the Palestine Mandate, i.e. Lord Curzon, Secretary Lansing, and etc. (see for example Palestine Papers 1917-1922, Doreen Ingrams, George Braziller Edition, Chapter Nine, 'Drafting The Mandate') The Christian and Muslim religious leaders were no less opposed to the idea (see 'The Vatican and Zionism, Conflict in the Holy Land 1895-1925, Sergio Minerbi, Chapter 11, 'Christian-Muslim Cooperation' or 'The End of the French Religious Protectorate in Jerusalem (1918-1924), Catherine Nicault'). There were evasions and bad faith on all sides.

The UN recommended a political solution, not a legal solution. The UN Charter may impose a treaty obligation to respect committee recommendations on the member nations, but it has no legislative power over non-members or non-governmental organizations like the Jewish Agency and Arab Higher Committee. Nonetheless, it did represent a swing in world opinion, in that the majority no longer objected to a condominium that included a sovereign Jewish state. harlan (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. that's some really great information. errr, I don't mean to keep sounding off here, but I wanted to put my two cents in again. You may not get much response to such a broad range of data. Sometimes, you may want to consider phrasing your suggestions more specifically. People may sometimes respond better if you provide specific ideas for a specific part of the text; or, alternatively, you can simply post some general ideas here, then move on to actual editing, and respond to any concerns or points which come up after that. I don't want too sound overly hooked on my own opinions, but I just wanted to respond with another point or two, in case that might be helpful. Ok, that should be the last of my friendly suggestions (for a while, at least). thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Harlan , you've placed 2 citation requests (though not on the on the statement you originally had issues with). The first of these is the statement "The partition of Palestine by the UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) in 1947 was one of the earliest decisions of the UN. " - it's not clear to me what you are requesting a citation for. Surely you are not disputing that UNSCOP recommended partition, nro that the UNGA adopted that recommendation? I'll try to rephrase this to reslove the issue. The second is 'Resolution 181 laid the legal foundation[citation needed] for the creation of the state of Israel' - you seem to object to this on the ground that the UNGA has no binding authority to make internatioanl law. Whiel this is true, it does not follow that its decisions can't lay legal foundations. As a relevant example, the ICJ recently offered a non-binding advisory opinion about Israel's security barrirer. Even though this is legaly non-binding, I think you'd be very hard pressed to claim that the decsion did not lay a legal foundation for subsequent claims that the barrier is illegal. Regardless, I've sourced that statement.

If Resolution 181 was no "legal foundation", why were the Jews dancing in the streets? Why was November 29th, and not May 14th, chosen by the UN as the Day of solidarity with the Palestinians?
Again, do not confuse brevity with ignorance or bias. You may edit the text, but please keep it short and readable. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal Foundations of the Jewish State, and UN Resolution 181

The General Assembly resolved that the contents of a Declaration was to be the legal foundation of the proposed Jewish and Arab state. It also prescribed the specific provisions of those declarations, and made them an incontrovertible and legally binding part of state law. Resolution 181 stated that:

(1) The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below. (2) A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence, and the stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them. (3) The Declaration would state that 'No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex. All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.' see United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 November 29, 1947

The basic laws of Israel, as well as those proposed by the Palestinian Authority, give sanction to several forms of discrimination that the General Assembly resolution specifically prohibited. The authority for the one can't legally be derived from the other. The first President of the High Court of Israel, Justice M. Smoira, explained that the Declaration wasn't legally binding:

The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

The UNSCOP report had noted that the term Jewish national home had no meaning in the context of international law. The State of Israel still doesn't have its own Constitutional definition of the terms Jew, Jewish State, and etc., but national lawmakers and members of the Cabinet regularly opine that the constitution would probably NOT offer equal protection under the law to the non-Jewish population (whoever that might be). see for example Draft constitution ignores crucial question of who is a Jew, 'MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution', Friedmann opposes constitution that compromises on religious matters, Rabbi Druckman: 'They Are Jews'

In addition, the General Assembly resolution called for the UN Palestine Commission to select and supervise the Provisional Councils of government for both the proposed Jewish and Arab state, not the Jewish Agency, Vaad Leumi, the Arab League, or the Arab Higher Committee. The so-called 'National Council for the Provisional Government of Israel' simply declared itself to be the provisional government. That was not a UN decision.

The Council claimed that in the absence of competent UN authority, the Jewish Agency for Palestine and Vaad Leumi had established the Provisional Government of the State of Israel and invested it with all legislative, executive and judiciary powers. The Security Council and Secretary General continued to address them as the Jewish (not government) Authorities. see their cablegram to the Security Council: S/747, 16 May 1948 and see 'S/766 22 May 1948, QUESTIONS TO THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES IN PALESTINE, and REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE' Those organizations had applied to the United Nations Palestine Commission for recognition as the provisional council, but they were never recognized as such by the UN Palestine Commission. In any case, the Council didn't represent the views of the 400,000 to 500,000 Arab citizens of the proposed Jewish state.

The members of the UN General Assembly enjoy sovereign equality under the terms of the Charter. That means that 2/3rds of the members can't force their opinions on the others. The General Assembly's resolutions aren't international legal decrees, they are just recommendations. Israel's UN representative, Abba Eban, never tired of pointing-out that fact. He opined that the Arab members had only violated the Charter because they had unilaterally resorted to their own non-peaceful solution:

'The statement made by the representative of Iraq on 18 February 1948 is a notable and eloquent utterance containing many observations on the juridical weakness of the Statute. No one would seriously doubt the accuracy of his comments on the recommendatory effect of the General Assembly's resolutions. The weakness of the Arab position lay not in the exercise of a legitimate right of non-compliance, but in the use of armed force to overthrow the recommendation of the General Assembly. It was at this point alone that the violation of the Charter occurred.''Abba Eban's Statement to United Nations regarding the Partition Plan and the Trusteeship Council's Statute for Jerusalem'

harlan (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the text, to try to accommodate both of these editors' concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, resolution 181 laid not only the legal foundations for a Jewish State, it established its basic laws. The state of Israel never accepted the terms of the Declaration as legally binding, and went off in another direction. harlan (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1937 Peel Commission and etc.

The article makes a number of overly-broad assertions and intentional glosses which make it appear as though the Jewish Agency was more cooperative than the Arabs. The plan of partition originated with the Jewish Agency, so they had a very strong motive for obtaining some sort of international political endorsement for the idea. They had rejected more than a few previous settlement offers themselves:

  • The objective for the Irgun, the Stern Gang, and even Labor leaders like Yitzhak Tabenkin remained a Greater Israel within its natural and ancient borders. That agenda rendered the proposed borders imposed by the General Assembly resolution irrelevant before the ink had dried on the paper. Israel's Ambassadors to the UN, including Abba Eben and Dore Gold, have always asserted that resolution 181 was merely a recommendation. Gold claimed that the last valid territorial allocation was the League of Nations Mandate which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. He claimed that: 'These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.' http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES" and 'Letter from Israel Amb to UN Secretary-General Annan - 19-Apr-99'
  • The Jewish Agency had subsequently rejected the Anglo-American Commission recommendation that there be no Jewish or Arab State. They also rejected the Grady-Morrison Plan which called for a UN trusteeship for Palestine. The Jewish Agency's representative told the US State Department: 'the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Morrison-Grady proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other.' 'Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII (1946)'
  • Great Britain brought the Question of Palestine to the UN under heavy political pressure from the USA. The State Department had threatened to delay aid payments to Great Britain under the Marshall Plan in connection with the President's proposal to immediately admit 100,000 Jewish immigrants:

    'the President wished it to be known that if we could help him over this it would enable our friends in Washington to get our Marshall Aid appropriation through Congress. In other words, we must do as the Zionists wished - or starve. Bevin surrendered - he had to - but he was understandably bitter and angry.', Time To Explain, Christopher Mayhew, London: Hutchinson, 1987, ISBN: 0091684404, cited in Zionism and the State of Israel, Michael Prior, Routledge, 1999, ISBN: 0415204623, page 21 and 'Obituary: Lord Mayhew,, The London Independent, Jan 9, 1997, Michael Adams'

    '*The US Administration repeatedly gave their UN delegation instructions to stymie any requests for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. See for example Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), page 543'
  • The U.S. Ambassador voted against a 25 November 1947 resolution which had been introduced by the Colombian delegation. It called for an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the validity of the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, and the UNSCOP partition plan. See:A/AC.14/SR.32, 25 November 1947 and http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf 'Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to the International Court of Justice', on page 58]
  • Unauthorized US pressure groups, including members of Congress, abandoned any pretense that the General Assembly vote was some sort of 'juridical decision'. They openly sought to impose their views on members of foreign delegations.FRUS, 1948, Volume V, page 621

harlan (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Harlan, I removed all mention to the Peel commission, which is unrelated to the UN and therefore does not belong to the article. Will you now put your extraordinary historical knowledge to the service of the article? Emmanuelm (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article suggests that underhanded politicians are engaged in underhanded politics. That is a possibility that I do not deny. I don't think that the early history portion should try to clothe the non-binding, aborted, UN political settlement in some sort of apparent usefulness. Neither side truly accepted such a thing as a desirable final solution, i.e. 'there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians":

Mr. BEN GURION: Yes. I say that the fact is, first, that force is being used against people exercising their rights. Our right is to come back. To prevent this, force is being used. If the United Nations will give a decision in justice and equity that the Jews have a right to come back to their country, then I believe it will be their duty, if necessary, to enforce it. I do not know how much force will be necessary, but you have the same problem everywhere in the world. The main question is not whether to use force or not; the main question is whether a thing is right or wrong. A/364/Add.2 PV.19 UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE, ORAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETING, Lake Success, New York, on 7 July 1947 harlan (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Request: new section on Shebaa Farms

Here is a suggestion to Harlan, Canadian Monkey, sm8900 and everyone else: this article lacks a section on the Shebaa farms. The UN has a long history of involvement on this issue. This small territory is again making news because the Lebanese govt has adopted Hezbollah's manifesto, claiming the "right of Lebanon's people, the army and the resistance to liberate all its territories in the Shebaa Farms, Kfarshuba Hill and Ghajar". Hezbollah evokes this occupation to justify its military operations.

To get you started, here are two working documents, one from a Lebanese group: Shebaa Farms: A Lebanese Land Occupied by Israel and another from the Israeli Govt: Raising the issue of the Sheba’a Farms in the proposed American-French Security Council draft resolution for ending the fighting: background information and significance. The latter document is noteworthy for providing a map that clearly locate these minuscule villages. See also Image:Shebaa Farms.jpg for a more conventional map.

Currently, the maps provided by the UNIFIL and UNDOF web sites place this territory in occupied Syrian territory, not Lebanon, in accordance with a 2000 decision. Last summer, at the request of the Lebanese govt, the UN accepted to re-evaluate the ownership of this territory. This promise was included in the text of UNSC resolution 1701 which ended the 2006 Lebanon war. A July UN news article says that the Lebanon Independent Border Assessment Team (LIBAT) will report shortly. Curiously, the Syrians are silent on the issue. Looking forward to read your text, Emmanuelm (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

International attempts to determine borders are useful for establishing the facts of an on-going dispute. They have never been shown to be of any help in resolving one.
In particular, the troop withdrawal verification/border determination routine never seems to work. For example, according to the minutes of the meetings of The Council of Heads of Delegations, from August 29 to November 5, 1919, an 'Aide-Me'moire in Regard to the Occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia Pending the Decision in Regard to Mandates' was handed from Lloyd George to Georges Clemenceau and placed before the conference. It stipulated that:

'1. Steps will be taken immediately to prepare for the evacuation by the British Army of Syria and Cilicia including the Taurus tunnel. 2. Notice is given both to the French Government and to the Emir Feisal of our intentions to commence the evacuation of Syria and Cilicia on November 1, 1919'... ...6. The territories occupied by British troops will then be Palestine, defined in accordance with its ancient boundaries of Dan to Beersheba.''text of the Aide-Me'moire'

That border determination was thrown into doubt by the subsequent events at Tel Hai, in March of 1920. In November of 1919, Herbert Samuel hadn't even been appointed yet. There had never been a British military occupation of Transjordan either. Samuel did manage to dispatch three advisors there, when he finally did meet the shaykhs and other local notables at al-Salt, during August of 1920. But that still didn't provide a basis for him to start administering it as a part of Palestine. see: The Making of Jordan, Yoav Alon and Joab B. Eilon, I.B.Tauris, 2007, ISBN 1845111389, Chapter 1, Transjordan On The Eve Of Abdullah's Arrival.
The 1949 armistice agreements with Lebanon and Syria preserved the territorial claims of each party (whatever those might be). That situation might leave open the possibility of future peace treaty discussions based upon the old British and French Mandate border agreements, but such an outcome is highly unlikely.
The State of Israel has always claimed that it did not automatically inherit the treaty obligations of the British Mandate, or the obligation to submit disputes arising from them to the International Court of Justice (Notwithstanding UN GA resolution 181 provisions that say otherwise). The applicability of French Edicts is even more doubtful. So far as I know, Israel has never signed a treaty on a de novo basis that would permanently impair its rights to the territory in question.
Putting aside the issue of national boundaries, I think everyone is agreed that Israel closed the border to some Lebanese farmers who owned and worked the land up until the 1970s. see Behind the dispute over Shebaa Farms. This of course does not address the question of villages and farm land in places like Ibel al-Qamah, Hunin, Qadas, Malkiya, Salha, Safed, Tarbikha, Al-Bassa, and etc.
It may be true that 'The borders between Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, as delineated by the Paulet-Newcombe Commission on March 23, 1923 , were internationally recognized by the League of Nations in May 1935' However, those agreements instituted a revolving-door 'border management' regime under which the Syrians and Lebanese were given the same fishing and navigation rights on the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh, and the Jordan River as the citizens of the British Mandate itself. Specifically:
  • Any existing rights over the use of the waters of the Jordan by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.
  • The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier.
  • Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised.
  • The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes. No. 565. — EXCHANGE OF NOTES CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SYRIA AND PALESTINE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO EL HAMMÉ, PARIS MARCH 7, 1923, Page 7 harlan (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Harlan, my point was to encourage you to write the section in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

From this article's lead section: '...providing a platform for Palestinian political revendications...'. I consider myself fairly literate, but I have no idea what the word 'revendications' means. Firefox doesn't recognise it either, and Wiktionary doesn't have an entry on it. Could someone please rewrite that sentence so it uses plain English? Sorry if this is a minor point, but I thought it worth mentioning. Terraxos (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that's what happens when one write in someone else's language. Revendications is French for claims or demands. I've fixed it. Thanks for the good copy-editing. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the explanation. It's always nice to learn new words. :) Terraxos (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to ext link section

Michael, please refrain from using POV section titles. Lihaas, please explain why links to blogs and books are not meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article (WP:EL). Emmanuelm (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Eye on the UN and UN Watch are not blogs, they are ordinary websites. Hence categorizing them as blogs is inaccurate. Secondly, the bibliographic information of books are not links and therefore do not belong in the external links section. As for categorizing the links as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-Palestinian",... this was an attempt at compromise following the deletion of the external links, most likely due to all the links representing the viewpoint that the UN is pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel and none of the links representing the viewpoint that the UN is pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian. I am more than willing to accept an alternative categorization of the links. What categorization do you propose (other than the previous two versions)? Sorry for reverting earlier without responding here, first... I didn't see the discussion topic. Have a good day. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about "UN Websites", "UN Critic Websites", "Websites Claiming the UN is Anti-Israel", "Websites Claiming the UN is Pro-Israel"? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree to list books under "further reading". I do not mind if you lump blogs and other web sites together. I moved the article by the Israel Mission to the UN -- yes, these guys are pro-Israel. I am still laughing at your inclusion of www.palestinehistory.org as a "pro-Israel" site. I am sure they are not. I am also laughing at your empty "pro-Palestininan" category. Go ahead, make my day, find one site that documents anti-Palestinian actions at the UN. Without lying, I mean.
I am still irritated with the "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" labels -- they sound childish -- but I chose my battles. You win this time. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Chechen war from "comparison with other conflicts"

Hinr, from the article Second Chechen War, Localised sporadic fighting: 2005 — Present. Now, there a not many recent wars to be compared. The Chechen war is/was a war in the past 10 years, whether it is finished or not. Please leave it. And read your talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hirt/Hinr, please stop removing this from the article. The removal of this content constitutes vandalism. Further attempts to remove this material will be logged at WP:AN/I. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This chart is pretty much irrelevant and extremely misleading - the overall death-toll of Palestinians is (I've seen estimated, though I don't have the reference to hand) is something between 100,000 and 250,000. Judging by other ethnic cleansings, 100,000 may have died just in 1948/1949. It's not just this deliberate deception over Israel/Palestine that makes us look like serious POV-pushers and total amateurs - claiming we know the figures for Darfur to within 6% and the Congo to within 0.1% is totally ridiculous as well.
However, if we're going to include this chart here, I can't see an objection to the inclusion of the various Chechen sufferings. PRtalk 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop filling talk pages with unsourced soapboxing nonsense. The overall death-toll of Palestinians in 1948/49 and since is orders of magnitude lower. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png

The image Image:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear robot, we are all humans here. Please send your master to explain why we cannot use a Wikimedia file of a UN logo in a WP article about the UN. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-RS, polemical sources

The sources used to back the statement "The vote itself, which required a two-third majority ... led to anti-Jewish riots in Arab countries, especially Syria" are Justice for Jews from Arab countries (twice) and an article in American Thinker" which leads back to the JJAC.

So fringe are the views and aims of the former that it's even actively opposed by official Israeli/Zionist policy - to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis says Haaretz in 2003. There may be good RS for claims such as this, but these are certainly not they. I'd propose taking them out. PRtalk 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. The source you bring, outlining positions from over 5 years ago, nowhere mentions Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. Please review WP:NOR.
  2. The leadership of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries includes S. Daniel Abraham, Shlomo Hillel, Richard Holbrooke, Sir George Weidenfeld,and Mortimer Zuckerman.
  3. Sponsoring organizations include the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Sephardi Federation in partnership with the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, B'nai Brith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the World Sephardic Congress.
  4. Among the many participating coalition members of the JJAC are B'nai Brith Canada, Canadian Jewish Congress, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Hadassah, Hillel International, Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, National Council of Young Israel, Rabbinical Council of America, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, The David Project, Union for Reform Judaism, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, United Jewish Communities, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and five dozen other international Jewish organizations.
JJAC is about the most widely supported and mainstream Jewish organization one can find. Now, please desist from this time-wasting, soapboxing, and ridiculous posturing. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you PR for giving me the opportunity to improve the article. I changed the JJAC reference to a JJAC online article which cites more than 80 references. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no improvement - we give the JJAC document as reference for our statement "It also led to anti-Jewish riots in Arab countries, especially Syria and Yemen.[5][6]" - when the document in question doesn't mention any events in Syria atall! The second reference is the "American Thinker" article, wherein, prior to the 1970s, the only specific claim about Syria of any kind is that two elderly men were beaten up in a synagogue (ie less serious than antisemitism prosecuted in Israel recently). The author of this AT article appears to have no interest in anything related to history generally or this history in particular, but to have been radicalised by 911 and mentored by Bat Ye’or and Daniel Pipes. I'm not disputing that Syrian Jews could have suffered very badly in reaction to Zionism (or perhaps from real, Nazi-worshipping, antisemitism), but our references are totally unconvincing.
Investigation of JJAC presents a laughable picture, but I note the bitter resentment against information being presented in TalkPages. I'll leave it to others to discover how long it took after the damning Haaretz article was published even to hold a Founding Congress, and will note that the subsequent planned meeting seems not to have happened. PRtalk 13:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
PR, what game are you playing? The article gives this article as reference for progroms in Syria, not the pdf you link in the comment above. Furthermore, the American Thinker article states The riots in Aleppo and Aden were severe -- many Jews were killed, significant physical devastation occurred, and roughly half of Aleppo's Jewish population fled. Part of the physical devastation not mentioned in the article was the destruction of the Aleppo Codex. You see, Bostom sometimes knows history.
As for the Haaretz article you proudly brandish, it describes an identity debate among Arab Jews and, to this date, remains the only article arguing this side. Regardless of the argument, one cannot deny that 99% of Jews left Muslim countries soon after 1948. Did all these 800,000 Jews leave the home their fathers built and the graves of their ancestors for fun? Was no Jew ever forced to leave? Must be, because the UN never recognized refugee status to any Jew anywhere anytime. Emmanuelm (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of the page vs the Israel-box

Why is there a box concerning "The politics and goverment of Israel" on this page and not one concerning the palestinians or the UN? The page should either be renamed "Israel and the palestine and UN" or the box should be removed. As it is now, this page is clearly more Israelian than either palestinian or UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Bull (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article has been discussed ad nauseum here and here. Please do not restart this sterile argument. As for the missing box, be bold, find it an insert it. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed those title discussions, they seemed to support the title with "Palestine", not the present title; and i'll look into the infobox issue. Intend to change the title (back to the old one, I believe) in coming days. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I still support the restoration of Emmanuelm's original title, Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, because the current one sounds strange to my ears. The title change was made by only one editor without any discussion, but has managed to stick until now.John Z (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Zerotalk 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Me three (or four, or whatever the count is now). The UN refers to Palestinian representatives as "Palestine" and the literature on the subject supports that title too. Tiamuttalk 11:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A new article was recently created, Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations . It was nominated for listing at Did You Know?. In response, two editors there, Gatoclass and Shubinator, both suggested the article may represent content forking and might better be covered in Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations. Having read the forking content guidelines, I was inclined to agree and have therefore added the merge discussion tags to the two articles.

I note that the current article is already long. However, the most obvious material for article spinouts (with the use of only a summary within the present article) would appear to me to be the history (the first section) and, perhaps, a single article encapsulating discussion of claims of the UN having a bias either toward or against Israel. In contrast, an article that is specifically about "allegations of anti-Semitism" is highly likely to not maintain a neutral point of view. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose on principle. Logically, Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations is not a sub-topic of Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations. Antisemitism is not some sort of position or stance regarding Israel and Palestinians: it existed thousands of years before either of them and is often oblivious of them. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right that antisemitism need not inherently be a stance in relation to Israel and Palestine, however I think there are still two points that need to be addressed: first, whether practically the Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations (IPUN) article is the best place to address the topic; and second, whether or not that is the case, the possibility that Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations is, and/or is likely to be, an article with POV issues and/or is a content fork. The guideline on forking says that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." I think the best way to work with the intent of this guideline would probably be to discuss the topic in IPUN.
Of relevance to both points I've raised is the fact that the IPUN article already has a section on 'Claims that the UN is antisemitic'. I think the existence of that section suggests that this would indeed be an appropriate article in which to deal with the topic. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why this article would be the best place to address Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations, which you seem to agree is a separate topic. As for the possibility that the antisemitism article is a content fork-- a content fork of what? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jalapenos, great to read a new voice in this rather static page. I say the two articles should be merged because your new article is POV, starting with its title. As you can read here under "Claims that the UN is pro-Israel", there are a few defending this opinion. WP:NPOV says they must be given a platform proportional to the importance of their argument. As I plainly state in my personal page, I am not a fan of NPOV and other WP rules, but WP is where we are and we must follow them or be edited out.
Also, and please correct me if I am mistaken, your new article is a repetition of a part of this one. I say we keep together in one (long) article all issues related to Israel and the UN.
Finally, many have argued that disproportionate criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Therefore, antisemitism is NOT a separate topic. This opinion is further explored in New antisemitism and Israel and the apartheid analogy. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
If "my" article is POV, that would be a separate issue and not a reason to merge it with this article. I suggest you raise your concerns there. Yes, you are mistaken in thinking that "my" article is a repetition of part of this one, as can easily be seen by reading both articles. I am aware that some argue that disproportionate criticism of Israel is antisemitism. The notion that antisemitism is thus a subcategory of attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinians depends on an illicit minor fallacy, among other problems. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I flagged Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations for POV. In truth, I would have preferred another flag since the problem here is duplication of content, but it simply does not exist. As you can read in my personal page, WP:NO DUPLICATION is a red link. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a content fork, and should be merged. Material not suitable to this article could be added to UN Watch.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an actual argument to go along with that, or is it just the naked assertion? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Merger Survey

Feel free to state your position on the merge proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

  • Support WP:CFORK - I can see no reason why it should not be a section here.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Not only can I see no reason why it should not be a section, but it is already a section in this article. The new article is not technically a fork, but it is needless duplication. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Being anti-semitic and anti-israel are completely separate things, and so they need separate topics. --FixmanPraise me 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article has a chance of eventually being balanced and useful, but Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations is just a one-sided rant whose most rosy possible future is as a two-sided rant. Better to keep somewhere else for the ranty stuff to live, otherwise this article has no chance either. Zerotalk 03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is already an easy-to-follow discussion going on where people can state their positions, there is no point in having a poll, unless you favor headcounts over discussion, which Wikipedia does not. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • merge, but probably essentially delete because the same information is already in this article. articles named "allegations of ..." are always red flags for one-sidedness. untwirl(talk) 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought that there was a difference between Jews and Israel. I wouldn't go as far as Fixman above though. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the same subject. This article is already huge. It should also probably be split into two. One dealing with Palestine and the United Nations (or the Question of Palestine as its commonly known) and one with Israel and the United Nations. But that's another discussion. Tiamuttalk 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could everyone please read Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These are core policies here at Wikipedia. They are not negotiable. Elsewhere, birds of a feather flock together but in Wikipedia people with opposite views are forced to share the same article so that a reader gets to read all opinions in the same page. At the UN, Israel cannot be separated from Palestine. In real life, anti-zionism cannot be separated from antisemitism. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:CFORK, most of the content forked article is simply repetition of what is in this article. It seems a fairly indiscriminate listing of allegations of antisemitism regarding actions that took place in or around UN buildings. Unomi (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreadable

This article needs some serious work. I came here looking for the date Israel became a UN member, and instead of finding that information here, had to go to the article on all UN members. I then wanted to find when the PLO became an observer--and I couldn't. I don't want to become any more involved in this dysfunctional article, but I do want to point out that it needs some work.

RocioNadat 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Rocio, your criticism is a bit harsh but well taken. But do not merely complain, be bold and edit the article yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Title of article changed - again

Whithout discussion, User:Hamiltonstone redirected the article from Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations to Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Since the latter was my original tittle, I agree with the change but, after three heated debates in October 2007, March and May 2008, I am surprised by the lack of debate this time. You may start the fourth debate on this issue here or remain silent forever. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw your comment in January above, thought you had been right the first and second time, thought the user who raised it a third time was also right, asked others what they thought - another couple came in and said they agreed too. So we are all agreed. It was just a single user who made this change without consultation really, a while back. I was just re-implementing what appears to be consensus. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not. There is no consensus at all, merely disinterest. --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with other conflicts -- recent edits reverted

Dailycare, you may discuss your recent edits here. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone section, moved here for comment

I am moving the Goldstone section here for working on, since it is totally unacceptable in its current state. I will add my comments {like this -Zero}. Zerotalk 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

====United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the 2008 Gaza Conflict====
On the 3 April 2009, Richard Goldstone was named by the UNHRC as head of the fact-finding mission to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the 2008 Gaza War. His final report was published September 15th 2009 [1] As stated in his report, the original mandate of the mission was to investigate violence to civilians but only "in Gaza", not Israel.{It doesn't say that at all. This is pure strawman. -Zero} [2] For this reason, the Israeli Government boycotted the mission.{No source is given for this being the reason, and the report says exactly the opposite: "By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from...travelling to Israel to meet with Israeli victims" (p8) -Zero} [3] The mission mandate was later extended {no source given for "later" -Zero} to include human rights violations "by all parties" [4]
The UN mission found that there was evidence "indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity." But, unlike other comparable UNHRC-mandated missions {who says? - Zero}, the mission also found that there was evidence that "Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel."[5][6][7]
The report was widely criticized for moral equivalency, equating terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli territory with the subsequent military response of Israel. {And nobody at all praised it? What happened to NPOV? -Zero} Thus, the report was seen as legitimizing terrorism and delegitimizing the right of nations to defend against aggression. {uncited editorial -Zero} Critics included The Guardian {No, the Guardian did not criticise it. Dan Kolsky criticised it. The Guardian also published opinion pieces praising it. [6] [7]. Only official editorial positions can be ascribed to newspapers, opinion pieces are the responsibility of their authors. -Zero}[8], The Economist[9], The Globe & Mail {a fine example, this article is by the "director of the Israeli-based Global Research in International Affairs Center", and the G&M published articles in praise too [8] -Zero} [10] and The New York Times [11] Political criticism of the report included US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice [12], the US State Dept [13] and U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell [14] {and that is a cherry-picked list of references that falsely gives the impression that everyone condemned it -Zero}
There's a similar discussion going on at Richard Goldstone. The first problem is that one editor seems to be misreading, in good faith, the Goldstone Report. The press coverage section is of course unbalanced and problematic too.John Z (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone planning to work on this section should be aware that there's a similar section at International law and the Gaza War which is free of some of the problems pointed out regarding this section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not the report but UN Resolution S-9/1 which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission, which says UNHRW should investigate only Israel. The later decision to extend (for the sake of appearances) the mandate to other violations was a high-handed act by the President and Goldstone.[9]
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains that it saw no point in cooperating because of the Commission's bias.[10]
The report got a rather chilly reception (except among those who have obvious political motives to endorse it, of course), but if somebody finds RS who praised its objectivity, feel free to add them. --Jonund (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of these articles have a short description of the subject followed by a huge (non-encyclopedic) section on criticism or controversy that gives disproportionate emphasis to a vocal minority viewpoint. The International Red Cross "List of Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law" states that "The obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law does not depend on reciprocity. [11] That rule, number 140, represents the longstanding published viewpoint of the majority of states. It is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. harlan (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero and JohnZ, I honestly think my list of sources is very RS and unbiased; I made sure to stay away from media and politicians from the countries involved. Now, YOU are Wikipedia. If you think my list is "cherry-picked", please add additional RS sources to complement the text -- that's what NPOV is. But to simply delete-and-bicker is immature; see WP:preserve.
I will not reintroduce my text. I am waiting for your text.Emmanuelm (talk)
The Kenneth Roth Op-Ed in the Jerusalem Post said "A series of detailed human rights reports about serious Israeli abuses during the recent Gaza conflict has given rise to an intense campaign by the Israeli government and some of its uncritical supporters to smear the messengers and change the subject." [12] Rabbi Brant Rosen's article in the Chicago Tribune said "Since the report's publication, the UN and commission chair Judge Richard Goldstone have been vilified and disparaged, by both the Israeli government and American Jewish leaders. There has been little consideration of the actual findings, or the fact that Israel refused to cooperate with the commission, or conduct its own investigation." He also noted "In the end, the report's most critical recommendation is that Israel and Hamas thoroughly and credibly investigate themselves, and hold accountable any combatants or commanders who violated the law." [13]
The editorial comment above: "But, unlike other comparable UNHRC-mandated missions ... & etc." is not supported by the sources cited or the actual facts. For example, paragraph 25 of a report submitted last year by Special Rapporteur John Dugard, A/HRC/7/17, 21 January 2008 said: "Clearly the firing of rockets into Israel by Palestinian militants without any military target, which has resulted in the killing and injury of Israelis, cannot be condoned and constitutes a war crime." [14]
Special Rapporteur Richard Falk's report, A/HRC/10/20, 11 February 2009, addressed the tactics used by both sides. The summary specifically condemned the firing of rockets at Israeli civilian targets. The body of the report said 'In other words, despite the apparent one-sidedness of the Gaza attack, allegations of war crimes on both sides of the conflict should be taken into account. ... ...The practices of Hamas alleged to constitute war crimes should also be investigated, including the firing of rockets and mortar shells aimed at civilian targets; the alleged use of children and civilians as “human shields”; and the abuse of the protected status of certain structures either to hide weaponry or as places of sanctuary for carrying on combat operations. The extent to which these latter practices are distinct crimes or serve to mitigate or excuse failures by Israel to respect the immunity of such targets needs to be determined.' [15]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report, A/HRC/12/37, 13 August 2009, said: "With regard to allegations of indiscriminate attacks by Palestinian militants, during the Israeli offensive, 571 rockets and 205 mortars landed in Israel. As noted above, four Israeli civilians were killed and 182 injured due to rockets and mortar shells fired from Gaza during the offensive, in which no attempt was made to distinguish between military and non-military objects. In January 2009, as an increasing number of Palestinian rockets hit Ashkelon, Israeli officials reported that up to 40 per cent of the city’s 122,000 inhabitants had felt forced to move to other parts of Israel. Sderot and villages in the area were similarly affected. Indiscriminate rocket attacks continue as of the finalization of this report, endangering the right to life of individuals living in southern Israel. 19. OHCHR is not yet in a position to assess, in each and every individual instance, whether there has been a breach of international humanitarian law. However, in the above and other cases, there is significant prima facie evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law having been committed by the Israeli forces and Palestinian militants. Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited." [16] harlan (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New version

Instead of wasting my time on sterile arguments, I completely rewrote the text, with new sources.

For those following this argument both here and at Richard Goldstone, note that the emphasis is different in the two articles. Here, the article is about the UN, not Israel or Palestine. We are interested in the internal workings of the UN, not in the people or the world's reactions.

Missing articles

This article should be sub article of two different articles: Israel and the United Nations and Palestine and the United Nations. The conflict isn't the only relationship between Israel (at least) and UN. Troll Refaim (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Troll, the two issues are essentially indistinguishable. The two article would share about 80% of their content and sources. A waste of time! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You wrong at Israel case at least, only 40% of the hebrew version of "Israel and the United Nations" is related to Palestinians and still most of information missing isn't related to Palestinians (partially because I uses this article as source). The share percents in "Palestine and the United Nations" will be bigger but I estimate it as 60% at worst case (given that article will write correctly, of course). Troll Refaim (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

section removed for discussion

I do not believe this belongs:

In March 2010, the statement of an NGO, re-printed as UNHRC publication A/HRC/13/NGO/23, contains accusation of organ theft. This accusation was deemed antisemitic by the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a take-off of the historical calumny of the Jewish blood libel" <ref>UN condemned for making Israeli organ harvesting claim, by Steven Edwards, Canwest News Service, Published by the National Post March 24, 2010</ref>

The National Post article is in fact a libel against the UN that we have no business repeating. The fact is that when a registered NGO makes a submission to the Human Rights Council, it goes on the agenda for the next meeting and must be published according to the UN rules of procedure. This is done for all such submissions regardless of content. For this session of HRC, 139 submissions from NGOs (including some Jewish ones) were received and all of them were published in the agenda without comment, see here. As the document says, "The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. ... This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non- governmental organization(s)." Since the submission has not been considered at all by the HRC or any other UN organ (as far as anyone has claimed), it is a damn lie (dare I say "blood libel") to allege that the UN is making the claim which the NGO made. If the HRC considers this submission, and if the HRC offers it any support, then there will be a case to answer and it might then belong on this page. Until then it belongs on EAFORD (the color of this link shows how notable the NGO is) and not here. (Update: You can check here that the issue was not discussed at all and the session has now ended.) Zerotalk 13:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the National Post is a major Canadian newspaper and an undeniable RS. If you have an issue with it, please raise it and the Rs noticeboard. Your analysis is OR. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
So you have no response to the facts that I listed? The UN pages on which I base my facts are far more reliable than the National Post. Zerotalk 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Zero, you may be right, or it may be the NP journalist who is right, I'm not sure. But I know this: from WP:verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. As stated by Shuki, the National Post is a major Canadian newspaper and an undeniable reliable source.
As for which source is most reliable, the UN doc (primary source) or the NP article (secondary source), WP:PRIMARY states: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources . Are you sure you understand all the steps involved in the publication of this NGO submission? Are you sure these professional bureaucrats will transcribe, print and read every and all garbage sent to them by every loon in the world?
Bottom line: the allegation is verified by a reliable secondary source and therefore belongs in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I wrote is easily verifiable in the places I specified. Anyway, there is no rule saying that everything with a source should be in the article. On the contrary, our task is to make a good selection from the vast amount of sourced material available. People all over the world praise or condemn the UN every day; we have to choose sparingly. One of the main selection criteria is that of balance (WP:NPOV), which means you can't just insert a charge without also inserting contrary material or relevant background. The fact that this submission to HCR was published unedited according to the UN rules along with more than 100 other diverse submissions is obviously relevant and has excellent sources. The only possibilities are both sides or neither; I still think that neither is better in this case. Regarding your question about procedures, all of the submissions are published with two notes: "The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31." and "This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non-governmental organization(s)." That is information from a highly reliable source and so is available for WP articles; my personal expertise is not an issue. ) Zerotalk 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the National Post article does not quote CJC as accusing the UN of making any claims about body organs. The only clear fact is that CJC are upset that the UN published EAFORD's submission and so gave their accusation publicity. National Post published it too. Zerotalk 04:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The NPOV policy applies to the whole article, not every single edit; this "both sides or neither" is your invention. If you feel the article is imbalanced, you should add, not delete so that the article is more complete, not less. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be saying that you can insert biased and misleading material into the article on the grounds that someone else can correct the bias. Sorry, but that is a misreading of the rules. Actually balance is a responsibility of every editor. Zerotalk 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt that the UN is more reliable than a national newspaper which is held to high journalistic standards and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of readers (who are also critics). The UN though churns out thousands of reports a month, most of which don't get read by many at all. One report being used as a source on 'freedom of movement' has much to say about Israel putting up various obstacles and claims that they are all put up to prevent 'freedom of movement', but does not even once say that some or even many are for safety reasons, as safety precautions, or the result of fatal road accidents. So some UN agencies churn out reports that do not live up to minimal journalistic standards or even request the response of the accused as is a minimal fairness. --Shuki (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are questions of relevance, that particular piece may be better suited at or around 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. anyway:

Unomi (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, no one is arguing that this news item is irrelevant: we are talking about a publication on UNHRC letterhead discussing Israel and Palestinians. The argument is whether the National Post is a reliable source. The answer is yes and one editor cannot dictate the content of an article.

Text reinserted in article

I re-inserted this text that satisfies all the requirements for inclusion in WP. Zero, everyone is biased, including you and me. The NPOV is usually attained by the sum of everyone's contributions. Again, if you think this article is unbalanced, you should add, not delete. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Zero, I just noticed you deleted this same text three times over 7 days (I am not counting the first delete on March 28 since your initial criticism had some value and I changed my text accordingly). As you know, three reverts is considered the limit beyond which an argument becomes an edit war. You may either i) move on to something else, ii) report me & Shuki to the Edit war noticeboard or iii) delete the text again and I will report you. Your choice. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The 3RR refers to 3 reverts in one day. This is not what is usually considered to be a reportable edit-war. I believe Zero's criticism has value, so I will revert to his version. I strongly disagree with what you said to Unomi above, the argument is much more whether this is really relevant to this article, not whether the National Post is reliable. It may be, but so what? Just because something is verifiable to a reliable source does not mean it belongs in an article. This is not really encyclopedic material, more like trivia that is stretching to be a feeble coatracked criticism of the UN. This article is already overstuffed and long. This factoid is not in the subarticle Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations or New Anti-semitism. The only thing disputed by any source is how much the UNHRC reviews contributions. The National Post, following UN Watch, says language is reviewed, while the UN indicates no review. A neutral treatment would have to include both, and would be even more undue weight to this minor revelation that Libya says mean things about Israel at the UN. Sometimes neutrality is best served by adding, sometimes by deleting. It would be better placed at 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy or best at EAFORD, once someone writes such an article.John Z (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with John Z that the material doesn't belong in this article. This material should be in Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations and perhaps 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, not this article. It bears no relevance to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Factomancer (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you JohnZ and Factsontheground for joining: the document accuses "Israeli physicians, medical centres, rabbis and the Israeli army". Thus, in addition to Jews, this official United Nations document accuses Israel of organ theft on Palestinians. The three elements of the article's title are present in this sentence. To say that this item does not belong here is absurd.
As for its importance, it is indeed a minor document but a very telling one, an evidence that virulent, irrational anti-Israel and antisemitic discourse is not censored at the U.N. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be admitting that you are motivated by a desire to attack the UN. Such a motivation, even if justified, counts for nothing here. You are required to make only edits that are balanced, well sourced, notable and relevant. This one doesn't make it. Zerotalk 01:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
With this ad hominem attack, it is now clear that this is an edit war. Since this short text has now been inserted and deleted four times in less than two weeks, I say we need arbitration. I am reporting this to the Edit war noticeboard. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to do that? Your actions will be scrutinized at least as much as Zero's. Shubinator (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war reported

Here: [17]. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My report in the noticeboard disappeared without arbitration, a strange outcome. In a comment there, Zero seemed to suggest that the text could be acceptable with modifications. I invited him to do so, suggesting that the chapter "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism" would be more appropriate. I am still waiting. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES. Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
  2. ^ From the introduction of the Goldstone report, 1. On 3 April 2009, the President of the Human Rights Council established the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”
  3. ^ From the introduction of the report: 8. The Mission repeatedly sought to obtain the cooperation of the Government of Israel. After numerous attempts had failed, the Mission sought and obtained the assistance of the Government of Egypt to enable it to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing.
  4. ^ 11. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.
  5. ^ UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict, United Nations Human Rights Council, September 15, 2009, retrieved 2009-09-15
  6. ^ Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (PDF), United Nations Human Rights Council, retrieved 2009-09-15
  7. ^ UN Inquiry find Israel “Punished and Terrorized” by Democracy Now!
  8. ^ Goldstone's sins of omission, Dan Kosky, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 September 2009 12.01 BST
  9. ^ Opportunity missed Sep 17th 2009 From The Economist print edition
  10. ^ The Gaza report is a disaster for human rights and peace Barry Rubin, From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009
  11. ^ The Gaza Report’s Wasted Opportunity By DAVID LANDAU, Published: September 19, 2009
  12. ^ US doubts UN report on possible Israel war crimes Reuters Sep 17, 2009
  13. ^ US raps UN Gaza report By MATTHEW LEE (AP) – Sep 18, 2009
  14. ^ Mitchell to convey U.S. Goldstone Gaza commission critique? Politico Laura Rozen Sept 17 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_the_United_Nations/Archive_3&oldid=1079703414"