Wikipedia: Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure/Talk

Showing revision 17

In 1993, Arafat said that he would change the PLO Charter so that it would no longer call for the destruction of the state of Israel. The PLO has affirmed and reaffirmed this several times. [1] Yet, to this day, the PLO Charter calls for the complete destruction of the state of Israel. [2] How many years does it take to change a few sentences?

At the same time, Palestinians are destroying ancient artifacts in Jerusalem and denying the historical fact that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years. ([US Congress], search for Bill Number HR 2566)

: RK is at it again. I'm of the opinion that this entire entry should be deleted. It's a bunch of propaganda with no real encyclopedic content. --AV

I don't agree that it is propaganda, but I do agree that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, at least not without significant contextualization of some kind.

Here's the way I see it. Some people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority are still fiercely committed to the destruction of Israel. Other people believe that the PLO and/or Palestinian Authority sincerely wants peace and will be happy with co-existence with Israel. In general, peoples beliefs on these things are correlated with their overall degree of support for Israel or the PLO.

This topic is too controversial and contemporary for us to think that we can take a position on the truth or falsehood of these beliefs. Therefore, as Larry has put it -- we should fairly _characterize_ the debate, rather than _join_ the debate.

I have a theory that thoughtful combatants can disagree vehemently about who is right or wrong in the debate, but -- if careful and co-operative -- can still characterize the debate in a way that both can agree upon. --Jimbo Wales

The title of this article needs to be changed at the very least. Article titles are not quotes or alleged statements of fact; they are concepts.

I think some of this material could be integrated in a vastly abbreviated form into the article about the Palestinian Authority or PLO. --AxelBoldt

: Yes, I agree. --AV

: So do I; I'm afraid we have a very serious problem here. We need (1) to declare some sort of a cease-fire and (2) agree upon some way of fighting our flame wars outside of Wikipedia. Any suggestions? --Uriyan

: Short of deleting the page I have no suggestions. I tried to reason with RK before, to no avail. This isn't the first crisis in Israel-related entries that he's provoked. --AV

: It is too sad to see Wikipedia spoiled like that. But then, deleting other people's pages is not exactly diplomatic. Perhaps we should make a page for discussion (e.g. DMZ?, [Stop the flames]?) or something of the sort? If we don't introduce some sort of policy, Wikipedia will very soon turn into CNN's Middle East forum, which is undesirable. --Uriyan

: Good luck with that, Uriyan. RK has already called me an antisemite enough times for me to stop hoping he can be reasoned with. He usually ignores /Talk questions directed to him, unless it gives him a chance to spew more propaganda. I simply ceased to believe it to be possible to convince him to adopt some semblance of NPOV; deleting is the only strategy that seems to work. --AV

: Not sure myself whether it will catch on. Well, here we go Middle East Reconciliation.

If RK stops posting this stuff or if people just delete it I might be able to resist my urge to express my disagreements with him. To be brutally honest RK really annoys me: he keeps on attacking me personally (not on this page, elsewhere). Anyone is more than welcome to try to refute what I say, but I can't stand his unfounded ad hominem accusations of antisemitism. If you want to delete the whole page, my comment included, go right ahead. -- SJK

: Well, engaging in a flame war is going to lead to personal attacks! Perhaps if we thought together of a way to keep ourselves from harming Wikipedia as we do now, things could be better! --Uriyan

This clearly is not an encyclopedia article. Even the topic is probably not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I have pasted it here in case anyone wants to see what we are talking about, or even to reshape this material into a more proper form. - Tim

PLO Rejection of Israel?s Right to Exist in Peace

RK: How do you know the actions of the Palestinian leadership reflect their real motives, rather than just being propaganda for Palestinian consumption. An important part of the PLO strategy is to be able to turn on and off Palestinian sentiments. When it suits them in the negotiations, they stir up anti-Israel feelings; and when it suits them, they calm down anti-Israel feelings. If the negotiations are not going anywhere and the world's attention is drifting away from the conflict, they can stir up violence to help bring the world back to get the world's attention back. And when they need to show others they are serious about the negotiations, they crack down on violence. It's just a negotiating tactic; you have no proof their propaganda reflects their real intentions. -- SJK

: Are you now willing to admit that you were totally wrong? Are you now willing to stop calling all of these Palestinians liars? Can we finally admit that their words do have some validity and honesty, and that that they are telling the truth when all of their internal documents openly call for the destruction of Israel? [For example, the Palestinian center in East Jerusalem, Orient House, has maps of the region which show Israel to be removed from the map, and replaced with Arab Palestine. This same map is used in their public school textbooks. RK

: After the last six suicide attacks, committed by people that the Palestinian Authority refused to arrest, are you willing to admit that the Palestinians are capable of honesty? That they are serious when they say that the peace plan was only temporary? Or are you still calling them all liars? Honestly, SJK, I cannot understand your anti-Israel double standard. In every entry in this encyclopaedia you have one standard for truth, expcept when it comes to an entry about destroying the Jewish state. If your incoherent argument (above) had even the slighest truth, then the entire Wikipedia project would be worthless, as you would accuse every one in the world of lying about their own beliefs. The fact that you never have this standard - except when it comes to situations in which Jews are victims - is not academically sound RK

Acceptance of Israel's right to exist in peace as the first, and most basic, of the PLO?s obligations in the Oslo accords. In Yasir Arafat?s September 9, 1993 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, as part of Oslo I, Arafat stated that ?The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.?

However, the statements and actions of Arafat and the PLO during the four years since Oslo I was signed have consistently contradicted Arafat?s 1993 recognition of Israel?s right to exist in peace. Arafat and other senior PA officials have repeatedly made statements calling for the ?liberation? of all of ?Palestine,? or referring to cities within pre-1967 Israel as part of ?Palestine.? For example, Arafat said on the PA?s ?Voice of Palestine? radio station in 1995, ?The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated.? (Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995)

In another 1995 speech, Arafat named two cities within pre-1967 Israel among those to which the Palestinian Arabs will be ?returning?: ?Be blessed, 0 Gaza, and celebrate, for your sons are returning after a long celebration. 0 Lod, 0 Haifa, 0 Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning.? (Ma?ariv, September 7, 1995)

Similarly, Rashid Abu Shbak, a senior PA security official declared: ?The light which has shone over Gaza and Jericho [when the PA assumed control over those areas] will also reach the Negev and the Galilee [within pre-1967 Israel].? (Yediot Ahronot, May 29, 1994)

The PA?s Voice of Palestine radio last year broadcast a Friday prayer sermon by Yusuf Abu Sneineh, preacher at Jerusalem?s Al-Aqsa Mosque, in which he asserted: ?The struggle we are waging is an ideological struggle and the question is: where has the Islamic land of Palestine gone? Where is Haifa and Jaffa, Lod and Ramle, Acre, Safed and Tiberias? Where is Hebron and Jerusalem?? (Voice of Palestine, May 23, 1997)

Arafat and other PA officials have assured Arab audiences that the Oslo agreement is one phase in the PLO?s 1974 ?Strategy of Phases.? The ?Strategy of Phases? was adopted by the PLO?s National Council at its session in Cairo during June 1-8, 1974. Prior to the 1974 meeting, the PLO?s position was that it would never accept anything but the immediate destruction of Israel. At the 1974 meeting, the PLO decided to seek Israel?s destruction in phases, by first establishing a small PLO state, then later seeking to conquer the rest of Israel. Point #2 of its 10-point 1974 platform declared that the PLO should create ?a national, independent fighting authority on every part of the Palestinian land to be liberated.? Point #8 explains that ?the Palestine national entity, after it comes into existence,? will seek ?to complete the liberation of the entire Palestinian soil.?

In an interview with Egyptian Orbit TV on April 18, 1998, Arafat was asked about his decision to sign the Oslo accords. He replied: ?In 1974, at the Palestinian National Council meeting in Cairo, we passed the decision to establish national Palestinian rule over any part of the land of Palestine which is liberated.?

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

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

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

The Khudaibiya agreement was a 10-year peace treaty between Mohammed and the tribe of Qureish. After two years, when Mohammed had improved his military position, he tore up the agreement and slaughtered the Qureishites. Salab a-Din was the Muslim leader who, after a cease fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and conquered Jerusalem.

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

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

In addition, the PA uses maps showing all of Israel labeled as ?Palestine.? Such maps appear on PA Television; in the offices of PA officials; in textbooks used in PA schools; and on the shoulder-patches of PA police officers. The significance of the use of such maps was pointed out by the Washington Post back in 1988, when the PLO applied for admission to the World Health Organization, and used the map of all of ?Palestine? in its application papers. The map ?wipes out symbolically.. .a member-state? of the WHO, the Post remarked. (Washington Post, May 1, 1989)

Since I agree with the article so strongly as to consider it "common sense" and "obviously true" I suspect it is not neutral, but I'd like to see a place for it in Wikipedia. Where should it go?