Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Contents 1 First section of this article 2 Use of Goverment propeganda material in wikipedia 3 Nazlat Isa 4 wrong information on wikipedia 5 more from the sraeli court 6 English proficiency 7 Dispute 8 History and purpose 8.1 Qalqilya section 9 Clearly biased editing 10 maybe someone can help us 11 "Merge Request" box removed 12 Shortening? 13 we have a problem 14 what is NAD and is it a "crediable" source 15 weaslespeak or Why I reverted Marsden 15.1 about NAD 16 First section of this article is again non neutral 17 I did some revisions 18 Do you work for NAD ? 19 Kibutz Metzer - How it became a house hold name in Israel 19.1 Prolog 20 "Bantustans" 21 There must be two walls 22 Please, please Please: Enough about the "Qalqiliya gate" 23 Thanks Jayjg 24 Why Palestinians are gertting into Israel 25 "Names of the barrier" section 26 Cleanup tag 27 Checkpoints 28 Map - Ariel Bloc 29 What it's called 30 Changes in "Palestinian Opinions" 31 Changes in "Effects on Palestinians" 32 Map 33 Terminology (again…) 34 POV Pushing 35 Effects on Israeli Security 36 Effects and Consequences 37 Changes to Introduction 38 Article Too Long? 39 Route and Route Timeline 40 GDP Timeline 41 SeattliteTungsten Changes, 22 Jan 2006 41.1 Yossi Klein Halevy 42 Article Too Long 43 "Realities on the ground" revisited 43.1 This section need to be re-written 43.2 Analysts / 'realities on the ground' 44 East Jerusalem 45 Please explain 46 WP:Point 47 Important links 48 Links removed 49 Possible impersonator 50 Change "with little common ground between supporters and opponents" 51 Reliable sources 52 Economic Effects 53 "Realities on the ground" 54 POV/NPOV Intro: "Supporters argue...", "Opponents argue..." 55 7% vs 5% 56 Apartheid Opinions 57 Israel News Agency 58 Names of the barrier 59 Removal of CNN citation 60 Article summary paragraphs 61 Copyright question - can we use this picture? 62 StandWithUs 63 "Conflict" vs. "Peace Process" 64 Apartheid wall 65 External Links 66 POV of image

[edit] First section of this article

The first section of this article goes into too much detail and an esoteric discussion about naming.

That section should be moved down to the main article. There should be an appropriate section about "naming".

I want to insert a bit of an original research into this discussion (but keep it out of the article) : The fence was something that the Israeli people demanded from their government. They wanted the terror of 2001-2002 will be stopped. It was destroying Israel.

The Israeli government objected creating a fence because it had a longstanding desire to take over the entire west bank. Demarking any border between Israel and the west bank was against government policy.

At the end, the public forced the government to build the fence. So the government tricked everyone and chooses a route not on the border but going into the west bank (in some areas).

Later, the Supreme Court has been forcing the government to change the route to minimize the affect on the Palestinian population. There are still many places that some meaningful burden is placed on the Palestinian population. Clearly any route of such barrier causes some problems. No one would want such thing in his front yard.

But the reason that the Fence/wall/barrier was built: To stop terror  ! and the fact that it does that rather successfully (Number of attempts remains almost the same but number of "successful" attacks is way down) is somehow lost in this article.

Reading this article no one can tell the forest from the trees.

One more observation: I do not know if there is any other subject in the world on which so much wrong data has been published. I suggest that you all read Israeli Supreme court decision, especially section 67 to understand what I mean.

Here is the decision (not mentined yet in this article):

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm

Read section 67 and comapre it to what you read about the barrier. You will be surprized.

Also read section 116 and you will see what I talk about above.

[edit] Use of Goverment propeganda material in wikipedia

There was refrence to a propeganda material prepared by a goverment. Is it allowed to use such source on wikipedia. I don't trust goverments and especially their propeganda material . Zeq 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite ^(talk) 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)wrote

Zeq- I understand your concern, but here are my responses:

• 1. That paragraph in which you moved the Palestinian opinion out is mostly Israeli government statements. It is unfair of you to keep Israeli government "propaganda" and remove Palestinian "propaganda", if you consider them both to be "propaganda".

I agree that no government propaganda or any NGO propaganda (if they are agenda based and biased) should be used. We should stick to unbiased facts. I do not quote Israeli government and I suggest you do not quote as "source" Palestinian government or NGO that have an agenda. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• 2. Although the website that I referred to could have been written with a little less rhetoric, I can assure you that what it says is mostly true and not propaganda. The wall has reduced Palestinian terror in Israel, but it has not reduced Israeli terror in Palestine. The number of Israelis killed has been reduced; the number of Palestinians killed has not been reduced by the same ratio. The wall has not been built between Palestinians and Israelis; it has been built between Palestinians and other Palestinians. Come down to Qalandia checkpoint and see what I mean.

I disagree. Anyone looking at this web site can see clearly that it is basically an anti barrier PR web site. It is done by a department in the Palestinian Authority. It is simply a government controlled propaganda web site. We don';t have the time and energy to argue about every point there but I'll give an example below how wrong info is used all over the world about the subject of the wall. We here as an encyclopedia should stick to FACTS. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• 3. To respond to your question: It is allowed to use 'credible (English language) sources' on Wikipedia. In almost all cases, statements issued by official bodies in any country, as well as well-circulated newspapers, are considered credible sources for Wikipedia purposes, even if what they actually say is disputable (which is why we always try to include all points of view to achieve neutrality).

We are talking about facts here. Verifiable facts. If there is ANY indication that Israel is building a fence in the Jordan valley and intended to surround the west bank - please bring it. Right now, there are no goverment plans and no work on the ground that supports that speculation. Wiki[pedia is a place for facts. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• 4. It is not neutral for you to keep the Israeli POV near the top of the article, but move the Palestinian response to the bottom. I wish you wouldn't do that. If you don't believe that the separation wall is like a cage for us, that's your opinion, but for others (like me) it is a cage. But my opinion doesn't count, there are other credible sources that say the same thing, and it's not propaganda.

It is mostly a barrier between Israel and the Palestinian areas. The Top does not include any POV nither israeli nor Palestinian. As I said my POV is that the wall route is wrong in some places (IMHO) but let us stick to facts. In places where this route harms Palestinians please say it. For example in Abu Dis it is causing major problems. Say that but avoid terms such as "cage" Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• 5. I understand that you don't trust governments, I usually don't either. But neither you nor I can edit on Wikipedia based on our own opinion of things. We must edit with a neutral point of view.

I agree Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• 6. If the Palestinians actually had a real 'Government', there wouldn't be much of a conflict between us anymore. The PLO is not a government, and the PA likes to think of itself as a government, but in practice it isn't. If the source that I posted bothers you because it is from the official Negotiations Affairs Department, I can easily find another non-governmental source that claims the same thing.

They have a government. Ahamed Ceria (Abu Ala) is prime minister. the NAD is part of that over all system. We should stick to Facts.

Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And the Israeli court is part of the government as well, it is a political structure. And you removed the entire paragraph about Qalqilya, as if the FACT that it is surrounded by a wall. If you want undisputed facts, don't remove the part about Qalqilya being surrounded. And the checkpoint is still there, even if they don't call it 'permanent' anymore. Go and see for yourself Ramallite ^(talk) 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, The israeli court is an independent part of the Israel. The goverment was one of the sides in this leagl battle. The court rulled for the Palestinians and against the goverment. Please read the descision before continuing to address this issue. It is a landmark decision. 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the checkpoint: It is not there and the UN sais so. 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) As for the city: It has a wall on one side (along the green line), a fence on half of the north side (along the green-line) A fence on the south side (going into the west bak) and a fence (part of it removed) alonf the north east side (going into the west bank) As clerarly seen in the BBC photo, major parts of the farmland is inside the route (i.e. on the same side of the city) Let us stick to the facts. Zeq 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite:

You do not understand how court decsion are arrived at:

There are two sides (not like the ICJ) each sides presents facts. When the court finds these facts contredicts one another it lists the claim and it lists the answer. At that point if the party that made the claim thinks the answer is wrong it give a counter answer or if it is not making any counter answer the court checks or accept the claim. This is the process. So in cases where the court quote one side and there is no counter-counter claim (i.e. an answer by the side that made the original claim) the other it accepted the answer.

I'll give you an example: Read section 67 of the court descision:

"A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city. The State adds that two open access roads now lead to the city of Qalqiliya. Part of the obstacle east of the city was dismantled. Parts of the Dugard report and the Zeigler report, according to which 6000 to 8000 residents left the city of Qalqiliya and 600 stores were closed in that city, were mentioned in the opinion. The State contends that since April 2004, approximately 90% of the stores which closed have been reopened. Regarding residents' leaving, in the State's opinion, it is very difficult to reach a clear cut conclusion on this issue. The ICJ's opinion held, on the basis of the Secretary-General's report, that as a result of the building of the wall, a 40% drop in caseload at the UN hospital in Qalqiliya had been recorded. From a graph submitted to us by the State it appears that the number of hospitalization days in 2004 is higher than that of 2002. The conclusion is that it cannot be said that the separation fence brought to a decrease in the number of hospitalized patients. The graph also shows that in 2003 there was a considerable rise in the number of beds in hospitals. In addition, a new private hospital was opened in Qalqiliya in 2003, and the Palestinian Authority also opened a hospital in 2002. In the opinion of the State, it is reasonable to assume that the opening of the new hospitals affected the caseload of the UN hospital in Qalqiliya."

In this section the court accepted these facts:

"it cannot be said that the separation fence brought to a decrease in the number of hospitalized patients."

"there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city."

If you revert properaly source material (based wikipedia policy) you are doing what is called vandalism. I accepted your right to use oure propeganda material (the document you brought from NAD makes outragous claims ssuch as the barrier did not contribute to Israelis ecurity) Fine, you want to use propeganda material use it. But DO NOT remove other people contributions which are properly sourced. Otherwise the whole colborative process can not work. Bring your propeganda, I'll bring the facts at the end we will have an article. But if you don't play by the rules....we have no way of continuing. Zeq 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nazlat Isa

Ramallite, I suugest you don't make a full of yourself. take a look at these photos:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16121 (not a crediable source but the photo shows the truth)

See what was destroyed. The NY Time description (and camera.org as a source citing it) were correct. at least this time.

Zeq 20:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wrong information on wikipedia

Can it be that the BBC is wrong ?

Well I will try to prove that it is.

This section in wikipedia is copied from BBC:

"Qalqilya, once known as the West Bank's "fruit basket", lies within a tight loop of walled portions of the barrier (conceived as a "sniper wall" to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists on the nearby Trans-Israel Highway) and is cut off on three sides from the farms that supply its markets and the region's second-largest water source. Access into and out of the 40,000-inhabitant town passes through a single Israeli checkpoint. [18] "

1. I suggest you open the BBC page and look at the photo. You must enlarge it. Please do it.

Now, on this photo the Israeli highway is in the front, the wall at mid back and behind the wall (which is on the green-line BTW) is the the city of Qalqiliya. The wall turn into a fence (going into the west-bank at that point) but look carefully at the left part of the photo and you will see that the farm land is INSIDE the Palestinian side. BBC claim that the city is "cut off on three sides from the farms" is not accurate.

2. BBC further claim that "Access into and out of the 40,000-inhabitant town passes through a single Israeli checkpoint. [18]"

This is wrong info. Simply not true . I am aware that this info apear in countless websites in the world. Including some old UN reports but the recent Israeli supreme court decision addresses this issue (quoting a recent UN report):

" (d) A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city."

This is from http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm section 67 which I suggest everyone would read.

Thanks for giving the link. It is a high court opinion, the government still has not done anything about it. Once it does, then facts can be changed. Until then, we have to stick with what is on the ground now, don't you think? Besides, Palestinians think the whole barrier is illegal, moving a little bit around Qalqilya is too little too late. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not just an "Opinion" . It is a decision based on facts. Facts that have been verified via an adversary process: Each side presents claims, each side responds to the other side claims and the actual facts are verified by the court. This is the process in every court in the world, except that in the ICJ this was not the case. The question if the whole barrier is legal or not is addressed there, based on Int'l law and you are well advised to read it. The people who wrote it are first class and well respected around the world.

I agree that we have to "Stick with what is on the ground now". Major parts of this article will have to be changed once we remove the speculations about the future. Of course once we write about the supreme court descisions we should say what was implmented (changes to barrier route in 30 K'm near Jerusalem based on the Beit sourik decsion form July 2005) and what is not yet implmented (The Alfei menashe descion near Qalqaliya given juswt two weeks ago). We should follow up once it is implemneted. All Israeli court descisions are implmented. Zeq 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I don't know what you are trying to do but it seems that you are removing anything you personally don't like by claiming it is "propaganda" while leaving things you do like. This is called POV. Also, you have removed facts based only on your opinion (such as the Qalqilya checkpoint being removed when in fact on most days it is still there). Please stop it. Here are some articles that are not from a government. They are not pro Israeli (they call it Israel Occupation force, apartheid wall, etc) but their numbers are real. Read these before you attempt to insert your POV into this article:[1] [2] [3][4] (<--this one shows the checkpoint is still there every so often) [5][6] Ramallite ^(talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: This is not what I do. I just correct the info to be factual and cite sources for it. Your use of words like "trek" to describe the 5 K'm detour Palestinians have to do is POV. It is a detour not a terk. Your use of Propeganda material (fro, a PLO web site) is IMHO unacceptable. I don't use goverment issued propeganda and nither shouldn't you.

As to what I "like" or "dislike" I wrote above how mush I dislike the route the Israeli goverment choose for the wall (for example in Jerusalem and many other places) but I don't put my "dislikes" into the article. In the article let's stick to facts on the ground.

Keep in mind that many of what was written in the web about the barrier is incorrect and in places where the court examined it and found the correct facts I will make sure the facts (and the sources for that fact) are cited correctly. Zeq 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: many of your so-called sources like CCMEP are organizations that take a non neutral POV. They can not be used as source for facts. If you want to write about various checkpoints that have nothing to do with the wall but are eracted by Israel from time to time I think this is a great subject to write about (not in this article) and I can give you a great source to start with: http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/ochaHU0805_En.pdf and http://www.machsomwatch.org/ (their info is less up to date so the UN reports are better) I will be glad to help you write on the subject of checkpoints . I am not afraid of the truth, even the truth I do not like. 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But camera.org is neutral? ?מה אתך

Zeq, I'm not going to argue with you about sources, since we both think the others' sources are propaganda. But you are still not being consistent:

• You removed that 45% of the land is now beyond the wall, and replaced it with "some". Is 45% wrong?

As far as I know it is not true. But If I am wrong please cite source. I usually trust Btselem (I also work with them) but they too have been wrong. Show the source, let's check it comapre to other sources and decide. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And the water wells also. This is not 'propaganda', this is fact, and is cited by human rights groups as well as Btselem. Go find them, because if I show you, you'll think it is propaganda. I am putting back the 45% and water well.

Wrong again, pure propeganda. It is based on the "Ziegler Report" which has been proven time and Again to have wrong and Biased info. Please see http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm section 67 sub section C. It address this issue specifically. The whole water issue (which I know many mention agaion and again has never been shown on maps that use the latest route. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The word "detour" is misleading and POV, and not better than 'trek', since Palestinians don't 'choose' to take that path, but are forced to.

Detour is a neutral word. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The checkpoint is still there on many (if not most) days. Do you honestly dispute that?

Yes. I wrote you. You want to write about checkpoint in west bank roads I'll help you. But the barrier checkpoint that was there was removed in 2004. The court sais so, it refer to UN documents. The UN barrier gate report no longer mention this checkpoints (but reports from 2003 do). It is dismentelled. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The term "Agricultural Gates" is only the POV of one side, not both. You are trying to turn the barrier into a wonderful humanitarian thing, it is not, so let's both try to be neutral. I'm trying, you keep deleting, that may be considered vandalism.

I think it is you who insert wrong non supported data. Vandalism is something else. I am trying to edit an article. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The court rejected the arguments "they cited" topography, etc. If you remove "the ruling cited", it becomes POV like it is a true fact that topography has anything to do with the route of the barrier.

I cited the rulling. It is a court . You don't like it but no one so far wrote anything against that irulling from a legal stand point. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• You also removed the part about the land "above" the tunnel being accessible, and I'm putting it back. It is sourced, and the source is legitimate regardless of whether or not you like it. Furthermore, it is not refuted, nobody denies it. What is your problem with it?

OK. I will check your source. I contredicts mine but let's check. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT: The sources I use are legitimate for Wikipedia purposes, and that is enough reason to include them. If you disagree with them, you need to find an alternative source and ADD the opposite point of view. If my source says 45% of land is confiscated, and it is a valid source for Wikipedia, then it cannot be removed just because you don't like it. What you can do is say "on the other hand, the Israeli government says that only 10% of the land is behind the wall" and add that. You and I don't like governments, but we still must use them as sources because we are writing an encyclopedia, not our personal essays.

The nubers for land acroos the wall ARE UN numbers. Do you have a problem with that ? That is easy to check. Instead of citing doubtfull sources let's measure. We have maps, accurate maps don't we ? Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, you are reverting a lot of sentences that I adjusted because of (sorry) poor English. Please stop reverting them, it is just creating extra unnecessary work for me, especially as anybody else will not try to incorporate your edits into the text, they will just revert you.

You want to fix the neglish. Fine, fix the english but don't use copyedit as an excuse to insret wrong data. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please respond to each of these before reverting me again? Is there anything left that is not factual? Before touching the article, please point out exactly what is incorrect in the article and I will help you re-word it. But the source (NAD) is legitimate for Wikipedia, even if you don't happen to agree with it. All you need to do is add a sentence such as "on the other hand" and cite your sources.

Ramallite ^(talk) 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I did source everything I wrote. You don't like the source (which is acceptable on Wikipedia), so you deleted it, but you didn't provide anything to prove that the information is false. In effect, you deleted sourced information without providing an alternative - so you have vandalized the page. You may also have broken the no original research rule as well. I am not going to touch the page for a while to give other editors the chance to respond to you. You even removed that Qalqilya is a town of 45,000 people. I'll be back on another day. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No original research any where. I source everything. But when a source like BBC is wrong I point out that looking at BBC own photo and reading a court descision that lists the facts can show that BBC is wrong. Nothing here is "original". Zeq 20:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what you sourced, I care that you deleted text that I sourced. My information was sourced, you deleted it because you don't like the source, so now everything that is left is your sourced edits but not mine, simply because you disagree with my sources even though they are valid on Wikipedia. That is called "POV pushing". Your assertion that they are "wrong" is your original research. You removed that 1- Palestinians can no longer access farms above the tunnel, 2- that 45% of their land is behind the barrier, 3- that water wells are gone, and a lot more, because you think they are wrong (that's original research), but you did not provide an alternative or proof that my source is wrong (which is POV pushing). So you have in fact gone against the NPOV rule, the No original research rule, and like I said before, vandalism, because you removed my sourced text. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to follow the editing here, but Ramallite is correct, you cannot remove properly sourced and relevant text, even if you think it is wrong. Instead, if you think it is wrong, bring other encyclopedic sources which contradict it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue is what is "properly sourced". Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Opinions are OK to include both sides.

When courts examine both sides and they reach a conclusion (during a process in which BOTH sides present their case) we can not ignore what courts ruled.

When a photo in BBC web site show that the text in the same web site is wrong, we can not ignore the photo. Zeq 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And to show how ridicules some of those "properly sourced" data is:

"The farm, land above the tunnel"

Has anyone of you ever been there? I was there as part of my work with the UN.

There is no farmland above the tunnel for the simple reason that the tunnel is under a road. Check the UN maps if you don't trust me. I bring here only sourced info but rest assure that I also know the truth from personal observation (which I do not enter into the article) 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: Is this a source we should use ? http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?LanguageID=&Question2=&MissionID=45187&MissionID= Is everything that anyone writes on the web is considered "Fact" ? Zeq 08:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another question:

What source should we trust ?

One editor has a source claiming that 55% of the west bank is beyond the wall.

The Israeli govrement claimes 8-11%

The UN says ( see http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf section 5 and 7 on page 3 ) between 6.7% to 10.1% of the west bank.

So Should we use the 55% number just because two editors think they are using a crediable source ?

Or should we not trust the 10% number just because the Israeli goverment says so ?

Or if we look at the map ourself and see that it is roughly 10% this would be considered "Original research"

What should we do ?

You should quote them all, and attribute the claims to the sources; that is exactly what the WP:NPOV policy demands. What you cannot do is reject some reputable sources because you consider them to be wrong, or make up your own analysis and post it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg,

Thanks for pointing out the policy.

Maybe I did not understand itr but it talks about facts and POV.

About POV (let's say if the wall is good or bad) - of course we should present both views.

But.... the policy also talks about presenting the facts.

Now, this is a very simple issue:

The wall takes a % of the wets bank land. It is a number between 0 to 100.

We have a map. We can measure.

The UN and the courts in Israel did this for us. They came up with a number.

Citing sources which give completely false information (i.e. 55% while the UN and Israeli numbers are around 10% and anyone looking at the map can see it is about 10%) is not what this policy sais. Please show me where in this policy it is required to put wrong facts into an encyclopedia. This is not what I read in this policy. Zeq 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the barrier takes ABOUT 10% of the west bank is undisputed (except for Palestinian propaganda) Both Israeli courts assert it ass well as the latest UN documents. The Un comapre this to 14% in previous route maps (prior to Feb 2005 changes that made the barrier closre to the green-line).

The issue if this 10% is justified, good or bad is off course a POV and we should present both sides.

The Policy clearly states:

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact"

Except for one problem: Nobody anywhere said that the barrier takes 55% of the West Bank. Where did you get that? And I agree, you do not understand Wikipedia policy very well, the PLO page CAN be used as a source, if there is anything disputed, you have to find another source and show that it is disputed. You CANNOT use your own research. If you take out a map and do measurements yourself, that is original research. You cannot do that. Many of your arguments are also due to language barriers. For example, it is true that 33% of the water wells of Qalqilya are behind the barrier (this is fact). The Israeli high court reasserted that Israel does not plan to confiscate them and will leave their status up to negotiations. That is also true. So they are both true: That the wells are on the other side of the wall and people from Qalqilya can't access them, AND Israel does not plan to confiscate them and will leave their status for negotiations (sorry I keep repeating myself but I'm trying to make sure you understand). Please please read the original research and NPOV policy pages carefully. And please let us help you edit, if you have complaints, post them here and we'll try to add them to the article, but the way you are writing in the article is completely against policy. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If, when you copy edit you insert your own POV (like with the detour that became trek, or with the 45% across the barrier) you are not helping a colabrotive effort. The 45% is your numebr (see above) But the issue remain:

presenting both POV can be about is something good or bad not about the size of land across the barrier which is something that anyone can check by looking at a map or reviweing good sources. Zeq 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

45% of Qalqilya's farmlands, NOT 45% of the West Bank. You are misrepresenting what I am saying, and therefore are being uncivil. Or else you are not proficient in English in which case I suggest you edit on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I also suggest that you look at maps yourself, since you keep insisting that Habla is north of Qalqilya. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more from the sraeli court

The israeli court have done major work examining the facts about the barrier looking at from both sides.

here are few examples:

" 68. This stands out especially in the case of those parts of the ICJ's opinion dealing with Qalqiliya. On one side of the scale, the ICJ placed the severe impingement of the rights of Palestinians in Qalqiliya. Even if we remove the imprecision of these figures, the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of their rights. On the other side of the scale, the ICJ did not place – due to the factual basis laid before it – any data regarding the security and military considerations. It was not mentioned that Qalqiliya lies two kilometers from the Israeli city of Kfar Saba; that Qalqiliya served as a passage point to Israel for suicide bomber terrorists, primarily in the years 2002-2003, for the purpose of committing terrorist attacks inside of Israel; that the Trans-Israel highway (highway 6), whose users must be protected, passes right by the city; that the majority of the fence route on the western side of the city runs on the Green Line, and part of it even within Israel; that since the fence around Qalqiliya was built – including the wall on the western side which borders upon highway 6 – terrorist infiltrations in that area have ceased. " section 68 in http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm

and this is where they say the Palestinians are right:

116. And what will be the case if examination of the alternative route leads to the conclusion that the only route which provides the minimum required security is the existing route? Without it, there is no security for the Israelis. With it, there a severe injury to the fabric of life of the residents of the villages. What will the case be in such a situation ("absolute" implementation of narrow proportionality: see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 840)? That is the most difficult of the questions. We were not confronted with it in The Beit Sourik Case, since we found that there was an alternative which provides security to Israelis. How shall we solve this difficulty in the case before us? It seems to us that the time has not yet come to confront this difficulty, and the time may never come. We hope that the examination of the second of the proportionality subtests will allow the alteration of the fence route, in the spirit of our comments, so that a new route can be found, whose injury to the lives of the local residents will be much lesser than that caused by the current route. We can therefore leave the examination of the satisfaction of the third subtest open, while focusing the examination at this time upon the second condition, that is, examination of the possibility of reducing the area of the enclave.

Therefore, we turn the order nisi into an order absolute in the following way: respondents no. 1-4 must, within a reasonable period, reconsider the various alternatives for the separation fence route at Alfei Menashe, while examining security alternatives which injure the fabric of life of the residents of the villages of the enclave to a lesser extent. In this context, the alternative by which the enclave will contain only Alfei Menashe and a connecting road to Israel, while moving the existing road connecting Alfei Menashe to Israel to another location in the south of the enclave, should be examined."

106. Petitioners claim that the separation fence severely damages the ties between the enclave villages and Qalqiliya and Habla. Prior to the construction of the fence, it was possible to reach Qalqiliya within a few minutes. After construction of the fence, and resulting from the need to pass through the gates, the journey takes many hours. Moreover, a permit to pass through the gates by car is granted only to a car owner who is a resident of the enclave. Relatives and friends are not allowed to receive a permit. Most residents of the villages have no car of their own, and as a result – and due to fact that one can not be assisted by the car of a relative or friend – most residents of the villages are bound to their villages. This also causes damage – regarding the village of Arab a-Ramadin – to religious services. There is no mosque in that village. The residents of the village used to pray in the mosque in Habla, which was walking distance from the village. The fence now separates the village from the mosque. Considering the fact that there are only five cars in the village, residents of the village have no practical possibility of attending prayer on Fridays and holidays. In addition, the fence separates the residents of the villages from their relatives and friends. It is difficult to invite guests to various ceremonies (like weddings and funerals), as entry requires a permit, which is not given at all, or given only a long time after the request date.

107. Petitioners argue that the separation fence has brought financial and social destruction to the Arab residents of the Alfei Menashe enclave. It has created a cutoff between the residents and their agricultural lands and all the services necessary for normal life. Petitioners contend that "due to the construction of the fence, the lives of hundreds of people have turned into miserable lives, sentenced to a economic, social, and cultural withering" (paragraph 4 of the petition). Petitioners claim that the residents' freedom of movement, and rights to family life, health, education, equality, subsistence, and human dignity and respect have been impinged upon. These impingements are not proportionate, and legally, they are destined to be annulled.

108. Respondents recognize that the separation fence impinges upon the rights of the Arab residents of the Alfei Menashe enclave. However, respondents' position is that the general regime in practice in the seamline area, and the new arrangements regarding crossings and gates, have generally turned the injury to the Palestinians, and specifically to the residents of the villages in the enclave, into proportionate ones. On this subject, we were informed that in July 2004 the declaration was amended, so that permanent residents of the seamline areas were issued a "permanent resident card". The holder of such a card needs not hold a permit in order to enter into the seamline area or to stay in it. In order to preserve the fabric of life in the seamline area, checkpoints, allowing passage from one part of the separation fence to the other, have been established. The checkpoints are manned every day of the year, all day long. In addition, the agricultural fences have been opened, allowing farmers to pass from their place of residence to their fields. The gates are open three times a day, for regular, published periods of time. When these times are insufficient, they can be extended. The gates are open for a longer time during periods of intensive agricultural cultivation, like during the olive picking season.

bottom line, they did a good job looking at both sides of the issue. I think Wikipedia can do the same.

[edit] English proficiency

Zeq:

• 1. You are quoting the state's arguments to the court, not the court's findings. Please read it in Hebrew if you don't understand it in English. The words "found the claim reagrding the water issue to be "completely baseless"" are the state's arguments, not the court as you claim. Please do not misrepresent the source. The exact sentence is "The opinion quotes the Zeigler report, according to which Israel is annexing most of the western aquifer system, which supplies 51% of the water consumption of the territories, by erecting the obstacle. The State claims that this is completely baseless. It was mentioned before us that in the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement." [7]. Even if I misunderstood, it is irrelevant to the NAD's claim - see point #5 below - you are confusing two separate topics.
• 2. The NAD did state that the farmers were not given permits for their lands directly above the tunnel - read the source.
• 3. I have provided a source about the checkpoint being there, please provide a source that it is not there. I am not talking about the "permanent checkpoint", I am talking about the fact that there is a "frequently manned checkpoint".
• 4. I have provided another source that some of the lands cut off are among the most fertile, and I have more if you want.
• 5. "The court further noted that no change has occured to west bank water supply because of the barrier because "the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement."" I have no argument with that, I only stated the NAD's findings that the water wells are cut off from the city, not the political status of these wells.
• 6. The NAD is not part of the "Palestinian Authority foreign office".
• 7. You are acting in bad faith, when I am offering to help you write your edits in good English.

Ramallite ^(talk) 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, Making fun of my english will not change the facts. The court give one side and than it gives the other. If there is no counter claim the court descision is based on the answer. This is how the Israeli court system works. In places where the court rejected the answer or when a counter answer was given it is in the decision. You are not only making fun of my English proficiancy but also misrepresnting the source and you reverted properaly sourceed material. This is vandalism (what you did)

BTW, If I mis read NAD, fine correct me, but DO NOT remove properly sourced material Zeq 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall making fun of your English, that would be uncivil and I don't do that. Second, unlike you, I don't remove sourced info, I just added your part about the court's "completely baseless" thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Ramallite, this is a civilised request.

You don't agree with the court decision, fine, find published legal documents that suggest why the decision is wrong.

You don't like the barrier and you want to present NAD propeganda, fine. All sourced material accepted.

But do not remove my edits when they are properly sourced. You want to add words to explain the verdict, please do not do "original research". Find someone who will publish an opinion about this verdict and source it here.

When you do not act in a civilized way and remove properly sourced material you are commiting vandalism

This is an example of your vandalism [8]

all you did was to remove quotes which have a veryfiable source.

I suggest you play by the rules of Wikipedia, not only when they suit your POV. I accepted your right to present here the material from your propeganda organization (NAD) but I will not accept you removing partsb of the Israeli court decision which is properly sourced. Zeq 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That was an edit conflict - you pressed "save" while I was still writing and when I pressed "save" twice it accidentally got deleted. However, that whole entry is POV and I doubt other editors will accept it. But you, on the other hand, are consistently refusing to adhere to Wikipedia policy, including intentionally reverting my sourced material. You just removed my addition to your UN source about the wall being good for Palestinian movement (I added more, you deleted it), and made it very POV (and misleading). My opinion about the wall has nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia as far as NPOV is concerned. I have been trying to help you and offered many times to help you convert your ideas, but you have attacked me with your accusations, and that is uncivil. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No. I accept your material when it is properly sourced, is exactly what the source says and include none of your own POV.

I suggest you do the same. Do not remove my properly sourced material. Add what ever you want according to ploicy.

22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I added

In recent report (Aug 2005), the UN observed that the existence of the barrier "replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." On the other hand, the report also noted that "In the southern West Bank, Palestinian traffic is being increasingly channelled eastward onto the longer and inferior Route 356 and away from the more direct Route 60 to Jerusalem. Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent." [9]

And this how you reverted it:

In recent report (Aug 2005) the UN [10] had concluded that the existance of a barrier between the west-bank and Israel actually had an affect on movment within the west bank "In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." The UN reports conclude that the "easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre is likely toimprove Palestinian access to services such as education and health."

Now I really have to go - goodnight

Ramallite ^(talk) 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To User rammallite: Good night.

The quote you brought is about places "where Barrier construction is imminent." this mean that at that section the barrier construction has bot started yet . so this part the has nothing yet to do with the barrier. On the other hand I brought a quote that dierctly talked about the efects of the barrier. Zeq 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what all the issues here are, but the first version (Ramallite's) is better, and ought to be restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To Slimvitgin: If you do not know the issue, please bother to read it and understand. Otherwise, by reverting you have removed properly sourced data. I am sure it was not your intention to commit vandaliam.

It may be data you don't like. Or data you think is less for some reason but removing proprly source data is vandalism.

You want to make the article better. Please add your contributions. You can find sources that present a different POV, this is the Wikipedia way and policy. But just removing properly sourced material is vandalaim. User:Zeq 05:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zeq, I'm sorry to revert your changes again, but there are problems with them, both in terms of our polices and the writing. This has always been a sensitive topic and most edits end up being discussed quite extensively. Would you mind discussing your edits here first before putting them on the page? That would be very helpful. Also could you sign your posts, please? You can type four tildes after them like this ~~~~ to produce your name, time and date. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim,

Reverting a well sourced contribution is not the way to go. Especially when the revert go back tio a version that had many problem in it.

If you think something in my contribution is not correct Please discuss. Zeq 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit [11] introduces a lot of POV problems and problems with the English, as well as a very long quote, which should be summarized, not just reproduced. The page really can't stay as it is. Please discuss your edits here in advance so that people can help you get them on the page in a way that will make them consistent with our policies, and then they'll stick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History and purpose

OK Slim, here I am discussing my edits.

Let's start with History and Purpose section.

The section include a lot of irelevent data.

The history of THIS incarnation of the barrier starts at September 2000.

The Israeli court has sumerized the facts. It has done so in a way that TO YOU look like it is not neutral so fine, let us take these facts and sumerize them in a NPOV way. we can make the article shorter by removing unrlevent info about the Shala commison from 1995 etc...

Let's start with the first section. Can you copy edit it so I will know how to write things in a NPOV way ?

Please make sure you read the quote that is there now from the supreme court decision. It gives the relevant facts. Zeq 19:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually Zeq, you still have a lot of problems with the "Effect on Palestinians" section that haven't been resolved, including deletion of relevant materials and incorrect usage of sources. However, I will try to address the history section right now. I am moving your addition (and shortening it significantly) to the bottom of that section, since chronologically, earlier comes first, latest comes last.

I also want to draw your attention to the Three Revert Rule, which forbids a single editor from reverting a page more than 3 times in the same 24 hours. You have reverted many more times than that already, but I am pretty sure you were not familiar with this rule. Please remember it in the future. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also pay attention to what User:John Z wrote on your page about the Israeli court, and remember that it is the Israeli court, which is only one side of this conflict, and is not considered neutral internationally. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: Excelent summary of the history. Thanks for your contribution. I think the way you captured the essence and removed dtails is something we should continue to do Zeq 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, about the court, please see my reply to John Z on his talk page. I would be very intrested to see legal sources who critisize the Supreme court decision. The fact that the court is Israeli is not the issue. The issue is applying Int'l law. The ICJ did that based on one set of data and the Supreme court based on more accurate data. That is all and it is explained in great details in the rulling itself.

If you find a legal expert who wrote a legal opinion showing that the Supreme court had mad a mistake please let me know. The supreme court have explained why the ICJ made a mistake so I would expect that if anyone wants to defend the ICJ they would write a legal brief about it. So far no one has so I guess the int'l legal community accepted the supreme court decision. This is why we should too. Zeq 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My only point is that the Israeli court is one POV, it is not internationally regarded as neutral. Also remember that the Sharon government refused to send a representative to the IJC, even though it was asked to. As for your question about a 'mistake', I really don't have any information about that, because I haven't had the time to read through the court's entire set of presentations (except for the part that the checkpoint was removed while it's still there). I have no dispute with the history section right now, although I would like to add other perspectives to the history (there are some Israeli sources - Haaretz I think - which regard the history of the wall as always having been in the back of Sharon's mind since the 1970s to take as much of the West Bank as possible) but that's another story and is a separate matter.

Can you move the section back down? Because we are going chronologically. The 'inception' of the wall was in 2000, the court was in 2004 and 2005, so the text doesn't read very well like that. It is like stating that "Israel celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 1998" before "Israel was established in 1948". Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qalqilya section

Zeq, I am going to have to revert the whole "Effects on Palestinians" section once my 24 hours are over (very late unfortunately). Here are my reasons, and I hope this time you will study them carefully:

• You wrote: "The quote you brought is about places "where Barrier construction is imminent." this mean that at that section the barrier construction has bot started yet . so this part the has nothing yet to do with the barrier. On the other hand I brought a quote that dierctly talked about the efects of the barrier. Zeq 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

This is not a valid argument, this article is about the barrier and this section is about the effect of the barrier on Palestinians. Clearly the UN has stated that there is an effect in the Gush Etzion region on Palestinians because of the barrier, regardless of whether it is being built, is already built, is in the planning stages of being built, or about to be demolished - there is currently an effect on the Palestinian population. Removing it is not appropriate.

• • • Ramallite. This is not correct. The barrier is not built yet in Gush Etzion area and as such a section from the UN report about movment in that area has nothing to do with the barrier. So I am going to do this:

Reinsert the quote from the UN report about the barrier Remove quotes about Gush Etzion area which has nothing to do with the barrier. Zeq 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - and I'm going to put it back in because the UN says it is because of the building of the barrier. The UN report says that Palestinian traffic is being diverted because of imminent construction of the wall (and that was in August), this has everything to do with the barrier because the UN says so, not me. You cannot pick and choose only what parts of the report you like, you start something, you have to finish it. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, all Palestinian POV sources are very critical of the wall, it is very inaccurate to start the paragraph about "effects on Palestinians" that the wall is beneficial for them.

• • • Ramallite, I realize that you are now discussing things from your own POV.

No - I am writing an encyclopedic entry using sources that are not my own. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You also find it hard to see facts, sourced facts which show that the barrier has a positive affect on Palestinians.

Zeq- "Positive effect" is your own POV, you cannot use it. Also, Umm al-Fahm is in Israel and is not behind the barrier, so you are distorting facts a little. If you want to talk about Umm Al-Fahm, you have to use it in context.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But this is the reality and not I am saying it but a sourced UN report. Sorry if you do not like it but that is the way it is inreality and we here can only show that.

It doesn't matter whether or not I like it, I'm not here to push POV, I'm here to make sure there's a neutral article and that nobody else is pushing their POV. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, you stated that "The UN reports conclude that the "easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre is likely toimprove Palestinian access to services such as education and health."" There is no such conclusion in the report, these are just one of many analyses, and you didn't finish that sentence: " Movement between major West Bank urban centres has not changed significantly." Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is such conclusion. I suggest you read the report. The report clearly sais that were there are checkpoints they obstruct and thus where those are removed tghis improved movment

Zeq- your UN source said that rural areas have a little less restrictions, but in Urban areas restrictions have not changed. This was all in the same sentence, but you chose one part of the sentence and removed the second part. That is POV-pushing and improper citation. I have read the report, and the sentence you quoted was one of many "analyses" that also claimed that the wall has not eased movement between urban areas. Either cite everything, or don't cite it at all. You cannot pick and choose which part of a report, or even which part of a sentence in a report, you want to add to the article.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: It is not my report, it is the UN report. Here is what it says:

"In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction."

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the barrier has effects which do not fit your POV ?

Zeq 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• You wrote: "indeed, recent UN report and map [12] show that no checkpoint exist in the east entrence to town (see the enlagment map on the left side of the document)."

I have provided a source to show that the checkpoint is still there.

• • • Ramallite: The checkpoint is either there or it is not.

The UN repprt is VERY accurate, they survey the west bank all the time. I happend to work with them. The UN map show there is no such check point. You want to claim there is fine claim it You know what is the truth don't you ???? Zeq 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq- The UN report IS indeed accurate, and it shows that the checkpoint is there. I don't understand how you can show me a map of checkpoints that shows the checkpoint is still there, and then insist that it is not. THIS map that you show is not a map about checkpoints!! It is a map about the gates in the barrier. The map in THIS report (which you provided) shows the checkpoints that were there in August 2005 and another map showed the ones that were removed. If you look at the maps YOU provided, you will see that the Qalqilya checkpoint is there! So according to your source, as well as my source, the checkpoint is still there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• You wrote: "The Israeli court (same descision) has investigated the issue and found the claim reagrding the water issue to be "completely baseless". The court further noted that no change has occured to west bank water supply because of the barrier because "the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement.""

This is OKAY, but it has nothing to do with what was in the previous sentence. The previous sentence says that a third of the water wells are on the other side of the wall and Palestinians cannot reach them without a permit. Your text above is about something else, it is about claims that Israel intends to annex water wells behind the wall. This has NOTHING to do with annexation, this is only to do with access, that's all.

• There are small other bits of information that were properly sourced, and you removed for no reason.
• Ramallite ^(talk) 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we are going to have to have input from other editors or take this to an arbitration committee. I feel that you are still being deliberately disruptive because you are insisting on using words like "positive" and other personal POV to show that the wall is actually a wonderful thing for the Palestinians, when all the sources show otherwise. You are also linking to a wrong map to make a false point when the correct map (which you also provided) shows the reality.

Please show me where the word "positive" apears in the article. If it was used it was removed long ago after John Z comments.

I feel you are disruptive . Let's take an example:

The Checkpoint in Kalkilia (Qalqiliya)

You claim it is there. You cite a source that you should not have used ( a propeganda by a PLO-NAD)

No, I don't claim it is there because I haven't been there in too long. I am using two sources (neither of which are the NAD), one of which happens to be a UN report that you provided that was released in August, to show that there is a permanent checkpoint there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the othjer side there are clear reports by the UN which say:

"The previous Barrier route had approximately 93,200 West Bank Palestinians living between the Green Line and Barrier. The reduction in population is due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned."

I just saw this report, which was released in March 2005. The maps of a UN report released in August 2005 show a permanent checkpoint, and the other source I provided (which is not the NAD) actually has a picture of the soldiers there taken in August 2005. I'm just going by the sources I find on the internet, I don't use OR (and I don't have any OR regarding this matter). I wish the checkpoint to be gone, I want it to be gone. But the sources you and I provided show otherwise. Also, I think you have realized that you were arguing with UN map about barrier gates earlier, not a map about the checkpoints. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And the Israeli supreme court who say:

"there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city" (also quting a different UN report)

I included this in the article, I said that the Israeli court (which is not considered neutral by the way) accepted the state's assertion that the checkpoint has been removed. I also added the opposing POV, from the UN and an Israeli group, that it is there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So who is disruptive ? I who bring sourced material or you who insisit to amke a point that the checkpoint is there and keep reverting to include this info in the article ?

You bring sourced material but then only pick out the sentences you like and ignore the rest. I said "disruptive' because you removed my sourced info about the Gush Etzion barrier (because you think it is irrelevant, when the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted), and you removed the second half of a sentence from the UN report that states that restrictions on movement have not eased between urban areas (and you removed that for no reason other than you don't want it to be shown). Also, I think others have pointed out to you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert lengthy quotations of your sources, you have made the article much longer by just filling it with long quotations, when I offered to help you do it in a proper way. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you DO NOT use material from NAD-PLO (read their whole report, they make absured claims such as that the barrier hurts Israeli security, leave it to the PLO to decide on israeli security) So far I avoided using material from the Israeli goverment and I will continue to do so. Israeli goverment as well as PLO are sides to this debate and we should find more neutral sources. Zeq 13:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What the NAD is saying is that when you put human beings in a cage, you are causing widespread resentment and not contributing to security, but setting the scene for more hatred and violence (which most Israeli governments have become experts at doing). But this is irrelevant right now. Both the NAD and the Israeli government are legitimate sources for purposes of this article. Even if you think they are not neutral, I think Jayjg has explained to you that you may use all of the sources to make up a neutral claim. Besides, you don't want to use the Israeli government so you use the supreme court and an organization like camera.org? I don't see a difference in neutrality there, but I don't argue with you about your sources as long as they are legitimate for Wikipedia purposes. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly biased editing

Ramallite,

You have reverted Neutral supported text and replaced in text which ONLY show what you would want the reality to be.

This is your text about the rulling and include not even a single word on the most criotical part of that rulling. (the court answer to the ICJ) This is what you wrote:

"On September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court, in response to a petition by residents of the Qalqilya region against construction of the barrier around the settlement of Alfei Menashe, ruled that the section of the barrier around the settlement must be dismantled because of its restrictive impact on the lives of Palestinian residents in the area [13]. The court conducted a comprehensive review of accounts by the IDF, Israelis architects, Palestinian petitioners, and the International Court of Justice, and ruled that the Government of Israel must find an alternative route to lessen the impact on the rights of the resident Palestinian civilians:"

Therefore, we turn the order nisi into an order absolute in the following way: (respondents) must, within a reasonable period, reconsider the various alternatives for the separation fence route at Alfei Menashe, while examining security alternatives which injure the fabric of life of the residents of the villages of the enclave to a lesser extent. In this context, the alternative by which the enclave will contain only Alfei Menashe and a connecting road to Israel, while moving the existing road connecting Alfei Menashe to Israel to another location in the south of the enclave, should be examined.

---

Based on such biased data I have decided to restore the more comprehnsive text. Zeq 11:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing biased - I just didn't understand that you wanted the IJC ruling to be part of it. Honestly I have no idea what you were trying to say, so again, please use this discussion page to discuss what you want to add and I'll help you add it. But you are making things impossible by changing so many things (like John told you) in improper English and then getting upset when I don't follow what your point is. I just added one of the final conclusions of the report, while you were adding random arguments made by the state to the judges. I tried to find the words of the judges themselves and added those, while you are picking and choosing only random quotations that are part of the arguments and not the final ruling (as far as I can tell). I'm only interested in the final ruling, so please clarify what the judges say about the IJC. I honestly am confused about this. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The rulling include more than just what you are intersted in. So more is included. You have ignored a well reasoned answer that the supreme court give to the ICJ. Do you think this is to be left out ? would this fit your POV ?

I understand that your POV is that only what the ICJ says but this is no way to write an encyclopedia.

Zeq 13:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You understand nothing about my POV, please stop claiming to know my POV and just stick with the article. For your information, I never read the ICJ ruling completely, and I don't really care to, and I haven't contributed to that section of the article in the past. I repeat: I do not know exactly what about the ICJ you wanted to add. Tell me here what is important, and I will add it (in the relevant section). But lengthy quotations are just disruptive. Show me exactly what the judges said about the ICJ and I will help you added it in an encyclopedic manner. The article has become too cumbersome and every night I have to spend a long time just undoing all the unencyclopedic entries that you have inserted, and I'm doing this all alone since nobody else wants to take the time to figure out what you are trying to say. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The editor Ramallite tried to justify his use of a PLO-NAD propeganda material using this sentence: "What the NAD is saying is that when you put human beings in a cage, you are causing widespread resentment and not contributing to security, but setting the scene for more hatred and violence " Now I ask you is this the kind of NPOV which should be the source for wikipedia material ? "Human being in a cage" ....... - is this what you think the barrier is ? you think it is a cage ?

That's the argument the NAD is making according to my simplified interpretation. I first heard the word "cage" from American columnist Thomas Friedman. It is very inappropriate for you to take something I wrote out of context, I was responding to your statements above by offering my interpretation of another source, not my own.

And I thought editors should not interject their own POV. Zeq 13:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, and I was responding to what you wrote above. There should be no POV in the article, but the discussion page is to hammer out differences. What I wrote about the barrier is my interpretation of what the NAD is saying, and is not part of the article. All editors naturally have their POV (otherwise we wouldn't be here), but I did not insert personal POV into the article. If you are accusing me of interjecting POV into an article because of an interpretation I responded to on a discussion page, you won't find much support for your accusation. Lastly, I don't have to justify the use of NAD, it is a valid source for Wikipedia purposes, and that's all that matters. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] maybe someone can help us

The UN checkpoint report says two facts:

"2. In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction.

4. In the southern West Bank, Palestinian traffic is being increasingly channelled eastward onto the longer and inferior Route 356 and away from the more direct Route 60 to Jerusalem. Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent."

Does anyone think that if the UN wanted to say that Palestinian traffic is diverted as a result of the barrier it could not simply wrote it ? Afeter all, when the UN wants to show caustion (like in section 2) it is clearly saying so: The barrier eased movment in some areas where the barrier has been constructed. If in section 4 above if the UN wanted to add the word "because" it would have add it. But the UN did not used that word or any other word that imply causation. What am I mis-reading here ? My claim is simple: Section 2 in the UN report is related to the barrier but section 4 does not (because it speaks of an area where barrier construction has not yet began) Zeq 13:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The editor ramallite just noted above: "the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted" I do not see the word "is causing" anywhere in the UN quote. I rest my case that ramallite added this word from his own POV. Zeq 13:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly implied. However, here is the more pressing issue: The UN report states

Further analysis of the humanitarian and socio-economic impact of this decline (of checkpoints) is ongoing, but the impact is most felt by the easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre. This is likely to improve Palestinian access to services such as education and health. Movement between major West Bank urban centres has not changed significantly.

User:Zeq has included the top part of this paragraph but twice removed my inclusion of the last sentence with no justification. He further claims that this quote (minus the last sentence) is the conclusion of the report, when in fact it is one of many paragraphs under a section entitled "Analysis of closure dynamics". Ramallite ^(talk) 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I still do not see where the word "is causing" apear in the sentnce from the UN document. You said one thing and the UN says another and now you are trying to divert the issue into a 3rd sentnce in the UN document that again has nothing to do with the barrier itself. I am asking again: If there was (as ramallite claim) causation between barrier construction (that have not even started yet ! in the gush Etzion region and divertion of trafiic on route 60 on way to Jerusalem - why did not the UN sais so ? and if there is no caustion why did ramallite tried to say that there is ? In fact the UN sais the exact opposite of what Ramllite want us to think. The UN sais this on areas where the construction have already started: "Physical obstacles have also been removed in Jerusalem governorate where the Barrier is under construction." Zeq 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I am not "saying" anything, I am putting the sources in proper context, sources by others and not my own. Second, all these UN reports are sources that you provided, not me. If they have nothing to do with the barrier, then don't use them. If you use them, they will be presented in proper context for NPOV. Third, if you are looking for the phrase "is causing", then most of what you included should be removed since very few sources directly state the phrase "is causing". Fourth, we don't have to say that the barrier is causing the diverted traffic, all we need to say is that, according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent. That is directly from the source, without "is causing" and without "is not causing", so that the reader can make their own interpretation. A neutral source will let the reader decide what to believe, the encyclopedia can not do that for the reader. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Ramallite,

Of course you are saying Here is what you wrote: "the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted" This is what you call "putting in proper context" ? What you did was trying to provide justification to include a sentence that has nothing to do with barrier by saying that there is causation. The word "is causing is your addition. It does not apear in the original UN report. You further claimed that because of barrier construction traffic is diverted on route 60. But the UN sais the exact opposite: "Physical obstacles have also been removed in Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction."

I think we really need other people to look at what you tried to do here. What you tried to do is: Restrict the use of UN checkpoint information directly realted to the barrier and replaced it with other info (from the same report) from sections that have nothing to do with the barrier (these are the quotes you added about movment between urban areas not changed.

You did all this to have the paragrpah in wikipedia fit better your POV. Later, in an attempt to justify what you did, you claimed causation (by adding the word "is causing") where it actually does not exist. This is a non wiki-like behaviour. Zeq 15:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, relax. Secondly, my mistake, I won't use "is causing" but will use the "according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent" just like the UN implies. I was confused because you keep jumping around topics. Thirdly, I repeat, stop pretending like you know my POV, it is uncivil for you to keep putting words in my mouth. Fourth, I have shown above how you are the one who restricted UN checkpoint information by 1) pointing to the wrong map and 2- removing a neutralizing sentence from your own UN source. Fifth, if the sections have nothing to do with the barrier, don't use them. If you use these sections, they will have to be cited properly. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I never put words in your mouth I only quote you. So you are admiting that you used wrong words but you still want to use it.

See - you are still misrepresenting what I'm saying to you. My exact words were "we don't have to say that the barrier is causing the diverted traffic, all we need to say is that, according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent. That is directly from the source, without "is causing" and without "is not causing". This means that I do NOT want to use "is causing". Stop saying that I still want to use it. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts. Places were barrier construction is immenet (i.e. did not at all start) has nothing to do with this section.

This is your opinion. In my opinion, a sentence that says "Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent." DOES have something to do with the barrier. So either you get another opinion, or we compromise, but I disagree with you, and when two people disagree, you cannot just impose your will. I take offense to that. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, you don't even bother to read my answer, so what is the point in continuing this "discussion" Here is what I wrote to you before. If the UN wanted to imply what you wanted it to imply it would find a way to say it clearly. But the UN said The exact opposite see below what I wrote before Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand the UN clearly said this:

"In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." This is what we should use from the checkpoint report. All other info in this report is not dealing with the barrier (there are other UN reports which address that. Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, then use the other UN reports and stop using this one, because it's clearly problematic. If you keep using this one, it will have to be presented in a neutral point of view. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, we are dealing here with the effect the barrier has on Palestinians. The UN monitor many aspects of Palestinians human rights and if it choose to say that as a result of the barrier there is more ease of movement in some areas since the barrier has been constructed than we will include this info in this article. I realize you do not like that but that is only your POV. The quote stays. It is relevant and well sourced even if it does not fit your POV (I can sympetize with your wish to remove it and use other UN docs but we are not dealing here only with what fit your POV). Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting me (do you understand what I am telling you?) I did not (at least intentionally) remove any of your quotes about the UN, I added to them. You removed what I added, and now you have the nerve to tell me that "The quote stays" as if it is I who am removing quotes? I haven't even touched the article since last night (except for the footnote). I don't even know where to edit anymore, you are filling it up with too many quotations. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not point to any wrong map like you claim.

Yes you did, you used this map to argue that there is no checkpoint, when in fact this map has nothing to do with checkpoints. I could use the same link and say "this map shows that there are no cows in the West Bank" - but this is not a map about cows either. You have since realized (but not admitted to) your mistake, but now you are claiming that the real map about checkpoints, the one found in this report, is incorrect, because you work for the organization and they have forgotten to update it. This is OR for Wikipedia purposes, although I will assume good faith and accept that what you are saying is true. However, I can only go by sources I find, regardless of if the UN "forgot" to update a map or not. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No I did not. We are talking about the barrier and used the map showing barrier checkpoints. Also, I broghut several written documents that in plain English state there is no checkpoint on the road in and out of the city. Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC) On the other hand the map on this article is wrong (as I have pointed out before) It clearly show section in which there is no barrier as if there are. If you think UN maps are wrong or conflicting why don't provide the complete info about it. I will refer it to the UN for correction. Thank You. Zeq 17:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the quote straight from the current version of article: "however the periodic UN checkpoint report map (which show all checkpoints in the west bank) no longer show a checkpoint on that road.[14]" . This link is not a link to checkpoints on roads as you claim, it only shows the barrier and the "gates" in it. So you are still not being truthful.Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A note about maps: Please look at this map http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/maps/barrier/BrrWBN_gates0305.pdf about 3/4 down on the right it has a larger map of Kalkliya (qalqiliya) area enlarge it to 300% . here is what you will see:

There is a road going east from Qalqilya toward Abu Farda and Nabi Elias. This is the main exit road out of town No checkpoints on this road. Access is unrstricted. Now if you look to the north and south of that road you will see: Gates in the barrier (number Q5 and Q10) These gates allow who ever croses them access into the Israeli side of the wall (and into Israel) Once the barrier was completed, these gates were placed and there was no reason to have a checkpoint antwhere else. This is why the checkpoint was removed. Why is this long story ? Because it is an example: The barrier has replaced the need for internal checkpoints - this is what the UN sais in the chcek point report: "In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." Hope you now understand better what goes on. The UN map sais this: "Barrier path data extracted from satellite imagery, verified with field visits Barrier gate information collected by UN field staff" i.e. Yours truely Zeq 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all your Original Research. You provided an August 2005 UN report that shows a permanent checkpoint on the road out of Qalqilya. The "text" that the checkpoint has been removed is older than August 2005. I also provided a source with a picture of the checkpoint taken in the summer of 2005. Again, I am not deleting your text, I'm trying to add to it, you keep deleting it. THAT's not the Wikipedia way. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not "original research" it is sourced. See refrences in text. Not for Wikipedia, just between you and me: Pick the phone, call people you know in Qalqiliya and just ask them. You see, I think that we both know (or can find) the truth by using our knowledge but this would be "original research" so we don't do for the article, but make the phone call anyhow so you will know if you are trying to justify reality or fiction. nyhow, sources provided. Zeq 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have the wrong map attached to the statement about the road out of Qalqilya. Anyhow, I will do no such thing, because in order to stay neutral, I would rather not know from a resident of Qalqilya whether there is a checkpoint there or not and rely on sourced information. Incidentally, a couple of weeks ago in Al-Quds they had a picture of a checkpoint on the main road into Qalqilya. But that is in Arabic. I have a better suggestion though, the next time you go to Qalqilya for your surveys, give me your cell phone and I'll call you while you are there and you can tell me about all the checkpoints and if people with Palestinian IDs (and no UN cards) are freely able to travel :) Ramallite ^(talk) 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - please read the article before you add more entries. The August 2005 report is already entered at the bottom of that section, you repeated a lot of it in your entry. Also, we are going chronologically, so August 2005 is the most recent and comes last. It's funny that you don't want me to use the NAD and you use the Jerusalem Post (although I don't object, I just think it's funny). Lastly, you again removed the part about the movement between urban areas - do you know how to compromise? I gave in to most of your demands and you still insist on inserting that one quote out of context. I will put it back if you don't. If the UN says that movement in rural areas has been eased because of the barrier but not between urban areas, you cannot choose one and not the other.

You should also know that if you want to keep inserting everything the UN says that makes the barrier look "good", then other editors will also be putting everything the UN says that makes the barrier look "bad" (and there is a lot more bad than good according to all the sources I've read). You are still trying to push one POV by filtering out what the UN is saying to show only those so-called "benefits". If you read your own UN sources you will see that there are a lot more pains than "benefits". If we keep doing this back and forth, the article will expand again. I'm again offering (how many times now) to help you write it, but you are insisting on just dropping lots of quotations (and incorrect English) without discussing them first. I strongly suggest that you try to be cooperative and stop making extra work for me because I'm staying up late just to clean the article after you night after night. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I'm waiting until you are done altering the article so I can clean it up. Your latest addition "although all water rights in the area are covered by exiting agreements" makes absolutely no sense. There are no existing agreements between the parties regarding water, these were supposed to be final status issues. The site you posted (this one) is an example of a future agreement drawn up by a task force, not an actual agreement. Also see my comments above regarding your filtered quotations that you are inserting. You still haven't restored the part about the barrier not relaxing any movement between urban areas. I continue to assume good faith and am also offering (for the tenth time) to help you insert whatever you want instead of you doing so by yourself in a way that I have to constantly clean it up after you. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If this site is not a crediable source it should not be used. Not heree and not in any wikipedia article.

But wait, you seem to think that this [15] is a crediable source ?

Now as far as agreements there of course agreements about water between israel and the Palestinians. Do you need me to find them for you ? start here [16] it is all in the Oslo 2 acord.

Just read it. It is all propeganda. Zeq 11:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Merge Request" box removed

I have removed the box indicating that a merger of the "Apartheid Wall" article into this one has been requested. Here is why:

• The first thing a reader sees (or saw) when viewing this article on "Israeli West Bank Barrier" was a prominently displayed box referring to an "Apartheid Wall" -- clearly a POV (and in my opinion, outrageous) reference to the barrier.
• Even so, as long as there was an active discussion of merging the two articles, the box may have been appropriate under the rules and standards of Wikipedia, regardless of my objections. However, that is no longer the case. The box referred to this talk page for discussion of the issue of merger, but a reading of this talk page revealed no such discussion. By going into the most recent Archive page for this talk page, I found that there was a relatively brief discussion at the end of August and beginning of September, lasting less than two weeks, over the issue of merging the articles. The last comment in that discussion was dated September 8.
• Why do I care? The placement of the box gives (or gave) the claim that the barrier is an "Apartheid Wall" much more play than if the concept was discussed in the first paragraph of this article --which does not make much sense. Now that the issue of merger has become "stale," the appearance of this prominent reference to "Apartheid Wall" on the top of this article seems completely inappropriate. 6SJ7 22:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening?

Ramallite, in your latest edits you have removed among other things the following text:

Palestinians have mixed reaction to the barrier. Some say that "the security fence has significantly improved their lives". and others think differently. In Umm el-Fahm a city of 42,000, northwest of Jenin, residents had complained that Palestinians casually filtering through from the territories had harassed schoolgirls, stolen cars, and even snatched laundry. Worse yet, they stamped Umm el-Fahm as a launching pad for suicide bombers. Israeli checkpoints often blocked Umm el-Fahm's streets, and border policemen patrolled the city on a regular basis, hoping to pick up illegal Palestinian workers – or terrorists. Since the barrier's completion in their areas on August 2003, the community have enjoyed a spike in both security and economic activity.[17]...

You explain this as "shortening." It seems to me that you have removed the one piece of information in that section that provides any balance to the alleged parade of horribles that some say have resulted from the barrier. The above text shows that it isn't all bad. Why shouldn't this text be restored? 6SJ7 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Many (and almost all Palestinians living behind it) seem to say so, not just some, according to everything I've read and heard. Anyway, read on, it's there, shortened and to the point. The reasons I moved it down are 1- It's a minority view according to sources and therefore shouldn't be at the top of the paragraph, and 2- It refers to Israeli-Palestinians (Arabs), not Palestinians in the West Bank who are enclosed by the barrier to whom that section primarily refers. You said "in your latest edits you have removed among other things the following text". The "among other things" part makes me wonder if there is anything else objectionable? Ramallite ^(talk) 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not only "palestinian Israelis" who benefit from the wall. Read the text about Palestinian from jenin who also benefit from it. But most of all the UN report (based on talks to many Palestinians) that say so. Why can't you understand the simple fact in the UN report: istrael set up a border and withdrow to that border line. This sure eased the life of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Zeq 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read that very last paragraph of the Jerusalem Post report that you used, and also see the example I gave you on your talk page about the house and garden. I can help explain it to you if you'd like. What I read in these reports is not what you are trying to represent in the article. I am trying to give a general interpretation of what these reports are saying, but you only pick and choose limited statements. If you think that the barrier is so beneficial, why don't you support building a barrier around Tel Aviv? I'm sure Ramat-Gan will see an economic boon! Again, most Palestinian sources do not say that the barrier is beneficial, in fact many sources call it an Apartheid Wall. The UN tries to stay neutral but overall it is saying that things are better than they were 2 years ago but things are definitely not like Denmark or Canada or any free country. If you pick and choose statements out of UN articles, other editors will also pick and choose, and the whole article will look ridiculous. The Palestinians think that "so what if Jenin is calmer they still can't freely move outside of Jenin", and yes many call it a cage. You are arguing that everybody is happy inside the cage because now the IDF does not need to be there, but it is still a cage (according to Palestinian sentiments). This is a quote that I found "Ariel Sharon keeps goats and sheep. He puts a fence around them and closes them in with a gate. He decides if they come in or go out. This is now what he is doing to us. -Palestinian from Sur Bahir" As an editor I cannot ignore all these sources and stick to one story from a right-wing Israeli newspaper that reflects a rare view, taken out of context, and place that at the TOP of the section. That would be POV-pushing. Even the Post concurs with the other reports by saying that "it's all relative". Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I reverted your changes because you're adding a lot of material at once, which is being disputed, but it's hard to keep track of it because there's so much. Also, one of the sources you're linking to looks a bit odd. Could you say here on the talk page what changes you want to make, and discuss them one by one, please? I know it's a bit frustrating, but with these sensitive topics, that's usually what how we proceed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim, Please be specific at what is disputed. I add sources for everything I add. Which source do you consider ODD ?

If you ask me the linking to PLO_NAD material (have you read it) is what should not have been done. It is a cheap propeganda material. The material from there include such POV nonsense like "some of the most fertile". It has much worse material, just read this source and see for your self: It is propeganda. Wikipedia is not the place to promote political agenda.

As for duscussion. I have discussed here many times, many subject only ramallire responded. You want to join editing this article ? I would welcome that. Zeq 04:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ramallite: The problem is that you believe your own propeganda. The Palestinians object the barrier for many reason, but the simple person on the groud also see the effect that the calm it brought to everyone life. In a nut shell this is the story of the middle east conflict:

Simple people who want peace, but extrimists (on both sides) want to claim everything that consider "is their right" It is not a counicidense that the PLO, The Hammas, The settlers all were against the barrier. Even Sharon was against it.

All the xtrimist want is to get all the land. The settler want it all to be Israel, the PLO and Hammas want it all to be palestine. The wall has for the first time created a demarcation line on the ground. They are against the concept of creating borders. Zeq 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment the technical issue resolved.

[edit] we have a problem

ramallite seems to have a problem with the fact that I use UN sources. Now, I understand he is on a sort of crusade to orgenize other editors to take care of this problem. This from his talk page is quite disturbuing: "Hi Ramallite,

I got your message. Taking a look at the dispute, I feel a bit lost about what exactly is going on. Some of the changes Zeq wants to make seem dubious to me, but I'm unclear what you want me to do about it. The subject of the wall is not one which I have closely followed, so I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to really intervene. And I'm not sure what you mean about Zeq using questionable sources. Could you maybe explain again what you wanted me to do? john k 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC) " can someone explain to John K what does ramallite wants him to do ? BTW, Is there a wikipedia rule against "ganging up" by several editors ? Or is this ther way used around here to by-pass the 3RR rule ? Zeq 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I am really getting frustrated with your behavior which I attribute to wanting to push your POV on the article while at the same time lacking enough English skills to properly settle the dispute. Let me (again) try to explain what the problems are:

1- You are taking certain, minor phrases from the UN reports or other sources and using them to paint a different picture of the effect of the barrier on Palestinians. For example, you take a story about Umm El-Fahm, an Israeli Arab town, written in the Jerusalem Post, which lies outside the barrier, and make that into a major part of the section. The Jenin story is mostly circumstantial and not directly tied to the barrier, and even then it is given too much attention. In Jenin, the Post says that it is "in part" due to the barrier. First, let us talk about those effects that are "in whole" due to the barrier, then we can add those "in part" statements if you want.

Answer: No Ramallite. This is only your POV. The barrier made improvments to millions of people on both sides of it. I don't say it. It is the UN who say it and Jerusalem post and the times and those people who are quoted by these sources. Stop making fun of my "English skills" and stop pushing your propeganda sources. Also, stop orgenizing others against my contributions.

Again, you don't know my POV, it is irrelevant to this article. There is a difference between "making fun" and voicing frustration over your refusal to cooperate. Stop misrepresenting me. It is not civil or polite. Read this. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2- It is the UN/UNRWA sources that say that the land is some of the most fertile, not just the NAD.

Answer: The quote that land outside the barreir is not good for agricultue is from UNRWA document. UNRWA is not agreat source. It is known as anti-Israeli. The fact that even in sources like UNRWA and the Un I can find info that balance the propeganda you have interduced must tell you something how far you west with your propeganda. You seem to think that if NAD say it than it must be so. Well something like "The most fertile" is clear POV (of who ever invented this propeganda) and should not be used.

UNRWA does not say the land outside is not good for agriculture, it says most of it is. I can't even find that quote in the article you used. If UNRWA is not a great source because it is "anti-Israeli", does that mean good sources are only those that are pro-Israeli? "The most fertile" is a description of a POV, if one party says that much of the land is fertile, you must find another source that says that "most of the land is not fertile" in order to express the opposing POV. That's how Wikipedia works. So far, you have not. If you think it is in that UNRWA article, please cut and paste the entire paragraph where it comes from, because it seems to be missing on the page that you linked. And use the real UNRWA page, not this "proxytool" thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

3- Stop complaining about the NAD, it is no less credible than the Jerusalem Post (and I never told you not to use the JP).

Answer: NADis a pure Palestinian "Hasbara" it is nothing less than propeganda. NAD-PLO that you quote from Equal in value to such settler web sites as http://www.masada2000.org/ This is the most fundemantal issue that I am trying to explain to you: You want to write an Encyclopedia, fine, you must use proper sources. Until you understand that you and I could not reach agreement. Proper sources are recent UN documents, court documents (of a court that was wilkling to look at the facts and some media sources.

NAD is an organization representing the Palestinian POV, and most of the claims quoted in this article are verified by the UN, UNRWA, or Btselem. What you must understand is that Zeq cannot determine what is a proper source and what is not. NAD is a primary official Palestinian source, and although you may disagree with it, it is allowed on Wikipedia. So is the Israeli government by the way, so don't be afraid to use it. In fact, I plan to use it to clean this article up. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

4- If you want to use the UN reports (which I am trying to use as well but you delete what I insert), do it properly, not just pick one or two sentences from a sea of information that otherwise claims that the wall is detrimental not beneficial.

Answer: I am doing that pproperly. From a UN report about checkpoints I broght a quote directly related to the barrier. You, on the other hand tried to use decit by arguing for causation where none existed. You have edmittted that above.

I admitted to that one mistake a while ago, and I corrected it in my own version. What is your point? You still haven't explained why you refuse to use your quotes in context, or to let me put them in context. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

For example, this is from the Introduction of one of your UN sources, the one about the impact of the barrier:

Nevertheless, it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people’s access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier’s exact route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction commences. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst Palestinians about how their future lives will be impacted.

Answer: Exactly. It is difficult even for experts. But when they write something in uncerstiam terms it is because they know it is true. I know relaity does not fit your POV but that is too bad. Only propeganda always know everything without a shred of a doubt.

You obviously do not understand what the phrase "difficult to overstate" means. Again, stop referring to my POV, it is uncivil because I have not told you what I personally think of the barrier, only what I have read or heard from others. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that the report overall does not say the barrier is "beneficial", which is what you are trying to say it does. But you only want to use one sentence from this report, that the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqilya is not manned. Big deal. Then you delete what I try to add from these reports. Not nice. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: It does not use the word benficial. But it sais clearly that it has eased movement in areas where it is already build or even partially built. I know it does not fit your POV. In your mind he wall is "a cage" "an aparthide" we heared it all before but that does not fit an encyclopedia.

(sigh) Yet again, you are referring to my POV, stop it please. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

5- One dubious source: you claim the sentence "land on the other side of the barrier in this area is not good for agriculture" is from here, but I can't find it in there. And why didn't you use the actual report from the UNRWA website? What is this proxytool website? Besides, the sentence says in this area, the UN and NAD says that much or most of the land is some of the most fertile, not all of it, so your adding of this source is just not encyclopedic, trying to make a point that is already there. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

6- Another irrelevant source: You claim that there are water agreements and use this site to prove it. This is not an agreement, this is a proposed agreement made up by Americans. It does not exist. If you look at the Oslo Accords, you will see that it says

Israel recognizes the Palestinian water rights in the West Bank. These will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations and settled in the Permanent Status Agreement relating to the various water resources.

Stop trying to make things up and use false sources. Besides, all the UN and NAD are saying that Palestinians in Qalqilya are cut off from their water wells and cannot get to them without a permit. That's all. You want to expand that sentence by bringing in the high court and Oslo Accords and all this extra stuff that is irrelevant to that one assertion. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: No one is saying this. There is the Oslo 2 agreements which control all water access in the west bank. Show me one place where israel took a well because it is on the "Israeli" side of the wall. You know that if this was done there would be an immidiate supreme court injunction about it. Israel is a country of law and the supreme court has changed the goverment plans many times. So if what you claimwas correct we would know about it. Zeq 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to show you that Israel "took a well" because I never claimed that. I must (yet again) ask you not to misrepresent my statements. I explained above that one of the major concerns according to Palestinian sources is that many of their water wells are now on the other side of the barrier, and Palestinians now need permits to reach them. That is all, nothing else. Your additional accusations are your own, nobody is saying that Israel annexed anything. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

7- You still are not familiar with WP policies, including proper citation and original research. For example, you just added the statement that the barrier dips into the West Bank "to distance israeli population centers from the being in close range to threats [18]". If you look at your source, it is a map that "explains Israel's preoccupation with security" and has absolutely nothing to do with the barrier nor does it mention it. You used this source to arrive at a novel conclusion about the route of the barrier, which is original research. Your use of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, as a tertiary source (not to mention high propaganda but it's ok since it's not the NAD) is not as acceptable as a primary or secondary source, and many other editors (though usually not I) would delete such a reference. See WP:Reliable Sources.

8- Finally, you are still refusing to discuss things on this page first, instead you go straight to the article and add anywhere from 3 to 8 new entries that make it hard from people (for example, John k) to follow. Your accusation above of being "on a crusade" is uncalled for and you cannot use personal attacks on WP like that. Also, again, I don't have a problem with you using UN sources because I also want to use them myself and I thank you for pointing them out, but I have a problem with the way you use them: You take only certain sentences that do not reflect the actual gist of the UN report, and then delete my entries from these same sources. I have not erased anything you added from the UN. Your false accusations are really annoying and uncalled for. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Look, you contacted someone and it was not even clear to him what is that you want to do excpet that you complained about my contribution. This is not the way to behave. It is on your talk page. Zeq 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what is on my talk page and clearly you don't understand it. Nobody can understand what's going on here because you are making a mess. Also, do you even understand what the statement " it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier" means? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is very clear: You needed more people that would help pushing your POV. After all if it was just copyedit of my english you are very capable doing that on your own. The problem is that this article has too much POV in it with words like "most fertile" on the other hand you did a good job neutrelizing the effect terror had on israelis and you now want to remove refernces to how the barrier, by removing ther threat of terror, improve the life of all that live next to it. Of course this is done at some price to other who need to get to fields but must use gates and detours and that should be included in this article. Zeq 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not edit anything about terror against Israelis, I only shortened your very long entry about the Supreme Court ruling, and you responded that you were very happy with it (you called it excellent) and you thanked me. Now you are saying something else, and being inconsistent. All I want to do is summarize what the sources say properly, and they do not say that the barrier "improved the life of all that live next to it". While some articles describe some freedoms that are "relative" according to the "Jerusalem Post", most sources (including the good ones you showed me) claim that the barrier has had detrimental effects. You keep misrepresenting your own sources, and refusing my help to clarify them. I will just have to do it myself when I have time. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is NAD and is it a "crediable" source

from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=395372&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The elite Palestinian diplomatic unit against Israel is the Negotiation Affairs Department in the PLO, which leads the propaganda battle against the separation fence and the settlements.

The department recently chalked up an important accomplishment: encouraging American opposition to the separation fence. Stephanie Khoury, a Palestinian woman from Texas who works for the department, visited the White House in 2003, making a presentation to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about the injustice of the fence. The meeting is considered a watershed moment in the campaign to make Israel change the route of the fence, which last week reached its climax in the government surrender when it announced to the High Court of Justice that it was moving the fence.

The PLO negotiations department was founded in 1994 to monitor the implementation of the Olso accords, to formulate Palestinian positions and to provide legal and media aid to the negotiating teams. It was originally headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who would eventually serve briefly as the first prime minister. He was replaced by Saeb Erekat last year. The financing came from Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Holland. It has about 20 full-time staffers and a logistical team. Its high-profile spokesmen are American Palestinians, led by Harvard law graduate Michael Terzi.

Reasoned arguments

Its Web site, www.nad-plo.org, provides information and reasoned arguments in favor of the Palestinian cause for supporters throughout the world. A cleanly styled, sophisticated site, its messages are brief and to the point, formulated for the political culture of the U.S. and Europe, rejecting violence and sensitive to human rights.

The reality depicted by the site is practically sterile. Neither terrorism nor IDF activity in the territories are mentioned. There is no effort to win sympathy with images of victims and body parts, like at the site hosted by its rival, the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The violent conflict is not mentioned, nor is the "resistance to the occupation." The narrative is different: the Palestinians are depicted as innocent victims of an Israeli policy of transfer.

According to the negotiations department, Israel has more than one goal with the fence: confiscating Palestinian lands to enable further growth of the settlements, setting political borders unilaterally, encouraging Palestinians to leave the country by making it impossible for them to make a living, denying them water and freedom of movement so that remaining in their villages or cities is impractical.

Using terms like "transfer" and "cleanse" to describe something "deep in Zionism," the site's images show the suffering of Palestinians near the fence who have been cut off from their lands and schools. This week a photograph of the tall cement wall that went up between Jerusalem and Abu Dis was added to the site. That section of the wall has the word "ghetto" scrawled as graffiti on it. The site includes descriptions of the fence's range, noting that with the "eastern fence" (yet to be approved by the government), 55 percent of the West Bank will be annexed to Israel.

The site details the Palestinian position on the issues of the permanent agreement, explaining that the Palestinians rejected the proposals at Camp David in 2000 because "it was a repackaging of the military occupation, and not its end." The PLO, says the site, favors a two-state solution, with the Green Line as the border. All the settlements, including those in the Jerusalem area, must be evacuated.

---

AS you recall Ramallite argued that NAD is not part of the PLO diplomatic effort and that it does not deal with propeganda. Who do you trust: haaretz or NAD and their branches ? Zeq 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Funding of NAD:

According to the DFID, UK’s funding to the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) amounted to € 13,670,000 since 1999. A written question viathe House of Lords on how the NAD has spent the money and what mechanisms were put in place to hold the NAD and the PLO leadership accountable for it has recently been deposited and is awaiting a reply • In June 1999 the UK Government approved a two-year project of technical assistance to the NAD. The Negotiations Support Project has also received continuous financial support from the Governments of Denmark, the Netherlands,Norway, and Sweden • In September 1999, the Government of Norway offered funding to the NAD tosupport the NSU, which has been renewed annually. The total amount of support

---

Page 4 4to the NSU since 1999 is set by the MFA at circa. 1.25 million EUR, and includessupport for advisers, the NSU's legal affairs library and project management costs of the London-based Adam Smith's International Ltd. We have learned from the Norwegian MFA that Norway ‘has not received any application from the NSU relating to financial support for the Palestinian delegation to the process underway in the ICJ.’ This seems an unlikely proposition given that NSU members appeared before the ICJ on 23rd February to present oral statements, and formed part of ‘Palestine’’s delegation to the ICJ, in a legal process they supported - even if their benefactors- Norway and the EU states- both formally opposed • In January 2000, the Government of Sweden approved another two-year assistance program to the NAD. After being asked by us to provide detailedinformation concerning funds to the NSU, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied that the file concerning the NSU was classified, and thus could not provideinformation. However, after pressure from us, the file was declassified on 12February 2004 and the Swedish Foreign Ministry communicated that for the period 1 January 2002 - 31 March 2002 the Swedish support amounted to about€ 600,000, and for the period 1 April 2002 – 31 December 2003 to € 1,244,940. The current contract ran until 31 December 2003, and was officially renewed on 10 February 2004, but only for a further three months. It did not say whether ithad funded the NSU without contract between 1 January and 9 February 2004- or why it had not extended the contract for longer as per its previous agreement. Itdid, however, say funding was targeted at the Communications and Media (PR) component of the NSU. Even though the Swedish Foreign Ministry asserts that no external monitoring on the use of funds has been carried out, it declared that itfollows the NSU’s spending of the Swedish funds ‘closely and continuously.’ Further inquiries concerning the nature of this auditing mechanism, the rationalefor extending assistance for three months only, and its support, if any, during early 2004, the reasoning behind its declassification of the data, and why it fundsthe NSU’s media unit have been submitted to the Swedish Foreign Ministry. We are currently waiting for its response • In August 2000 the Government of Denmark also started to provide assistance to the NAD, complementing existing funding commitments. Further to our inquiries,

---

Page 5 5the Danish Foreign Ministry declared that Danish support to the NSU is part of its ‘Programme for Support to Democracy, Good Governance, Rule of Law andHuman Rights’ (PRODEPA). The programme was started in 1998 and has a totalgrant of € 7,232,982, and is planned to run until the end of 2005. Phase I of the Danish support to the NSU ran from July 2000 to November 2002 and allocated agrant of € 669,720. Thereafter, Phase II, from 2002 until 2004, is allocating a grant of € 1,016,635. According to the NSU, this assistance has been used for theestablishment of the Communications (PR) Section of the NSU, for experts in the field of media, and for additional legal and policy expertise4. The Danish Ministryof Foreign Affairs declares that it exercises ‘on a continuous basis’ follow-up on the use of Danish development assistance to the NSU ‘in order to avoid misuse’ from the terms of the program which funds it • The UK Government, through the Department for International Development, hascommitted itself to supporting the project until 31 April 2006 with funding of just over 13 million EUR. The DFID claims it delivers funding through a contract with Adam Smith International Ltd (ASI), but that DFID maintain records of theexpenditure, whilst the funding pays for ‘technical assistance provided by international and local consultants, and the operational costs of NSU’s office.’ The DFID claims the value of the NSU continues as, following the end of formalnegotiations in January 2001, the NSU ‘broadened its role by seeking to encourage the resumption of permanent status negotiations by contributing to a variety of diplomatic peace initiatives. The project supports those in the Palestinian Authority who are committed to peace. We have no reason to doubt that all project activities have been consistent with these objectives,’ claims the DFID, despite the fact that the NSU prepared the case against the security fence in the Hague, the overall legal process of which was condemned by the EU ascounter to the formulation of an eventual peace agreement

[edit] weaslespeak or Why I reverted Marsden

Marsden edits are clearly one sided POV and uses "weaslespeak" such as "israel claim" Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms

" In some areas the route diverges from this line, in many cases to include Jewish settlements on the Israeli side of the barrier. Israel claims that these divergences are justified on the basis that they frustrate acts of terrorism directed against Israeli population centers."

His view is that the route was only designed to include settlments while the excuse is security. Some would say that security is the issue . This is part of the controversy.

Zeq, to say that something is "justified" means that it is morally correct. "Israel claims that x is justified because ..." is clearly, in my opinion, more NPOV than "Israel justifies x by noting ..." Regards. Marsden 14:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. -- "... to include Jewish settlements ..." can be read two ways: first, as just indicating effect; second, as indicating intent. If you'd like to change to wording to clarify that no intent should be read into the statement, that would seem very reasonable to me. Marsden 14:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, you have that exactly the wrong way round. Israel justifies X by noting ... is better English and more NPOV than Israel claims X is justified. By using "claims," you're hinting that the assertion is not correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So, by implication, not using "claims" more strongly suggests that Israel is correct? Which of the following is true beyond any reasonable doubt: that Israel claims that the divergences are justified because they frustrate terrorism; or that the divergences are justified because they frustrate terrorism? Marsden 15:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not using "claims" avoids the view that Wikipedia doesn't believe them. If you have to use that sentence constructions, what's wrong with "says"? "Israel justifies X" is not the same as saying "X is justified". This is just a question of good English. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "says" -- that could almost mean that the receptionist who answered the phone at the embassy gave the opinion. How about something along the lines of, "It is Israel's position that ...?" Marsden 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. -- what would you think of a statement that "the PFLP justifies terrorist attacks by noting that they are necessary in a legitimate struggle for national liberation?" Marsden 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If I had to use this construction (and I wouldn't), I would write something like: "The PFLP justifies its attacks by saying they are necessary to further what it sees as a legitimate struggle for national liberation." Not brilliant English, but not POV either, and better in both senses than: "The PFLP claims its attacks are justified by saying ..."

I have no idea what Marsden is thinking, but I do know that your reversion makes this POV again. That the route diverges from the line is not a "claim", it is a fact. The second half of the sentence is a reason given for this fact, and Israel claims one reason (security for "Israeli population centers" which means settlements). Palestinians claim another reason. The way you wrote your sentence, you write it as if it is an uncontested fact when it is actually the POV of one of the two parties. I can revert you now and you won't be able to revert back because you have reached your 3RR limit, but I won't.

I will give you a chance to correct it, and I will be working on a thoroughly revised text in the meantime. But I must ask you yet again: DO add more information to balance the article, DO NOT remove properly sourced text just because you don't agree with it.

Answer : You can revert what ever you want to revert if you think this is the proper way to reach consensus or Neutarlity. In any case anecdutal stories that only dramatize the subject will be removed, jsut as you shortemed to 2 lines, the summery of what was the terror situation inn israel PRIOR to when the barrier was built so we should strive to have the "effect on palestinians" summerized in the same way - without too much drama. Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also please find a source for "the NAD they have often been arbitrarily closed for extended periods leading to loss of crops at times of security alerts", or else it is your OR.

I provided a source for that.

What are you trying to claim that israel arbitrarly close the gates ? Israel could avoid builduing Gates if all it wanted was to prevent access.

You know why those gates are closed. Because there are days when there are alerts of suicide bombers on the way.

It is amazing that this whole article does not include the word "suicide bombers"......... Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You also removed "63 shops set up to circumvent the blocking from Israeli shoppers of one of the few thriving Palestinian commercial centers behind the barrier " which explains why the ramshackle mall was there, this was properly sourced.

Answer: YOu are giving an explanation to why shops were where they are, you are using the exitense of the barrier in this explanation, Yet the whole issue is that the shops were destroyed BEFORE the barrier was built.....

Does not make any sense ? and also this quote does not add anything to issue at hand.

You want to bring the truth about Nazalt Isa. Bring it. You know the truth:

The barrier was deep in the west bank in that area. There was pressure on israel to move it to the green-line. So Israel moved it EXACTLY to the green-line.

About a year BEFORE that move (and 6 month BEFORE the move) Israel destroyed few shacks that were ileagly built on the green-line (where the no man land used to be until 1967) Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "after giving their owners 30-minutes notice" was in the UN report that you brought to my attention, and it seems to be a claim. If you don't like it, find a source that says that they had 5 days notice. But don't delete it,

Answer: I will continue to delete it because it has nothing to do with the barrier itself or it's affect on the palestinians.

The issue is were those legal demolitions or not legal.

If they were leagl then 5 minutes, 5 days is not the issue. If they were not legal why no one filled a petition with Israel's supreme court ?

You can not say thaty the court is cooperating with everything the goverment does. Every day it issue another rulling in favor of Palestinians and against the goverment (and I am glad about it)

So when there is no court chalange the owners know why (they know more than you) and the only thing left is for anti-israel propeganda to make claims. Zeq 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

it demonstrates the effects of building the barrier (i.e. quick demolition of business places) on Palestinians. Lastly, you keep removing "The report notes that more freedom of movement in rural areas may ease Palestinian access to hospitals and schools, but also notes that restrictions on movement between urban population centers have not significantly changed [19]" for no reason. You included one half of the sentence but not the second half, and that is not nice of you. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, your long long entry pasted from another website about the NAD yesterday, what's your point? I don't understand what you are trying to claim. And if you respond, please make a short quick reply and not pages of more quotes. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In my edit I included both. He keeps reverting it to his one sided view. I tried to accomodate him by applying the suggestion in wikipedia contriversial subject guidelines but to no avail. He just want his POV. It does not work this way here. Zeq 13:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marsden that some wikipedia editors are evil cause they support ethnic cleansing or genoside. For the record, let me clearly say that I support the two state solution and restoration of all rights to palestinians in the occupied terrotories.

However my political beliefs are my own. In wikipedia we should still edit according to guidelines not POV.

[edit] about NAD

Rammalite asked what is the point about NAD.

Nad, which has been used as a source for some of the info in this article. Is actually a goverment funded multi million dollar prpeganda operation based in Ramalla employing over 20 PR specialists. Is this what we should be using as a source ? Zeq 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First section of this article is again non neutral

The firstsection should give an explanation what this barrier is, who build it where and why.

By Focusing on the "Where" with the settlments issue and avoiding giving same sapce to the terror issue it is again non neutral.

The fence/barrie (call it what you want) was something that the settlers were against.

It was Israel grassroots movments (such as this http://www.hagader.com/English/about_hagader.asp ) which forced the goverment to build the barrier and they specifically said this to the settlers and the goverment :

"It is appropriate to leave the subject of the exact location of the security fence to the discretion of the Israeli government, but it is already obvious that this fence, the length of which is estimated at hundreds of kilometers, must create a complete separation between the Palestinian population and the Israeli population. This security fence could create, within a relatively short period of time, effective protection for the inhabitants of the state of Israel.

What Will Become of the Jewish Settlements?

It is impossible to include within the protected zone all of the isolated settlements in the areas of Judea and Samaria, as some of them are located deep within the occupied territories, far from the “Green Line”. Nevertheless, the movement is of the opinion that the protected zone should include large Israeli concentrations of population in Judea and Samaria and the strategic divide in the Jordan Valley, in which there is almost no Palestinian population."

The barrier is not about settlments, it is to protect the 95% of israelis who DO NOT live in settlements. Going into the route issue before the section that intreduce the controversy without giving equal space to the issue that broght the need for the barrier is non-neutral. If some word I used is non nuetral it can be changed but once again those balnket reverts are not helping the creation of a NPOV article. Zeq 18:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I did some revisions

I did some revisions on the first few sections, even though there is still too much redundancy. I tried to incorporate everybody's arguments but I only made it to the bottom of "Effects on Israeli Security". In case some wonder why it's so short compared to the "Effects on Palestinians" section after it, I just couldn't find too many sources about "effects" that don't say the same thing: It's brought down terrorism, in some areas it's down to zero, it's working! End of story! As for Zeq, I am still not done with the Effects on Palestinians (although I reverted it to my version because it's easier to work from), but I don't think you noticed that you repeated yourself in many places. Also, you added something about "security alert" when the NAD said that the gates are sometimes arbitrarily closed, but the NAD didn't say anything about security alerts. In some other places I removed sourced info to either shorten the phrases because the point is already made, or because the sources were not relevant (like the USA think tank that made up an imaginary water agreement that you cited as a real agreement). I tried to incorporate a lot of your work in the beginning of the article, but have not been over the "Effects on Palestinians" yet. Let me know what you think so far. That goes for everybody else too. Oh, and I didn't spell check thoroughly because I'm terrible at it. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: Your focus on the Palestinian POV is non neutral. What you did is a major revert (for example you ignored my comment on the word "now" in the Qalqiliya section and just started to edit from your own tprevious text. Then you added the weasleword "claimed" on the reason why the wall was built)

Zeq- read the article:

The Israeli government states that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent the infiltration of terrorists. The NAD claims that a true security measure would entail Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and building of a barrier on "Israel's side of the (border with the West Bank)"

let just look at the first section of the article is focus on the route and the harm it cause Palestinians. What is missing there is :

Zeq- read the articleRamallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1. The reason it was built (terror)

The Israeli Supreme Court made reference to the conditions and history that led to the building of the barrier.. stated that these actions...did not provide a sufficient answer to the immediate need to stop the severe acts of terrorism. . . . Despite all these measures, the terror did not come to an end. The attacks did not cease. Innocent people paid with both life and limb. This is the background behind the decision to construct the separation fence (Id., at p. 815) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

2. The fact that it stopped terror

Israeli statistics indicate that the barrier has drastically reduced the number of Palestinian infiltrations and suicide bombings and other attacks on civilians in Israel. During the twelve month period from August 2003 to July 2004 three suicide bombers launched attacks from areas where the barrier has been completed which resulted in no deaths or injuries. In contrast during the preceding twelve months, from September 2002 to August 2003, 73 attacks were successfully carried out from these areas, in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 were wounded. According to other statistics, the number of Israelis murdered by terrorists coming from areas where the barrier was built dropped to zero in the first half of 2004, as opposed to 46 in 2003 before the barrier was built.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

3. The fact that israel deny it is a permanenet border (and indeedcmade numerous changes to the route)

The Security Fence that is being built is intended to counter terrorism of the most brutal kind, not to dictate a border that is and remains the subject of permanent negotiations. It is our hope that by building this fence its very function will become irrelevant and that one day it will be dismantled.[5]. I can make it more clear.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

and more....

There are mistakes in fact as the court siad clearly that it is not the IDF alone who will decide on the route. The court said the route must be such that affect on the palestinians can be minimized and proportional and clearly said that the court itself will be involved in looking at the route segment by segment and everywhere it will violate humanitiarian int'l law it must be changed. You have not included att all the fact that the route is a compromise between security needs and rights of palestinians.

Show me the quote and I'll be happy to add it.

I can go on and on on the changes you have done.

Remember I'm not done yet, and please point out briefly where the other problems are.

I will give it a chance for other editors to look at all the material I provided and you deleted (like maps showing how close is the green-line to Tel-aviv etc...)

That map was listed as a source for the reason to build the barrier, but had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the barrier, it was just a map about the proximity of the West Bank to Israeli cities. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This article as it is now is mostly reperesenting the Palestinian POV. Why don'y we just put a link to nNAD_PLO, the palestinian, goverment sponsered propeganda operation based in rammalla and get it over with ?

Because that would not represent the Israeli POV.

Alternatvily look at what I have done: I am not against including material that the barrier cause Palestinians who live next to it.

The human rights sources you provided do not say the barrier only affects those who live next to it. That seems to be something you are trying to push, but is not supported. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Heckm, I even gave you source material about it you did not have.

I don't understand.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You on the other hand removed source material that show the other side.

I added the Israeli government, and removed this International Christian media thing that was just quoting Maariv and the government with its own twist !Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So I am avoiding a revert out of resepect to you and will give a chance to restore and to other editors to work on this barrier. Zeq 06:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to work more this evening.

Also worth noting is that you removed sourced material that talked about the issue but on the other hand added data that has really noting to do with the barrier (such as the 30 minutes warnning that was given prior to demolitions of ileagaly construted shacks that were build exactly on the green-lines' no mans land (in Nazlat Isa) without ant building permit.

You are the one who added that the shacks were demolished in order to move the barrier to the green line. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Basiccaly you have reverted a lot of work that was done already.

Actually, a few editorial changes are not "a lot", and I added Israeli government sources, which were underrepresented (and still are by the way).

What I learn from all this is that the suggestion (by slim and others) to discuss before making changes does not really work in this article.... rules can not apply just to one side. It takes two to Tango. Zeq 06:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You have never tried it before, how do you know? Ramallite ^(talk) 13:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do you work for NAD ?

Rammalite I looked at the changes you made to "effect on israeli security" (such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=25180710&oldid=25179950)

Are you saying they are good or bad (in your opinion of course)? I added material to show the barrier has really worked from the Israeli perspective. But more could be added Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that arguments made in this propeganda material http://www.nad-plo.org/facts/wall/WallMagazine%207-2005.pdf (such as that the wall actually does not save lives and does not increase Israel security ) have found their way into this article.

These statements have not found their way into the article, just like a lot of Israeli gov't statements haven't either. But the NAD source is a legitimate Palestinian source, even if it not everybody agrees with it. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear: There are two groups who don't like the wall.The two groups are: Palestinians who are against the two state solution and Settlers who are against the two state solution.

I absolutely disagree. Are you saying that those who favor the 2-state solution support the wall? Read the UN sources that you provided, to see if those who favor the 2-state solution agree with the barrier as you say. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Each of these groups think, that by using force (and God) they will eventually drive the other people out. The Palestinians who object the two setate solution and the settlers all see a big problem in the wall: It creates a border, a demarcation line.

That is exactly what the NAD says. You must work for them too!! :) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So natually, both of thse groups are trying to show that the wall is bad and not working. WE should represent this on this article but not in the way you have done.

Since I am sure you are not a settler but I know you are from Ramalla I wonder if you are one of those paid 20-30 researchers and PR experts in NAD ?

Please tell me I am wrong but I must say that you are doing a good job and if you work for them they should give you a raise: You have exccelent english and you are very presistent in pushing your POV into this and other articles. Zeq 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is that since I am a Palestinian who speaks good English and knows how to read UN reports, I must work for a propaganda Palestinian organization that is against the 2-state solution. I have encountered this often: when a Palestinian has good English and knows a thing or two about human rights, he/she automatically is compared to right-wing extremists on the other side. This is prejudice. I'll introduce some of my own POV just for you, Zeq: I don't see peace happening as long as one side tries to impose on the other what it would not accept for itself. If Israelis don't want to be separated from each other by military barriers, it is a mistake to think that imposing it on Palestinians will lead to peace. As for my job, I am not sure what you asked is appropriate, but my page explains what I do, and you can decide for yourself if NAD has a need for people like me.;) Ramallite ^(talk) 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said. The problem is that you sue propeganda material by a well finanace PR office (NAD) and what you wrote on the barrier is very similar to the ridiculaus claim they make. Let's make one thing clear: It is the suicide bombings which built the wall. Israel govrement did not want it. The settlers did not want it. The Palestinians who are against the two state solutions did not want it.

But the Israeli public grass root effort eventualy made the goverment build it. This is an important part of the story and it is not mentiond here. The fact that the Israeli goverment choose and evil and stupid route for that wall and that the israeli courts are now correcting the goverment error is mentioned but not in a balanced way. The fence started as a grass roots effort: http://www.7th-day.co.il/hayom-hashvie/fence.htm

The current revision of wikipedai article about the wall needs a major change to adapt it from propeganda to reality.

Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You know very well that most of the barrier does what it is supposed to do. Between israelis and Palestinians. In some places the route is wrong and harm palestinians. But it is not what you are trying to make it to be. Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You asked: "Are you saying that those who favor the 2-state solution support the wall?" I said that those who ooopse the two state solution ooopse the wall cause it creates a demarcation.

But many Palestinian propeganda (like NAD) can not openly say they are against the two state solution (They use euphamisms like "Right of Return" that they hope will turn israel into a palestinian Majority country. So they claim that the wall prevents two states while in effect this is exactly what the wall does : It divide the land by having (mostly) Israelis on one side and (mostly) Palestinians on the other. No wonder the settlers are against it. No wonder the Hmams is against it. But why those who claim to support the notion of separating to two countries that will live in peace are against it ? do they want continued suicide bombs attacks ? I prefer the current situation where the calm facilitiate israeli withdrawals (such as north west bank and Gaza) and maybe even a return to negotaiation.(hopefully)

Zeq 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know what I know, stop claiming that I do. You have no idea what it's like to live behind the barrier, and I'm not going to talk about it either because it's not relevant. According to Palestinian, Israeli, and international sources, the barrier is having a much larger humanitarian effect than what it is "supposed to do". Since you seem to be complaining about my contributions to the article, and since you seem to be claiming that the Israeli court is the most neutral source, why don't you consider one of the following:

1- Start an alternative article on your own talk site, for example here, and write in it everything you want. You can cut and paste this article to your page and do it there. Afterwards, we can compare and see what it is exactly what you are trying to say. It seems to me that most of what you are complaining about being missing is in the article.

2- Ask me to stay away from this article for a period of time (a week? 2 weeks?) and I will gladly do so. Then you can insert everything you want without having to worry about discussing them here. Afterwards, we can discuss again.

Let me know what you think. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

p.s. One of the chief people at the NAD has no problem stating he supports the One State solution[20], but that is not relevant for this article. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kibutz Metzer - How it became a house hold name in Israel

Israel’s security fence opposed by many from The Israeli Kibbutz Metzer

In 2002 Israel began constructing a security fence to reduce the number of Palestinian terrorist attacks into ‘pre-1967’ Israel from Palestinian population centres and villages (see Beyond Images Briefing 5 – The Security Fence). Many Kibbutz Metzer members protested against the implementation of the plan. They were concerned that the route of the security fence would cut through olive groves belonging to a neighbouring Palestinian village, Kafin. They claimed that the fence would deprive Kafin farmers of about 60% of their fields, and that the fence should be rerouted along the so-called ‘Green Line’ – ie the pre-1967 border – in order to overcome the problem. A meeting was scheduled to take place on Monday 11 November with Israeli Defence Ministry officials at which Kibbutz members were to have argued this case on behalf of their Arab neighbours.

Attack by Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade Gunman

The meeting did not take place. The night before, Sunday 10 November, a lone Palestinian gunman entered the Kibbutz. He approached the home of 34 year old Revital Ohayon, fired two shots at the front door, kicked it open and entered the bedroom of Revital Ohayon’s children Matan (5) and Noam (4). She had just finished reading them a bedtime story, and at that moment was on her mobile phone to her ex-husband. She tried to shield the boys, but the gunman shot both boys dead at point blank range. He then shot her. The gunman killed two other adult kibbutz members - the 44-year old secretary of the Kibbutz, and a woman – before fleeing. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, which is the so-called “military” wing of Yasser Arafat’s PLO organisation, claimed responsibility for the attack. Kibbutz official: “we need the strength to remember our message…” Israel was rocked by the attack. Heart-rending images of the childrens’ blood-stained bedroom were broadcast across the country. Yet despite the emotion of the moment, here are comments made shortly after the attack by Dov Avital, the new secretary of Kibbutz Metzer:- “Although the thirst for revenge is natural, we need the strength to remember our message, and remain firm believers in our desire to live in peace with our neighbours….” “We are not Quakers or anything. I believe that the IDF has to go after and kill these terrorists, but the government needs to remember that most Palestinians are not terrorists, and that it is imperative to give them a diplomatic horizon. There is no other solution….”

Beyond Images Comments

?The murders in Kibbutz Metzer demonstrate - yet again – the random cruelty and total senselessness of Palestinian violence.

The ultimate irony is that the Kibbutz had long promoted coexistence and cooperation with the Arab villages around them. Yet this did not shelter them from the crime inflicted that night. We also learn a lesson in the strength of Israel’s society. Dov Avital reminded fellow Kibbutz members that “we need to remember the strength of our message”. Those words apply not only to the Kibbutz but, arguably, to Israel as a whole, and help to explain its peoples’ resilience. After more than two years of sustained violence against Israeli men, women and children (see Beyond Images Briefing 48), and the collapse of expectations for a peaceful resolution, many wonder what gives Israeli citizens the strength to continue their day-to-day lives. Perhaps the key lies in Dov Avital’s words. Israel only exists because of “the strength of its message”: that the Jewish people – left, right, religious, secular - desire a land in which to live securely, and to have the opportunity to develop that society in coexistence with its neighbours. It is only that “message” which gives Israelis the strength to overcome the challenges they currently face.

http://www.beyondimages.info/005.html http://www.beyondimages.info/b22.html Zeq 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prolog

After the fence was hastly built in this area. Israel Minstry of defense decided to accept the Kibutz request andmove the barrier to the grren-line. (see map 1 on page 3 of http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/Barrierupdate7mar04.pdf )

A year before building the new fence on the green-line, 63 stals and 7 homes in Nazalat Isa (built without permit in the 1980s on what was until 1967 the no mans land between Israel and Jordan) were demolished. No court petition to stop the demolition was ever filled. Every demolition is always done after at least 30 days notice is given to owners so that they can file court petition to stop the demolition. Those who have valid cases do so. The route of the new fence/wall is next to the demolished shacks. Now ask your self what should be in the encyclopedia ?

No doubt, the issue that the (ilegal) shacks were destroyed with a 30 minutes warnning is the most critical aspect of this story. Anyone reading wikipedia will surly think so.

The word "illegal" is POV - since the people who live there are Palestinians under Israeli rule, they do not recognize the term "illegal" as valid since the whole occupation is, according to them, illegal. (should have been signed by ramallite)

Every word is POV in your mind, unless you use it. Israel is a country of law, The int'l humantirian law apply in the occupied territories. So don't confuse the issue by blaming always the occupation. . If the homes were legal why is there no court petition to stop the demolition. You may not like the law but it is the law saying that the law is the law must be POV as well Zeq 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"illegal" is not neutral in this sense, the neutral phrase is "without Israeli permits", because "illegal" makes it look like it is common opinion, whereas Palestinians claim that the Israeli occupation is itself "illegal" according to International Law, so according to Palestinians, it doesn't make sense for an "illegal" occupation to say that something is "illegal". But you are right, that is one POV. therefore, the neutral phrase is "without Israeli permits", and even then there should be a source.Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Shimon Peres once said that if it was not for palestinian terror israel would end the occupation years ago. IMHO, palestinians and the settlers have the same goals: To continue the war until the winner takes all.

Thank you for your opinion (which is not very humble actually), just make sure you don't try to inject it into the article. In the 1980s terror was defined as making speeches and throwing stones, there were no bombs, and the occupation didn't end. If that is what Peres said, then here is something that Saeb Erekat said after Abu Mazen was elected: he said that it wouldn't matter if Palestinians elected Mother Teresa as their president, the Israelis would find a way of claiming she a terrorist [21]. So you see, there is a lot of statements made on both sides.

Or may be we should take UNRWA words to describe the current situation (well sourced:-) "The new Barrier constructed at Nazlat Isa has isolated a small community west of the Barrier and east of the Green Line."

Has anyone bothered to look at the map and ask himself : what does UNRWA means by "Isolated behind the barrier"  ? A quick look at the map would give the answer The palestinian town of Nazalt Isa is now "isolated" from israel on the green-line. So if this as NAD and all others who claim "move the wall to the green-line" really want ? So why are they complaining about the route of the wall in Nazalt Isa ? I'll tell you why (original research since I have friends there)

They were VERY happy when the wall was in the west bank (isolated them from the rest of the west bank) and they had direct access into Israel for work. Now they are "isolated" on the palestinian side and they don't like it. They are not the only one. Palestinian Residents of east Jerusalem have just filled a petition with the Israeli court asking that the wall will be moved, wait not toward the green-line but away from the green-line so that they would be on the "israeli" side. I did not invent this story this is a petition pending before the court - I kid you not. reality is not what NAD want you to believe.

Zeq 16:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Zeq - you have made your points (believe me you have). Since there are so many sources that show that the Palestinians (the NAD) are liars and they are actually really happy about the barrier, I strongly encourage you go with one of my two suggestions - just start writing your version of this article on an alternative page (like here) and have other editors help you. When you are finished, then everybody can agree on which article to use, or how to combine the two. Palestinians in Nazlat Issa, I assume you are saying, were happy because they now had access to jobs in Israel without competition from other Palestinians, and now they are angry because they also no longer have access. This is all "relative" happiness based on a population under occupation and a very very bad economy, and is not a recipe for peace. The Kibbutz Metzer terrorist attack was incredibly horrible and hugely embarrassing for most Palestinians, and if Israel hadn't destroyed most of the police stations in 2001-2002, things maybe would have been very different. I would go after the Kibbutz Metzer terrorists myself if I could. In Jerusalem, the residents have given up on the barrier being removed completely (the Israeli high court rejected a petition to remove it), so now their only option left is to try to keep it as far away from them as possible. These Palestinians do not have Palestinian ID cards, they have Israeli ID cards, so they only have access to Israeli facilities, and their schools and hospitals (and family) are in Jerusalem. If the wall is built at its current route, they will be cut off from Jerusalem, but will also not be able to have any benefits from the PA because they do not have Palestinian IDs. Please present all the facts, but not here. This page has had enough. Please start writing the article the best way you see fit. And if you do want to write more on this discussion page, please consider making your entries short and

without

so many

spaces

like this.

Thanks! Ramallite ^(talk) 17:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You have missed my point compeletly and please don't be so sarcastic. (I like your Humor but please be serious)

Sorry, I was trying to make a point, because it's still difficult to understand what you want exactly. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Point number 1: If we are to use anecdotutal data that dramatize the issue (Like 30 minutes warnning for demolition of few shacks or " the most fertile land" we will use this over drmatiztion for both sides: We will intreduce into this article sentnces like "Palestinians terrorists killed in cold blood the most innocent children" "the Palestinians only gave the mother 0.5 second warrning before murdering her and her children"

This is from the source you provided, not my own words. You showed me many sources and I used them. Now you don't like these sources anymore. And your example about 0.5 second warning is rubbish, because nobody defends the actions of terrorists (except of course the terrorists), but Israel always defends its actions which is why they are held to higher scrutiny, and I'm guessing that is why the UN included it in their report Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Point number 2:

There are israelis who are against the barrier There are israelis who support it There are israelis who are in favor of the barrier but object it's route There are Palestinians who are against any border between israel and Palestine (even if it is on the green-line) There are Palestinians (mostly farmers) who are truly hurt by the barrier route that seprate them from their land (but Israel trying to accomodate them in some way) I am not saying they don't suffer. They do suffer and we should represent that and the effort Israel doing to mitigate it. There are palestinian who (even if they don't say it outloud) are benefiting from the calm and reduction of military checkpoints that the calm enabaled.

This is like saying "there are prisoners who, even if they don't say it out loud, are benefitting from the free food, television, and room they are getting instead of being chased after by the police all the time". I am not here to press what we think or who we think is benefiting from the wall, all we can do is cite proper sources (including the PLO and Israeli governments). Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You choose to present here only one view: That of the PLO (via their NAD propeganda ) The UN (on all it's instituations) is anti_israel, pro PLO and was even abale to get a (poorly reasoned) verdict from the ICJ justifying the palestinian position.

If you carefully read my edits from this morning, you will see that I did not only present one view. Please read my additions carefully. The NAD is not quoted as much as the Israeli government, the UN, Btselem, and other reports are in this article. Also, I don't recall ever touching the ICJ part, that was written before I joined Wikipedia. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

We should represent here all views. Without too much drantizations. You actaully prooved that you can do it (when you sumerized the 3 paragrphes from israel supreme court to 2 lines)

First you said it was excellent, then you objected, and now you like it again. Make up your mind!! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you can start by restoring all the reverts during your recent major edit you got rid of many of my previous contributions)

I didn't revert, I added (and subtracted repetitive text, like Jenin was already mentioned, and this article is not about Gaza, or about a hypothetical barrier in the Jordan valley). If I revert to your version, I re-introduce all the problems that I told you were there before: Repetitive text, incorrectly sourced material, too much elaboration about a single checkpoint which you say doesn't even exist, etc). Also, for example, you entered a couple of sentences about the August 2005 report, but these were already entered in the same section at the bottom. I think this also goes for the March 2005 report, but I can't remember. Anyway, compare the two versions carefully, you'll see what I mean. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you will not revert yourself I will. Do you want to just keep reverting each other (I don't but you do not leave me any other option)

For the third time, I'm recommending that you go ahead and write an article that suits your taste - if you do it on your page here, nobody can touch it except you, and when you are finished, you can tell all the other editors about it and see if people agree to use your version instead of the version that is here now. I don't know about you, but that seems to me like "an option". Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: You had clearly reverted and edited from that point. Major parts of my work from the last few days are now missing from the article. So if your claim is that you "did not revert" I 'll give you a chanse to interudce your changes with a neutral POV as a base. Your suggestion that I write a seprate article on my page will not work. We will have to mege at some point and that is going to be a headcae. I suggest that we both edit this article but that avoid removing neutral info and stop dramtaizing the subject with such stories as a "30 minutes warning". Also I would suggest that you avoid NAD based propeganda as a source. Zeq 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I will gladly handle the headache of merging articles. However, in response to your statement, can you please give me a list of what you say I took out from what you wrote? A lot of it is moved, but the only significant chunck removed was the story about the benefits to Jenin residents because somebody already had written it before and it was there (shorter). Please give me a brief list of what you claim I removed and I will either explain to you if (or why) I did or show you that it is still there. I commented out the 30 minute statement even though I completely disagree that it is "drama", and I removed the "now" from the road into Qalqilya. Also, the second introduction paragraph at the top of the article is mainly yours. Lastly, this sentence that you insist on: "The reduction from a previous figure was due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned" has nothing to do with the paragraph that it is in. I know you got it from the UN source, but I still doesn't make (contextual) sense. Maybe you can explain what this statement has to do with the paragraph, which explains that, after Israel moved the barrier, less Palestinians were stuck between it and the Green Line. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Bantustans"

I do not want to participate in (nor get in the way of) the revert war that is going on here, but I did have to make one change to Ian Pitchford's most recent rewriting of the second paragraph, for as long as it remains. I edited out the reference to "Bantustans." In light of the separation of the "Apartheid Wall" issue into its own article (which of course has had its own controversies), I think it is inappropriate to re-introduce the "apartheid" issue into this article through the reference to "Bantustans." Removal of that reference required certain other editing but I tried to keep it to a minimum. As I said, I suspect it is not going to matter for long but the "Bantustan" reference seemed glaring enough to require immediate action. 6SJ7 16:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "Bantustan" is a direct quote from Palestinian sources. I have not used it and do not think it is a good idea to insert it, but in general, when certain words are directly from the source, they are normally allowed as long as they are attributed to that source specifically. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't think what is going on is an "edit war" since that usually entails back-and-forth reverting until the 3RR limit has been exhausted. I actually do not think that my version omits what Zeq included, in fact, I have tried to include and clarify his POV and even omitted my own sourced edits to counter his objections. The only thing I feel is missing from my edits (apart from a lot of redundancy and language problems) is more elaboration under "Effects on Israeli Security". I have asked an editor who is familiar with this to take a look, but do not know if he/she will have time or interest. If you are interested, please feel free to have a go at it. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It may very well be a direct quote from Palestinian sources, but I don't think that is the point. I suspect "Apartheid Wall" was a direct quote from Palestinian sources also. The question is, are we going to have the exact same discussion, editing, reversions, creations of new sections, creation of new articles, and on ad nauseum, every time "Palestinian sources" think of a new way to compare the barrier and its effects to apartheid-era South Africa? First it is "Apartheid Wall," then it's "Bantustans," what's next? "South Africa-style racial separation"? "South Africa-like homelands"? "Measures typical of the Afrikaaners"? Or do we then move to the 1870's-1950's U.S. South? Jim Crow? Plessy v. Ferguson? Separate drinking fountains? The ability of the human mind to create inventive analogies is endless, but it doesn't mean the analogies are appropriate and it certainly doesn't make them NPOV, even as "balance." Why can't the article be about what it is about, without insisting on comparing it to other situations in other places and at other times? 6SJ7 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about that, but if certain phrases or labels reflect the popular view of one side of a conflict, it is not against Wikipedia policy to state it as such, regardless of how other editors may feel about it. Why can't the article be what it is about? Because we can't decide ourselves what it is about, all we can do is quote sources on both sides to illustrate in a balanced view what they think it is about. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not notice before that the "Apartheid Wall" article already refers to "Bantustans," so that is yet another reason why it does not belong in this article. Since there is a separate article about all of the South-Africa-related analogies that some people have decided to make, those analogies (they are not really "names") belong there, not here. I would agree that something about "apartheid wall," "Bantustans" could legitimately remain in this article, if that other article did not exist. I have come to accept that the other article is a reasonable solution (and I will live with the name of the other article, momentarily at least.) But if you are permitted to have "South Africa" references in both articles, then the purpose of that other article disappears, and that issue has to come back into this article, and I think it would have to be edited way, way down because it would overwhelm this article. I am not suggesting that any of that happen, I am just explaining what I did here. 6SJ7 01:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There must be two walls

If we look at what is currently built it mostly follow the green-line and is placed in some places between Palestinians farmers and their lands but there are gates open 3 times a day so that they can to get to their fields. This wall stop terrorism. It also cause some villagers lengthen the road to near by towns but the Israeli court has ordered the government to revert the route where such hardship occur and to balance the security needs with human rights.

The calm brought by this wall has allow Israel to remove military presence in major part of the west bank which helped rejuvenate the commerce between Palestinian cities, jump starting the Palestinian economy. The calm also allow Israeli economy to revive and once the wall was completed along (mostly) the green-line in the northern west bank, not only did Israeli army moved out but also Israel removed 4 settlements form the northern west bank.

Plans for future expansion of that wall leave 7-10% of west bank land on the Israeli side of the barrier (mostly in places where there is already Jewish settlements) but most of this is not yet built. So far less then 4% iof the west bank land is on the Israeli side of the built part of wall (it is a fence but nevermind)

Then there is the other wall: It is built around and between Palestinian towns, surrounding them, choking them, and creating "Bantustans" with no movement between towns. This kills the ability of the Palestinians to have a future state.

As far as your sources say, there is no free movement between Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem (which are otherwise contiguous) because of the concrete fence in that area. Your sources also say that Qalqilya is severely restricted except in one direction, which is sometimes also closed by checkpoints (although you say the UN map from August 2005 is wrong about that). Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So dear wikipeadia editors: Which wall are we going to write about in this article ? The balanced one or the propaganda one.

So Israeli opinion = "balanced', Palestinian opinion = "propaganda". We write about both opinions, the balanced and the propaganda. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No. You write from a conmpletly Palestinian POV while I (try) to accomodate both views but I use facts. You quote from propeganda sources but I could have (while I do not) quote similar tyoes of sources from settler propeganda.

Instead I use mostly the UN (not the most Israel friendlu organization) Stop stop claiming that what I write is "the Israeli opinion. I have said many times that the route in some places is wrong and harms palestinians. But what I will not alloow id to over dramatize this issue. we are writing an encyclopedia Zeq 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want the propeganda one why not get right to the source and remove this article all together: http://www.nad-plo.org/facts/wall/WallMagazine%207-2005.pdf

Because that would violate Wikipedia policy. Please read this carefully. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: I am editing an article. No more no less. None of the examples in the link you provided apply. Zeq 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please, please Please: Enough about the "Qalqiliya gate"

ramallite, I have brought enough sources that there is no checkpoint in the entrence to Qalaqiliya. What else do you want ?

The UN said:

"9. The previous Barrier route had approximately 93,200 West Bank Palestinians living between the Green Line and Barrier. The reduction in population is due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf

this was in March. A map of the area in August showed a checkpoint there. Palestinian newspapers have photos of the checkpoint every few weeks. But in any case, I removed reference to it in my version, in your version, you said that "there is no checkpoint". Which is better, not to mention it, or to mention its nonexistence? Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli court said:

"A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city. The State adds that two open access roads now lead to the city of Qalqiliya. Part of the obstacle east of the city was dismantled. "

What does "part" mean? Either it is there or it isn't. Again, this was according to research done in 2004. And again, I don't have any reference to it in the article, you do. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Part means part not all. The access into the town is open and I suggested that you just pick up a phone and call someone in the city. Itv was open since 2004 and until today. If it will be clsoed agin (why ?) we are sure to read about it in the news. Zeq 18:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

writing an encyclopedia is about facts. Not propeganda. Please please please nough with the Qalqiliya gate. You have already agreed to removve this nonsense. Don't tell me it is coming back into this aricle. There is no way we can progress like that.

You brought back mention of it :) Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And don't lie about connection between Ramalla and Jerusalem. Everyday thousands (actually tens of thousands) pass between the two via gates in the wall. Zeq 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am relying on your sources that the cities are cut off by the barrier. Accusing me of "lying" is against policy. The "tens of thousands" you speak of is your own OR, and yes, people with blue ID cards can cross (but not easily), most of us (with Palestinian IDs) cannot. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

ramallite: Every ramalla resident can cross the checkpoint into Jerusalem. You know this is the truth. Zeq 18:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to argue this, and I am going to try to refrain from discussing OR with you. If you want to compare experiences, I have done so in the past on my talk page but not on article talk pages. But as far as getting from Ramallah to Jerusalem, I cannot do it, nobody with a green ID can. If I could, I wouldn't have had to miss a friend's wedding (who is Jewish Israeli). The best way to settle this is for me to send you my ID card and (assuming you are a male and look like me), you can try it yourself. Barring that, I know about my own country better than anybody living outside it. Please do not try to argue with a Norwegian about Oslo, and please don't try to argue with a Palestinian about Ramallah. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct according to the policy (thanks for getting it to my attention) I should have comented on the content not on the one making it. So let me correct my self: The content of your claim that there is no access from ramalla to Jerusaelm is a lie. Zeq 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My claim is not "there is no access", settlers can do it easily. My claim is that Palestinians cannot cross from Ramallah to Jerusalem (except for those with Israeli IDs or permits - see page 2, and it is almost impossible to get a pemit). Thank you for your non-apology. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to create a compromise re-write which incorporates parts of both versions, and which has a more logical flow and is less repetitive. For example, the previous version mentioned terror attacks on Israelis four times! I've cut that down to one. I've also made the impact on Palestinians more prominent, including that it restricts their movements and access to jobs, and that it almost completely encircles some towns. I think the new version is far more readable and coherent; thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Jayjg

Thanks for your input. From my point of view, there was never really a dispute with the introduction, all I ever did with it was incorporate Zeq's paragraph into it. He reverted it as part of a total revert of me, and then he also reverted User:Ian Pitchford as well. I'm not aware that he specifically objected to my intro per se since it was pretty much his. What you did looks fine to me. However, the dispute going on is with the "Effects on Palestinians" section, where User:Zeq incorporated a lot of sources from the UN and Israeli supreme court, but refused to let them be NPOVed. So I worked on incorporating his edits, but he still didn't like them. My problems with his version are:

• He quotes what he wants from his UN sources, but refuses to allow his quotes to be placed in context. For example, he quotes the UN saying that checkpoints in rural areas have been removed because of the barrier, but refuses to add the followup sentence in the report: that this has not ameliorated movement between urban areas.
• His version has a whole section in the intro about a hypothetical barrier in the Jordan valley. If this barrier does not exist, nor is it planned, what's the point? (I don't think Zeq has a problem with it, but his blind reverts reincorporates this into his version).
• In "Effects on Israeli Security", his version has two paragraphs (a good chunk of the section) on the Gaza barrier. This article is about the West Bank, not Gaza. I removed the parts about the Gaza barrier (save for one sentence in the intro of the article itself), but it gets re-incorporated with his reverts (again, probably not due to his specific objections). I have also tried to add more to the "Effects on Israeli Security" section myself, but it is still far from complete given it is a fraction of the length of "Effects on Palestinians" section. That is why I have asked User:MathKnight to take a look, I hope he will be able to.
• The "Effects on Palestinians" section has many repetitions because of Zeq's edits, including twice mentioning the impact on Jenin (in different places), and twice referring de novo to the August 2005 UN report, along with deletions.

In a nutshell (and I have no idea what kind of nut this common cliche refers to), his reverts remove useful additions and add a lot of redundancy and bad grammar to a piece that I don't even think he would object to if he read it properly (except of course his disdain for anything coming out of the NAD, which happens to be an official Palestinian department). Thanks for your attempts on the intro. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Jayjg: Your attempt is very good and concise. Thanks. (I made really minor changes of a word here and there) You are 100% correct that mentioning 4 times is not needed. Zeq 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramalaite: My suggestion is to write the effect on Palestinans that woukld include the negative and the postive (calm have allow reduced checkpoints. Checkpoints were and still are the major issue hurting Palestinian economy and thus removal of checkpoint is very positive) The negative I would suggest to write without too much dramtizations such as "30 minutes" "most fertile" etc... There are palestinian farmers who need to wait at gates, manned by the Israeli army, before they can gain access to their fields. That is a fact . The drama about "most fertile" or "not so fertile" does not add much. Zeq 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't pick and choose what I like and don't like. Palestinian sources (and the UN) say that one of the major problems with the barrier is that it cuts off Palestinian-owned farmland, some of which is the most fertile in the West Bank. This is not drama. I honestly don't understand your objection to it. It is (according to sources) a legitimate Palestinian complaint about the barrier. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ramallite, serious question, not related to text of this article:

Few days ago I was in Qalandyia (not to confuse with Qalaqiliya) . I saw in one hour hundreds/thousands of Palestinians from Rammala crossing the checkpoint into east Jerusalem. Is any of my observation is wrong. can you explain  ? Thanks. Zeq 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know they were from Ramallah? They may have been visiting Ramallah and going to home to Jerusalem. Anyway, yes, your observation is wrong, because Qalandia is not the entrance to Jerusalem. The entrance is at Al-Ram checkpoint further south. Again, page 2 of that report talks about the barrier blocking entry to Jerusalem for anybody without an Israeli ID (or a permit which is almost impossible to get, I've tried). Our OR is not something to debate over on this page, but if you want an answer to your question: Go to Al-Ram checkpoint further south, or to Abu Dis, or the Bethlehem checkpoint on the barrier. See how many Palestinians (West Bankers) are crossing. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. How do I know they were from Ramalla ? I asked them. From that Checkpoint some continued to Jerusalem, some to Beit-lehem (via Abu Dis where there are sometimes checkpoints (on days of security alerts) but sometimes it is open (to all). I will take your suggestion and checkout the A-ram as soon as I can. Thanks. Zeq 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

according this this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901851.html Qalandiya is between Ramalla and Jerusalem. Last week many crossed in the short time I was there (this is OR so It is not used in the article). Zeq 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed on the highway between Ramallah and Jerusalem, but is not the checkpoint that is considered the entrance to Jerusalem. Palestinians can cross on foot through Qalandia checkpoint, but cannot use their cars except with special permits that are hard to get, then they must turn left to go towards Pisgat Ze'ev and find highways that link them to other parts of the West Bank that don't go to Jerusalem. You are probably talking about people crossing on foot, which even I can do usually (with the usual humiliation of course). The checkpoint that is considered by the IDF to be the entrance to Jerusalem is further south at Al-Ram, and you won't find any West Bank Palestinians crossing there, either by car or on foot, except those special rare cases in which they were able to get a permit (usually older people). If you see the line of cars there, they are all yellow-plate. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that "even you " can cross there. From there it is possible to get to beitlehem. Also there is a different exit from Ramalla (Sudra) that I understand cars can exit. But the point is that all this has NOTHING to do with the wall. The A-ram Checkpoint have been there way before the wall. But this is not the place for all this OR. anyhow I glad that you can cross intro (parts of what is considered by some) "east Jerusalem" Zeq 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody considers the Qalandia area part of East Jerusalem. The whole point of this discussion is the UN report about the effect of the wall on preventing Ramallah and Bethlehem residents entering Jerusalem being true. Of course Al-Ram has been there way before the wall, but before the wall we didn't need to use Al-Ram, one could sneak in from any side street or building or field. Now, when you cross the Qalandia checkpoint, you haven't crossed the wall, and cannot go towards Jerusalem. It is you who has a great sense of humor, soon you will be calling Jenin "part of East Jerusalem"!!! If you'd like to discuss this further, please do so on my talk page. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 15:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that you are correct. In fact I am quite sute you are not. Once crossing Qaalandyia one can travel without restrictions to Ataror air port which is Jerusalem airport and is inside the city limits. While I may not favor the borders of the city of Jerusalem (I wish it was split to two cities) it is now one city and once crossing qalandyia one can get to parts of the city.

You totally mis my political viwes BTW, but this is not for this discussion. In an nut shell I would tell you that i will be very glad to see an indpendent Palestine on 100% (or 95%) of the west bank. Zeq 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Palestinians are gertting into Israel

It is very hard to find data in english about this subject.

The simple reason is: It does not intrest anyone but Israelis.

There is pleantty of Hebrew data http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%99+%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

or better yet:

http://www.google.co.il/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%99+%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D

They come for many reasons: Looking for work, smuggling, looking to to get married and gain Israeli citizenship,some gays are running away from treatment in the Palestinians areas to a more tollerent Israeli society.

One of the major reason they cross is for theft: Palestinians from the west bank are involved in 40%-80% of cars theft in israel . Some come to preform terror acts.

So I am not sure we should include all that info so I just removed the word "work" and left the sentnce as :

"gain access into Israel"

BTW, it is estimated that there are 100,000 - 150,000 Palestinians who ilegaly live inside Israel.

I presonally know many who either hope for or already marry Palestinians who have Israli arabs (alestinians who have Israeli ID) to get israeli premanenet resident status. I would estimate that this is the main reasons for getting into Israel not for terror. As Israeli residency give very nice social security benefits not avaiable to Palestinias.

Zeq 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

according to this old data http://www.ishitech.co.il/1003ar4.htm the Palestinians who cross legaly into Israel come for several reasons:

"Among Israel's f security issues is its need to seal its borders against terrorism while allowing Palestinians to enter and exit Israel in order to conduct their business, visit families, and work in Israel."

[edit] "Names of the barrier" section

I made a few edits in this section. Originally my explanation was all going to be in the edit summary but it got too long (as is this page, I am noticing.) I made some statements that were too "sweeping" less so. I put the sentence about Israel's names for the wall into active voice to parallel the sentence about the Palestinian names. In the last sentence, about international names for the wall, I took out the word "inconsistent" and replaced it with "various" (and other minor rewording to accommodate that change. The different names aren't necessarily "inconsistent," they are just different. This also runs into a larger point, which is that the whole idea that the "name" of the barrier is a serious issue, is itself a POV. However, I know there is no point in trying to delete this section (or in doing anything significant about the other article that is entirely about one of the alleged, so-called, ridiculous, "names" for the wall) so I have done these small edits to make it a little less POV. 6SJ7 00:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

A few weeks ago, I listed a number of problems with the article here after my attempts to reason were not interpreted in good faith. I was hoping other editors would look into it but nobody has, and I'm afraid any attempt by me to even add a comma will get reverted. Therefore, based on the list, I am adding a cleanup tag to the top of the article for the time being. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to clean it up would be to eliminate the article entirely, along with satellite articles comparing the barrier to pre-Mandela South Africa. All Wikipedia really needs is 1 or 2 sentences in the Israel article, that say Israel has constructed a barrier to keep out terrorists, and that part of the barrier takes in some disputed territories on the West Bank in order to enhance its protective features. Of course I will not do that since it would be labeled "POV," which I suppose it is, but it also is true. I don't see this kind of attention paid to border-control measures by other nations. 6SJ7 21:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to my thesaurus some synonyms for "enclyclopedic" are "knowing, all-knowing, comprehensive, omniscient, wise". Let's try and produce something comprehensive and leave governments to promote their own viewpoints. They have the resources and don't need our help. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 11:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hilary Clinton is nobody and does not deserve to be quoted on this page. ---Zero 11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are weslome to voice any opinion on her in any approriate page as long as it is properly source. This article is about the barrier not on her. (unsigned by User:Zeq)

Great logic! My friend Frank has some really interesting opinions on this barrier thing. I'll add some of them tomorrow now that I have the perfect reply when you object. --Zero 12:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checkpoints

There are two types of Checkpoints: 1. so-called "deep" checkpoints, inside the west bank. These are checkpoints such as beit Ibba, Hawarra etc.. These checkpoints have nothing to do with the barrier. These are internal to the west bank. (my own personal view is that they are there mainly for settlers security and I wish israel would remove these checkpoints) 2. "barrier" checkpoints: In effect these are border crossing into Israel from the west bank. In effect anyone that crossed them can get anywhere inside Israel. These are the checkpoint near Tul Karem, near Klakliyia etc...

MachsomWatch focus on the first part although they sometimes monitor the otherones as well. They make no distiction between them so their reports in general are not relevant to the article. if they would seprate the reports to two parts in one of them covering only the barrier gates/checkpoints this will be appropriate to this article. (unsigned by User:Zeq)

You are wrong. Many of the checkpoints monitored by MW daily are in the barrier or barrier-under-construction. There is MUCH more relevant factual data in those reports than in that ridiculous blog you want to link to. --Zero 12:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"That blog" is not the least bit ridiculous. A bit too smooth perhaps for my taste, but it is nevertheless fully consistent with my own reserve duty, which I have had the very great "pleasure" of doing several weeks per year, and no, I don't visit from the USA to do it. I live here. Does it give a specific POV that PA residents on the other side would (and do) vehemently dispute? Of course it does. But it is still a very important, and not-enough-heard POV. But that is the whole point of these external links: to provide examples and real-life backup for the various POV's represented in the article. Want to provide counter-examples of the daily torture that these crossing points create from the POV of PA residents? Go ahead. That is what Wikipedia is for. The effort to remove that link smacks of a fear to truly represent all viewpoints. By the way, I rarely if ever get involved in all the political nonsense at WP, in fact this is the more or less the first time and I probably won't be doing it much again. But since it is a real part of my life I thought I would just this once. Dovi 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Be specific. Which checkpoint they monitor are barrier checkpoints ? You are diminishing their work. They are against the internal checkpoints. By claiming the checkpoint these noble women monitor are barrier checkpoints you are justfying the exitance of such checkpoints as "gateway to israel"........ Zeq 12:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The ones I have been to are Bethlehem, Abu Dis, Ar-Ram, Qalandiya. I also know of Jubara. I'll give you a full list tomorrow. --Zero I received this list: Jalame, Rihan, Shaked, Sha'ar Efrayim, Qalandiya, Abu Dis, Bethlehem, Sansane. Of course they also monitor many internal checkpoints. They would monitor all of the checkpoints of every type if they had the resources. --Zero 22:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map - Ariel Bloc

I haven't read the entire discussion and am actually hesitant to edit the article, considering it's already one big POV war, but the map on the page is incorrect - the fence around the Ariel bloc has not been approved (or completed). Here is a more detailed/accurate map: [22] - I'd post it, but not sure of the copyright status (although the map has been cited in several websites I've seen). -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 06:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I also noticed that it says in this article that under 5% of the barrier is a wall, but in Apartheid wall, it says 7%. -- Ynhockey || [[User talk:Ynhockey|Talk]] 07:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Parts of the Ariel detour are actually under construction. The other parts were approved then came into doubt due to Supreme Court decisions. Afaik, just now it is approved in principle but final approval hasn't been given. The map on this page is too small to properly show the different degrees of approval. There is a more recent and detailed map than the one you found, here. As for 5% versus 7%, this is a difficult statistic to determine. It keeps changing, so numbers you find around the web are likely to be out of date. In the past couple of years, the increase in concrete walls in the Jerusalem vacinity probably means that the percentage has increased. Probably. --Zero 09:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What it's called

As per most recent edits:

• I don't think it's original research to point out what lengths of the barrier are fence vs. wall - it's a simple statement of fact
• There is a whole section on the name in the article itself. --Leifern 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those comments in principle, however "less than 5%" being inserted is most probably wrong. --Zero 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in "Palestinian Opinions"

I am restoring the original (though not perfect) version for the following reasons:

1. "are essentially unanimous" was changed to "generally" based on points introduced further down in the section (which have also now been reverted, see following points). None of those quotations, had they been proper, provide evidence that the barrier is 'not opposed' by those claimed to have made these statements. They merely cite opinions of why the barrier was built. Further deductions is an example of original research.
2. "However, some Palestinians believe that the primary factor driving the barrier's creation is high incidence of Palestinian terrorism not Israeli political or territorial aims." Again, assuming the quotations are correct, they are merely arguing the first part of this sentence, not the second part about Israeli political or territorial aims". In fact, at least the first quotation (the Palestinian author Tawfiq Abu-Bakr)) has been known to write articles in Palestinian newspapers criticizing the militarization of the Intifada precisely because it gave Israel an excuse to impose conditions that favored its territorial ambitions.
3. The three quotations: these appear verbatim in a small number of websites that I googled, either from a right-wing powerpoint presentation or a right-wing rally leaflet. This alone shows that these quotations are unverifiable. The 2nd and 3rd quotes are not from Palestinians, so they are irrelevant to the section. The first quotation I looked for extensively in English and Arabic, but could not find it anywhere (or anything close to it). Abu Bakr was highly critical of Palestinians using armed violence as well as the PA's failure to impose reform and crack down on internal strife. So it is possible that he blamed Palestinian incompetence as the reason for giving Israel an excuse to build a wall. However, lacking an actual verifiable source, there is no way to tell. He regularly published columns in the Palestinian press, I doubt (but don't rule out) that such a phrase (which had he actually said it, is almost certainly taken out of context of a wider quotation) would be published in a Jordanian newspaper, it would probably be censored there. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ramallite. These additions did not make any sense. Zeq 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your well written reasoning and for pointing out that better verification is needed. I agree and appreciate being corrected. However, "Palestinian Opinion" is not limited to "Palestinian opinion is that it supports the barrier" or "Palestinian opinion is that it opposes the barrier." This is too simplistic and does not include all opinions. Opinions are more complex and should be described as such -- with verification. For instance, the text could read "Some Palestinians have the opinion that the construction of the barrier by Israel is primarily motivated by land grabs, political posturing, etc. {Insert supporting verification here.} However, some Palestinians have the opinion that the construction of the barrier by Israel is primarily motivated by security in response to the high level of sniping and bombings post-2000. {Insert supporting verification here.}" This would be very relevant in a section on "Palestinian Opinion". In fact, much of the text on the page is devoted to "Some Palestinian opinion is that Israel is primarily motivated by land grabs, etc., and not security" so putting the full information here is just a better way of organizing it. Off to get better citations... -HelpfulAuthor20060103, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If indeed you can find verifiable quotations by Palestinian representatives (not to be confused with non-Palestinian Arabs) that suggest that security was the primary motivation, then yes, addition of such material would be appropriate. The reason the text is as it is (although it was written before I came to WP) is because any search for Palestinian opinion about the wall, from any official or non-governmental Palestinian organization, shows strong opposition in varying degrees (from calling it a land grab to calling it an Apartheid Wall). Although some sources may concede that protection against bombings is legitimate, these sources claim that the current route of the wall indicates that "defense" is a pretext rather than an actual reason. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is an oversimplification because it's not just a matter of "oppose vs. support". People don't just grunt in single words. They have more to say and the actual complexity can be described. It is consistent to simultaneously have the opinions (1) to oppose the existence, (2) that decision to construct was primarily motivated by security, (3) that the subsequent decisions concerning route were motiviated by land grab, etc. As you suggest, some sources do claim that protection against bombings is legitimate and I have read/heard sources (e.g., previous quotes) who have this opinion with regard to the wall. To be NPOV these opinions should be represented in the article where they, now, are not. Off to get better citations... -HelpfulAuthor20060103, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in "Effects on Palestinians"

Reorganized into categories for more structured presentation of the effects. "The barrier generally runs..." sentence moved to the section on the route. "Many Palestinian..." introductory sentence removed because no citation and very little information conveyed in long article. Section on the effect "barrier reduces ability to conduct terror and (possibly) increase participation in political process" added with citations; this is an important effect on Palestinians that was missing. -SeattliteTungsten 12 Jan 2006

A couple of notes:

1. "Reduced Ability to Conduct Terrorism - this is a rather POV title, since the section is titled "Effects on Palestinians" and each point should show a general effect. This title, made as a point under this section, makes it seem like 'conducting terrorism' is a general Palestinian past-time. Furthermore, Hamas does not abide by the PLO charter you referred to, and the reduced terror is actually an effect on Israelis, not on Palestinians, and therefore would be more appropriate in the section 'Effect of Israelis". If you want security effects on Palestinians, it should be noted that Israeli attacks on Palestinians have not decreased as a result of the barrier.
2. The last segment (Economic impact) has a sentence that now seems out of context, it states "most of the city's well" although there is no mention of any city, because this sentence was separated from the one before it that refers specifically to Qalqilya.

Ramallite ^(talk) 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"title rather POV": this doesn't seem POV to me according to the POV descriptions but I changed it to "Partial Elimination of Terrorism as a Political Tool". This description seems very factual because they (Hamas, Al-Aqsa, etc.) do use terrorism as a political tool. Sadly, the PLO charter says that armed struggle is not only one of a number of possible tools but that it is "the strategy, not merely a tactical phase".

"makes it seem like 'conducting terrorism' is a general Palestinian past-time": the text doesn't say that Palestinians in general use terrorism as a political tool but that specific Palestinian groups use terrorism as a political tool. It is reasonable to discuss the effects of the barrier on major Palestinian groups in the section "Effects on Palestinians" even when the effect is not on every Palestinian. The groups cited, Al-Aqsa/Fatah (Al-Aqsa is "closely linked to the Fatah party") and Hamas, represent significant fraction of elected officials -- perhaps about 75% but I don't have the exact numbers in front of me.

"Hamas does not abide by the PLO charter": I changed the wording so that the citation is only for Al-Aqsa while Hamas and Islamic Jihad have their own citation from Amnesty International.

"reduced terror is actually an effect on Israelis [and should go in the other section]": reduced terror has an effect on Israelis but reduced ability to use terror as a political tool also has an effect on Palestinians. The effect is that they change strategy and tactics, according to the citation from the Washington Post. The seems reasonable to me, not that my opinion counts. No matter what you think about terror as political tool, if the ability to use it is reduced then other tools will probably be used more. This isn't original research and is cited in WaPo. We cannot know whether "barrier" -> "reduced terrorism" -> "more electoral participation" is truly a causal relationship but some people think it is and therefore it is included. This is an effect on Palestinian groups and is, therefore, included in the section on Palestinians. (A single event, "barrier" or "reduced terror", can have multiple effects. If one effect is on Israelis and another effect is on Palestinians, these should be noted in each respective section.)

"Israeli attacks on Palestinians have not decreased as a result of the barrier": some of the text in this section (not written by me) suggests that the barrier does result in decreased Israeli attacks on Palestinians. If you have other evidence that the attacks have not decreased, feel free to list this with an appropriate citation.

"sentence that now seems out of context": I moved this to "loss of land" since "loss of water" is reasonably grouped with "loss of land".

Thanks for the comments! We have a better page now. -SeattliteTungsten 13 Jan 2006

[edit] Map

What happened to the map of the barrier route? It seems fairly important to this article. Gregor Samsa 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User Zeq removed it, see his edit summary. You could try reinserting it but adjusting the caption to read "approved and proposed route" to address his concerns, especially if you can cite it. Ramallite ^{(talk)&lt;/small>} 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a more recent detailed map suggested by an editor: [23]. Someone else suggested a map put out by the Israeli government (this one is older): [24]. They are far more detailed than is necessary for our purposes. I think the old, simple map was fine, but I'm not particular. Some sort of map is necessary. Gregor Samsa 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology (again…)

Hm, I do realize that this has come up and been debated and subsequently defeated, but still: I feel that using the terms Bantustan and Apartheid wall for rhetoric/polemic effect conveys more personal opinions than the curious reader will likely want to know when seeking info on the West Bank. Allow the reader the option of deciding for him or herself. Apartheid wall may or may not be an apt comparison, but in any event it is a metophorical and anachronistic reference to a set of laws formerly in effect on an entirely different continent. How about just saying discriminatory and using the more (politically) correct enclaves or gerrymandered cantons when defining and describing encyclopedically to the reader what this structure is and does. The spirit of the NPOV ideals is about steering clear of unnecessary use of satirical or epical wording, right? //Big Adamsky 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

Zero is attempting to insert into this article his POV that israel does not fiollow the 4th Geneva convention. This is not true and his attempt to present the supreme court versdict as such is misleading . Pleaseread the verdict. Zeq 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, when you don't understand something I write, you can ask on the Talk page and I will explain it. Your reverting is a real pain. The Israeli government argues that the 4th Geneva Convention does not apply to the OT. It has hardly any choice, since 4GC plainly makes all the settlements illegal. "Israel's position is that the Convention is only applicable to territory of a High Contracting Party. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza were previously under the control of a legitimate sovereign hence the nonapplicability of the Convention. Nevertheless, Israel has undertaken to act de facto in accordance with the humanitarian provisions of the Convention." [25] So, the govt position is "it isn't legally required but because we are such nice people we voluntary apply the humanitarian parts of the 4GC" (i.e. a fraction of the full 4GC). The Supreme Court at least 6 times has cited this "voluntarily agreement" to avoid having to rule on whether the 4GC applies by force of law. The Supreme Court has been doing this since the 1970s. You can read the 2005 decision where this is written more clearly than in the 2004 decision: "seeing as the government of Israel accepts that the humanitarian aspects of The Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the area, we are not of the opinion that we must take a stand on that issue [whether the 4GC binds by law] in the petition before us." --Zero 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Zero, Why don't you read the court decision, they specifically say which part of the petition are relevant and apply to the case. It sais in plain english (or if you want me to look up the original in Hebrew) in any case this is a verdict about the wall not about the settlments. BTW, the court have several times rulled about the settlments, last time it was when it allowed the Gaza evcuation to go through. Zeq 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the important legal point here is that the Court does not make a decision about the general applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention because the parties agree that it applies to the issue under review, leaving intact the precedent that the Convention is not justiciable. --Ian Pitchford 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that it is only the "humanitarian aspects" of the 4GC that are agreed by all parties to apply. As far as I know, it has never been spelt out which parts of 4GC constitute the "humanitarian aspects". This formula works very well. In court cases like these two, the government can make just enough of a concession that the court can avoid ruling on the real legal issue, but on other issues (such as the settlements) the government can still claim that 4GC doesn't apply. This is a very important part of the legal administration of the OT and one way or another it has to go into this article (and maybe one or two others). --Zero 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The real issue, be it the legality of the settlements or the legality of Israel presence in the wesy bank are political issues that are not part of the barrier issue. The ICJ has taken a position on it, a political one not a legal one and we covered their poistion in the article. We covered the relevant aspects of the supreme court rulling as well. Have we missed anything of relevance to this article  ? Zeq 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effects on Israeli Security

"Opponents of the barrier claim that the barrier will not improve Israeli security in the long run..." paragraph modified and appended:

• it is an overgeneralization, and possibly original research, to lump "opponents of the barrier" with "people who believe it will not improve Israeli security in the long run". Many people are opponents of the barrier for humanitarian/legal reasons still believe it will improve Israeli security in the long-run -- it's just not the best way to do this.
• added position, with citation, that long-term security will improve in addition to position that long-term security will not improve.
• changed verbs (for both sides) to "speculate" because it is important to recognize that things about the future are not known. It's hard enough to write an encyclopedic article about real things that have already occurred (!) so let's emphasize that future things which have not yet occured are speculation. Still, the speculation is interesting and relevant.

-SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

[edit] Effects and Consequences

• reverted "long-term effects are not clear" to "future effects are not known". Certainly, we can all stipulate that the future is not known and then offer different speculations about how the future will be. This is more accurate than "not clear".
• moved recent additions about changing demography and asset prices into new subsection "Effects on Demography and Asset Values" since these points are not about Israeli Security and seemed out of place in "Effects on Israeli Security" header.

-SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

[edit] Changes to Introduction

• detailed text about exact route and deviations moved to "Route" section -- no need for such detail in introduction
• similar word counts devoted to brief summary of supporters (50 words) and opponents (75 words); previously was 3x words for opponents which did not seem NPOV.
• flow seems good now and brief: what it is, by who, constructed how, picture/map, acknowledge controversy, brief summary of supporters, brief summary of opponents, reference to similar Gaza barrier. -SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-13

[edit] Article Too Long?

This article is long: it's been over 59Kb for a while. Any ideas for splitting it up? One idea would be to put Israel Supreme Court, UN, ICJ text into an article like "Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Issues and Rulings" or something like this. If there were about five sentences in the main article with a link to the new article, I feel this could be an adequate summary and people could follow the link for the current level of detail. Other suggestions? -SeattliteTungsten 2006-01-15

[edit] Route and Route Timeline

Zeq, thanks for the edits and new info looks good. I moved the "681 km" fact to the "Feb 2005" section. I also replaced "Current Status" with "As of January 2006," because this retains the same format as the other timeline pieces. The label "Current Status" will become out of date but "As of January 2006," will continue to be correct and when there are worthwhile changes to post, e.g., in June, we can add a paragraph, "As of June 2006," -SeattliteTungsten 21:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDP Timeline

Why does a chart of the West Bank GDP Growth using numbers from the CIA World Factbook violate WP:NOR? I have read this policy and do not understand why this would be a problem because there is no original number, date, fact, etc. Maybe there is something I don't understand about images. What about having a numerical table that said, "2000: x, 2001: y, 2002:, z" etc. with "source: CIA World Factbook"? The original research seemed to be the existing "the barrier has resulted in significant economic losses for the Palestinian economy" which was both uncited and unsupported, e.g., who said this? what were the losses, when did they occur, how significant were they, etc. I tried to get the numbers for these questions. -SeattliteTungsten 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically you had introduced arrows on the chart pointing to barrier construction dates and correlating them with GDP, which is something you did on your own. If another reputable source had done it first, you could cite these numbers correlating the two (and maybe insert that figure if it was not copyrighted). But since it looks like your own deductions (regardless of their being correct), it would be original research since you took two existing facts but correlated them to each other in a novel manner. While we are on this topic, there are some other small problems with your entry:

1. "The PNA Ministry of Finance reports that a cause of this economic decline is the construction of the separation wall". No, it is a number of Israeli measures, (including curfews, closures, and the wall). It is not just the wall as you claim. Your source does not support your claim that "wall=economic loss", it says that the wall was one of many factors.
2. The economic loss factor is cited in Palestinian publications as well as UN Human Rights reports. The latest from last March states "Where the Barrier has been constructed, Palestinians face economic hardship from being restricted from or not being able to reach their land to harvest crops, graze animals or earn a living." [26]
3. "However, the CIA World Factbook reports that GDP growth in the West Bank during the period 2000-2004 declined before major construction of the barrier began" Again you have based this on a misinterpretation, i.e. you are using original research (the graph) to refute a claim that was never made in the first place. The claim is that a number of factors, including but not limited to the barrier, caused severe economic decline. The actual decline began before the barrier, but was perpetuated by it, according to the sources cited.
4. Your numbers cite gross GDP, whereas per capita GDP actually declined over the past year I believe.
5. Could you please provide a citation for your CIA Factbook figures?

Clearly this section needs further expansion, so if you find out more that would be useful that would be good. I'll probably take a look at it myself in the next couple of days as time permits. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not understanding this, but why is reporting existing facts on a sequenced timeline chart "original" whereas reporting existing facts sequenced as sentences in a paragraph okay? You are correct that I "did this on my own" but it is not research. It is reformatting and summarizing existing data just like the rest of Wikipedia. I assume it would be okay to say in a text paragraph, "In the West Bank, in 1999 GDP growth was 4.6%. In 2000, GDP growth was -7.5% and the Al-Aqsa Intifada began in September. In 2001, GDP growth was -35%. In 2002, GDP growth was -22% and the first parts of the barrier were completed in the fall. In 2003,..." with citations.

• "It is not just the wall as you claim." I do/did not claim it was just the wall. I summarized it as "a cause" which seems valid. Since this is a section about economic effects in an article about the barrier, it makes sense to summarize by stating the points that related to the topic/section.
• "economic loss factor is cited in Palestinian publications". It sounds relevant to add this fact and source.
• "[t]he actual decline began before the barrier, but was perpetuated by it" The data (modest positive GDP growth in 2003 and 2004) suggests that "decline" is not an accurate way to describe the economy after the barrier was started. However, this is a digression. The article should just state the facts and people can draw whatever conclusion they want. If we're talking about the economy of the West Bank, the GDP growth facts 1999:4.6%, 2000:-7.5%, 2001:-35.0%, 2002:-22.0%, 2003:6.0%, 2004:6.2% seem pretty relevant and I would like to add these back either in a table or chart format.
• "gross GDP" vs "per capita GDP": gross GDP is more common. We could cite both which would be better than simply removing the GDP statistics as you have done. Unless the population is growing faster than 6%, per capita GDP growth would be positive, too.
• "provide a citation for your CIA Factbook figures": the citation is "CIA Factbook". On the web, I have not found them all on the same place at once, but you should be able to gather most of them using www.archive.org on the CIA Factbook. Among other places they appear to be here, http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=we&v=66. I could get the page numbers from the hardbound copy.

Definitely, we need to add back the 1999:4.6%, 2000:-7.5%, 2001:-35.0%, 2002:-22.0%, 2003:6.0%, 2004:6.2% figures you removed. Would it be okay to include this in a bar chart or is text-only the only format that won't be accused of being "original research"? Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am merely following policy as I interpret it. There are sources that claim that the barrier either 1-damaged the economy of the areas where it was built, or 2- was a factor in the decline of the entire economy. There are separate sources that tell us the dates when the barrier was built. My disagreement with you is that you have taken these two separate facts, and produced an original concept or idea that "the barrier can not be blamed for a decline in the Palestinian economy". This is an example of "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas" as taken from the no original research policy page. Creating a novel figure to illustrate a sourced fact in and of itself is questionable under this policy (I'd welcome other comments). However, creating this figure and combining two separately sourced facts into a single image in order to arrive at a conclusion (whatever it may be) is original research as I interpret it. However, I am happy to defer to the opinions of others whose opinions you may want to consult. If you would like other administrators of varied personal opinions on the topic of the wall, I recommend Zero, Ian, Jayjg, and Tomer, although you are obviously welcome to ask whoever you choose.

My second gripe is still with your intent: If you now agree that the Palestinian source you cited does not claim that the bad economy is exclusively the fault of the barrier, then what is the purpose of the figure/CIA figures in the first place? Again, since nobody has exclusively tied the entire Palestinian economy to the wall per se, but to a series of Israeli measures that include the wall, your numbers seem to be addressing a non-issue, but maybe I'm mistaken. Perhaps the best course of action would be, as you suggest, expand the section and call it "Status of the Palestinian economy before and after the construction of the barrier" or something of the sort. As for the CIA worldbook, it would be much better to provide a citation (even if it is a page number), footnotes would probably be the best way to go about that. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is "Israel West Bank Barrier" and the section is "Economic Losses" so it makes sense that third-party data about the timeline of the IWWB and the economic losses should be included together in this section. This is not original research. The specific format, i.e., whether it is included together as a timeline or an English paragraph, seems immaterial. I think you are reading "conclusions" into the figure where none exist. The figure only says "here are the dates of GDP growth data, here are the dates of events". There is no conclusion. We should present the data, in the clearest format (sometimes "a picture is worth 1000 words"), and let the reader decide. Some readers, like you seem to, might conclude "the barrier cannot be blamed for a decline in the West Bank economy"; others might conclude "the barrier has a negative impact on the West Bank economy for the other reasons cited and GDP would have been even more positive in 2003 and 2004 had the barrier not been built." I don't know. The idea is... present all the facts and don't selectively delete them.

Two questions:

1. Would it be okay to present the timeline GDP data in a table?
2. Would it be okay to present the timeline GDP data in a bar chart without timeline data of the barrier construction?

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 22:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You and I are not in much of a disagreement. If you believe the economic condition of the West Bank as a whole during the Aqsa intifada years are relevant to this article, then go ahead and do the best you can as far as inserting text that is relevant. Alternatively, you can try to rely on sources that deal with the economy as directly affected by the IWWB, of which the UN link above has a number of case studies, and leave overall economy to other articles like Al-Aqsa Intifada. I repeat, my only concern with the above is the way you originally phrased your argument: You stated that the Palestinian Ministry of Finance considers the wall 'a' factor in the bad economy (mind that you used the words 'declining economy' whereas the MOF merely states that 'Economic activity in Palestine continued to suffer'), then you continue stating "However, the CIA World Factbook reports that GDP growth in the West Bank during the period 2000-2004 declined before major construction of the barrier began" which I believe you recognize now was inappropriate since, as I tried to explain above, using a word such as "however" indicated that you are refuting a claim that was actually never made (i.e. that the wall was the only reason for the bad economy, which was why I said it was OR), plus you included a chart to that effect. But you have since fixed the language. Three other point:

1. As far as your questions above, as long as you are aware of what is and is not OR, it is up to you. I believe it is 'safer' to just present a table as opposed to creating an excel graph insofar as being accused of original research by others.
2. If your goal is to clearly present the economic situation, then as a scientist (but admittedly not a statistician), I would much prefer to see actual GDP values per year as opposed to percentage changes. As I expected, Zeq has just edited the heading of this section to read "economic loss and gain" not realizing that the increased GDP percentage is a slight reversal of an otherwise bad GDP when compared to pre-wall/intifada levels. To paint a clear picture, actual values would be much more appreciated. According to the most recent press release by the PCBS, GDP actually declined in Q4 2005, although it was up overall for '05. The actual values are $1.015B (2003), $1.051B (2004), and $1.150B (2005). These numbers would need to be compared to 1999-2000 (before the intifada) and 2002-2003 (while the wall was going up, and it still is of course). Does the CIA factbook have these numbers? Furthermore, the World Bank and other organizations have published numerous studies on the economic suffering as well as the poverty rate, which has continued to decline significantly, and if GDP is relevant, then poverty rates etc would be relevant too. In any case, percentages don't necessarily tell the whole story, since somebody like Zeq will look at the chart you made and believe that the economy is gaining in '04 and '05. Which brings up one last point: What is the baseline? (the percentages would be in regard to what year? If it was 1999, then all the bars in your chart would be below the X axis, if I'm understanding it correctly). If annual GDP gain or loss is measured as a percentage against the preceding year, then a bar graph is not appropriate since it does not specify a baseline and a glance at the chart would make it look like 2004 and 2005 were more prosperous years than 1999-2000. However, a bar graph would be appropriate for GDP whole amounts.
3. I meant what I said about getting others' opinions, not because I'm challenging you (which I hope is not how you took it although your tone suggests that you might have), but to make sure that there is consensus about adding so much economic detail in this article as opposed to a more appropriate one. This way it will be harder to get reverted a month from now by an editor who stumbles across your entries and decides they are irrelevant.

Ramallite ^(talk) 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not in much disagreement and the common ground seems to be "present the facts, ensure citation, omit editorial words/phrases" which is the Wikipedia way. To address some of your points,

• relevance of "economic condition of the West Bank as a whole during the Aqsa intifada years": to present the relationship between one thing X ("the West Bank economy") and another thing Y ("barrier construction") it is relevant to contrast "X before Y" with "X after Y". There could be a long term trend up, down, or neutral so it is relevant to show whatever the trend was before, and then show what the trend was after. If you think it is POV to describe the West Bank economy before the security barrier (2000-2002) as "the Aqsa Intifada years", this could be left out and 2000-2002 could be described simply as "the years immediately preceding the barrier". (However, it's like having an elephant in the room and not talking about it. It would be like talking about the GDP of Zimbabwe over the last ten years and not mentioning HIV or talking about U.S. debt during the 1940s and not mentioning WWII.)

I don't think I made any reference to describing the West Bank economy before the segregation wall as "the Aqsa Intifada years" as being POV. I'm only concerned about the relevance of the economy of the West Bank during all the Intifada years to this article, which deals with a specific Israeli measure, as opposed to a more general article about the conflict (such as the Aqsa Intifada article). That's all. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Alternatively, you can try to rely on sources that deal with the economy as directly affected by the IWWB": the GDP data is really the best way of measuring the total effect on the whole economy. The other anecdotal points are good to include, too.

The GDP data is indeed the best way of measuring total effect on the whole economy. However, there are no sources that describe GDP decline being attributed solely to the wall. In other words, most sources describe the overall economy decline as being attributed to a series of Israeli restrictions. There is no data (as far as I know) that indicate GDP changes attributed only to the wall by itself (e.g. GDP decline in 200X was xx%, but if the barrier had not been constructed it would have been yy% instead). As an aside, most of the GDP data also include the Gaza Strip, which significantly skews the outcome. This is my reasoning for this comment ("Alternatively, you can try....."), which is that as far as the wall itself goes, it may be more proper to cite sources that describe the economic impact as directly affected by the wall but would not include GDP for the reasons I just stated. These are just concerns, not arguments against your edits. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• "'a' factor": I replaced the original wording "a cause" with "one cause". This is accurate. It never said "the only cause" or "the cause". It never said it was exclusive.
• I will change "economic decline" to "low economic activity" which more accurately summarizes the MoF memo.
• I will include the bar graph timeline of GDP without any other overlays; graphing six numbers from an authoritative source is not Original Research.
• "Real GDP Annual Growth" is the most common way GDP data is presented to show how an economy is changing at the macro level. This is year-over-year and adjusted for inflation. The dollar values are not typically used for two reasons. First, for presenting the change in the economy, the change (as a percent) is the relevant number. (If I said the French economy was $1.6tr would this be good or bad? Good if it was up 10% from the prior year but bad if it was down 10%.) Second, the dollar figures can be confusing if they are not adjusted for inflation. "Real Annual Growth" is always adjusted for inflation and is year-to-year. For example, take a look at the CIA Factbook page for France, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html. They report "GDP - real growth rate". This means year-to-year and adjusted for inflation. You could report "GDP - Real Growth Per Capita" but most populations grow between 0.5% and 3.0% and it doesn't change must from one year to another in a particular country so you can just subtract it out. "Real GDP Growth" is more common than "Real GDP Growth Per Capita".
• "somebody like Zeq will look at the chart you made and believe that the economy is gaining in '04 and '05": the economy was gaining in '04 and '05. This is a correct statement.

I mistyped. I meant "believe that the economy had recovered in '04 and '05. It certainly had not recovered (to pre-intifada levels, that is). Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• "what is the baseline?" It is year-to-year and adjusted for inflation. I will make sure it says "Annual Real". "Annual" means year-to-year and "real" means after inflation.
• a bar graph of growth is still an appropriate way of displaying this information. It does not mean that 2004 and 2005 are more prosperous than 1999 and 2000... this would be misreading the graph. The graph does not say this.

My concern with the bar graph (which I agree is not inappropriate) is that, to an untrained eye, looking at a bar graph that shows a negative bar for '01, '02, and '03, but a positive bar for '04 and '05 may be confusing and misleading. I would think that an XY scatter would be much more appropriate. Don't you? Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• "getting others' opinions": if you think you would like to get other opinions, feel free. I welcome this. In the meantime, it would be better not to delete my cited additions, outright. If you think the tone is not right, change it but don't delete the information. If you want to add more information, great!

Sorry, I usually don't like to delete outright - that one time was because of reasons I already described. My apologies. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

SeattliteTungsten 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SeattliteTungsten Changes, 22 Jan 2006

• I changed "Reduced ability to launch attacks in Israel" to "Change In Chosen Political Tactics and Strategy" to emphasize that "reduced attacks" is the effect on Israelis but "change in political strategy" is the effect on Palestinians (in this paragraph). It is a subtle point but I believe it more accurately conveys the change conveyed here.
• reverted "suicide attacks" to "terrorist attacks" to include non-suicide bombs and snipers. Sniper deaths were a large fraction of the deaths that were lowered after the barrier was constructed. It's not only suicide bombers.
• added Real GDP Growth image back in more simplified form per SeattliteTungsten/Ramallite discussions above.

SeattliteTungsten 09:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still confused: Where is there evidence that the wall led to "change in chosen political strategy"? As I commented in the article itself (hidden text), the citation you provided by Daniel Ayalon does not actually state this. Other sources may exist, but I'm not sure any of them attribute "political strategy" to the barrier. It is mostly attributed to Abu Mazen's negotiations with all factions in early 2005 to convince them all to run.
• "Sniper deaths were a large fraction of the deaths that were lowered after the barrier was constructed." Not a big point, but most sniper attacks occurred against settlers and soldiers inside the West Bank, and not from the West Bank into Israel. Plus your sources mostly refer to suicide bombings.
• You didn't respond to my question of whether an XY scatter graph is more appropriate than a bar graph. I think it is and that's how I've seen it presented in other publications.

Ramallite ^(talk) 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• The article by the ambassador discusses this in the paragraph "it can save the political process..." If you want to change "electoral process" to "political process" to match the words exactly, that would be okay. This got moved around a bit between your edits and my edits. I think it's okay as it stands but maybe could be expanded.

Yes, the ambassador seemed to be saying that reducing violence would enable restarting the political process. It is very difficult to see how "it has been suggested that the participation of Hamas in the electoral process is a result of their reduced ability to conduct terrorist attacks" can be deducted from his words. In fact, he probably meant that putting down Hamas would enable the process to resume. Actual evidence suggests that this whole section may be OR, because we don't know if Hamas 'chose' to stop attacks or was merely 'unable to' - certainly those who want to have been able to do so. Hamas committed to a 'quiet period' in 2005, before which it hadn't really stopped attacking, so their 'choice' to participate in elections was actually (according to sources) because of discussions in Cairo with Abbas following the latter's summit with Sharon. There is absolutely nothing I can find that ties the wall to Hamas' decision to participate in elections, and definitely not Ayalon's words.

• Snipers: the cited source refers to snipers and has a picture of how the wall prevents this. The most general statement is that the wall prevents many types of attacks against civilians, including suicide bombings, snipers, bombs, etc. It is less accurate to refer to these as only "suicide bombings" when this is only one type of attack. "Terrorist attacks" includes all types of attacks.
• XY Scatter: I'm not sure what you mean. Is it this? (See image.) A line graph and bar graph are pretty similar. Time series data that was XY scatter would typically be connected by a line. Maybe it's just me (I have a graduate degree with a focus in finance) but I think it's pretty clear representation. You seem to think it's unclear but, forgive me if I'm wrong, maybe this is because data of GDP growth (increasing GDP) after the barrier is contrary to what you expected. The bar graph for annual real GDP growth is pretty standard, in my experience. If you think this is still a problem, please provide more detail about what is problematic and how it should be solved. (It could be me- I just don't understand.)

I realize now that this is how GDP growth is presented. From a scientist's perspective, I can't look at a graph without knowing the control, which instinctively would be a reference point. If the hypothesis is that economic output was higher before the intifada, then the data would show output 'after' compared to output 'before' (the control) and a graph would look like a downhill slope below the x axis (negative y) then a slight upturn but still a negative y. I still think that there is some OR pushing here, unless there is sourced evidence to suggest a correlation between the slight upturn in GDP and the wall. The phrase "it increased annually by 6.0% and 6.2%, respectively, in 2003 and 2004 (see Figure 1) when significant portions of the barrier were completed" implies direct linkage and causation that has not been made elsewhere that I can find.

• A problem with the GDP figures you added (and I changed from 2003 to 2002) is that it is not clear whether the dollar amounts are nominal/current or inflation adjusted. This is one of the problems with using these numbers. (By contrast, "real annual GDP growth" is always year-on-year and real/adjusted-for-inflation not nominal/current.) Inflation in dollars was approximately 3%/year then so the comparison could be off by 9% depending on whether they are inflation-adjusted or not.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why you changed the most recent numbers (2003) to 2002, pretty random unless you are trying to push the position in the point above. Thanks for the clarification about using actual numbers, I will add a footnote to that effect.

• Thanks for editing out the POV stuff added by Zeq. There could be one point in there like "the barrier has created alliances between Palestinians who oppose the barrier and settlers who oppose the barrier" but it would need more support, e.g., what alliances, which groups of Palestinians/settlers, how, when, etc.

SeattliteTungsten 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So I have made a few changes based on my comments, see what you think. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I'd say we are nearly there.

• I changed the Ayalon quote to more closely reflect what he said (same words, phrases, etc.)
• including PS MFA text about things not related to the barrier and the economy is out of context in this article; I deleted this; it can go on another page where it would be appropriate information; (Ramallite, you seem to feel strongly that "one reason" has a different meaning from "one reason among many" so you can add back "among many" if you want.)
• if the real GDP growth diagram is staying, no need to include data again in the text. (Perhaps, the exact numbers could be included in the Figure caption)
• too bad you took out the "Hamas participates in election" clause following the quote about "political process" by Ayalon. I think an "election" is the quintessential embodiment of "political process" but maybe that's just my POV so I will only add it back if I find a reference explicitly linking these.

SeattliteTungsten 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting on linkage: "declined substantially in 2000, 2001, and 2002, before the barrier was started, real GDP growth increased modestly in 2003 and 2004 (see Figure 1) after about a third of the barrier had been completed. " I thought my wording was more neutral because there was not 'after' or any other linking word, didn't you? Where are you getting this linkage from (source)? And more importantly, how is it possible to say that "about a third of the barrier had been completed in 2003 and 2004" unless that third was actually done by the end of 2002? Is this just a language disagreement we are having or are you insisting on insinuating linkage that is unsourced and trying to refute an argument that nobody is making? This is just making less sense to me. The GDP/economy and all of that is a much much bigger issue than just the effect of the barrier; the barrier was actually last on the list of reasons of that press release you quoted, yet this is the only article on Wikipedia to have a graph of the Palestinian GDP and a direct linkage between GDP and barrier construction, when linkage between economy and curfews, closures, and inability to travel are much more important factors than the barrier itself (according to all sources, except of course for those whose farmlands are cut off). That is why I added those other factors, because if all this text about GDP and economy was staying based on the contents of a press release, then I felt the context was misleading. Could you please readdress my concern that you insist on creating a linkage between GDP and the barrier. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I don't object to the Hamas quote in and of itself, but there is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ties Hamas' decision to participate in elections and the construction of the barrier. That statement had less place in this article than the "curfews, closures, etc" words that you took out.... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence to state just the facts. It is OR, in my opinion, to try to attribute GDP decline to the lack of a wall, and then GDP improvement to the building of the wall, as the words 'before' and 'after' implied. This is true especially as nobody had made the argument that the wall was solely responsible for a decline in the economy. You were citing a statement that talks about "curfews, closures, incursions, and the wall", so a response would be a timeline of all four factors, not just one of them (and the economically least significant of them at that). That goes back to my original concerns above, that all this talk of citing GDP may be beyond the scope of this article. Furthermore, strictly on a language basis, it doesn't make sense to say a third of the barrier "had been completed" in 2003 and 2004. A third of the barrier was not yet in existence in 2003 and 2004, but finally was in early 2005 (in which, incidentally, GDP is projected to have declined again I think). Ramallite ^(talk) 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ramallite,

• I think your changes to the "economic effects" sections are good and make sense;

Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• "about a third" was your addition so I am not prepared to address this point;

It was taken from elsewhere in the same article "As of January 2006, approximately 31% has been constructed;" and I actually just realized it is 2006 not 2005 [27]. I thought this was better than "significant portions" because what constitutes a "significant portion"? Stating the facts without editorializing on their 'significance' is better, I thought. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• the linkage between the economy and the barrier is introduced by the PNA MoF;

Right, but along with closures, curfews, and incursions. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• one of my intentions is to make sure that any implication or statements that the barrier either "damaged the economy" or "was a factor in the decline of the entire economy" (your words) is addressed by providing GDP growth numbers so that people can see another POV about whether the economy was "damaged" or was in "decline". In my opinion, it is difficult (although possible) to call positive GDP growth "damaged" and completely unrealistic to call it a "decline" but that's just my POV.

Two things here. First, if a stabbing victim also has a mosquito bite, it's a bit far-fetched to treat the mosquito bite and then state that his condition is improved as a result. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to have positive GDP growth in a certain quarter or year, but to have the overall economy far below levels that it was at 5 years ago (as is the case here) and/or far below it's potential (as is also the case here). Citing YTY GDP growth de novo, out of context, is a misleading way to evaluate overall economy. Second, and bringing me back to my original argument again: the PNA MoF cited 4 factors as reasons for the suppressed economy. You took one of those four and tried to argue that it may have had the opposite effect. From both a scientific POV and a common sense POV, this logic would be flawed because the other three reasons are not factored in to the graph you made. In other words, how do we know that the positive growth in 2004 was not due to lessened curfews (as was the case?) Could it be that closures were eased in 2004 (which was also the case in many areas)? When the PNA talked about a suppressed economy, was it just GDP? They didn't say "GDP growth" but "suffering economy", which would also include things like unemployment, inflation, per capita GDP, poverty rate, etc. I understand and appreciate your attempt to show the opposing POV here, but an opposing POV to "four factors together are responsible for a suppressed economy" is not to take one factor only and then use an out-of-context GDP growth chart (when actual GDP amount is a fraction of the previous years). I'm not arguing for any changes in that section, it's fine, but I'm just responding to your comments here. I know that as a scientist, you can appreciate what I'm trying to convey here. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ramallite. I'm not quite following you but "real GDP growth" is certainly in the context of "economic effects [of the barrier]" and "economic activity in 2004". If you don't think it's in context, maybe you could add some more context you feel is better. If you are no longer arguing for any changes in this section, seems like we're all set. SeattliteTungsten 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we've beaten this topic up enough, I was just feeling bad because I felt you seemed to disagree with the final version in your points above, although I don't think anybody stated that 'economic activity in 2004 was declining'; what was stated is that 'the economy continued to suffer' (which is true compared to pre-intifada levels). Anyhow, it's okay as far as I'm concerned :) My next gripe with this article (not with the section) is the recent Halevy quotation, which is extremely POV (although yes I understand it is an opinion) but now I have to balance it with another quotation which I have ready but am reluctant because I don't like to be one of those editors that promote destructive POVs (as I recently wrote to another editor) and wouldn't want WP to be a 'racist quotation' contest. But I don't like to remove sourced material either where it is otherwise acceptable (i.e. relevant and verifiable). So anyway, that's it for now I guess. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yossi Klein Halevy

The interesting thing about the YKH quote/article is that he is a well known Jewish/Israeli writer admitting, "yes, it is a land grab". At least it is a refreshing change from the "Israeli: it's just about security; sorry about the land" versus "Arab: it's just about the land and you use security as an excuse" stalemate. I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be balanced with another quotation. I find the YKH quotation to be somewhat pro-Palestinian in that he confirms their allegations instead of denying them. SeattliteTungsten 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, he just happens to be talking about human beings, yet his wording may just as well apply to a chicken farm. Your opinion above may hold some truth if you take for granted statements like "they've rejected compromise", "If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel", "Palestine isn't being restored but invented" which are strongly POV, at best, and (for reasons impossible to explain to anybody not from Palestine so I won't) racist, in implication. There are opposing POVs, such as (I paraphrase): 'compromise was what the Oslo process was about, except Israel doubled it's settlers and increased land confiscation' (many NGOs and the UN); 'the PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and modified its charter a few years later' (a number of PLO officials and supporting Palestinian opinion polls), and 'Israel has systematically attempted to erase the Palestinian national identity altogether, not just deny their independence' (Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi). So Halevy is expressing a POV (as is his right) but basing it on what others consider to be a bunch of canards. The barrier probably does not grab any more land than the rate of grabs that occurred during the Oslo years. Anyway, it is not okay from a Palestinian perspective to talk about us and our human rights as if they are a 'privilege' and a 'favor' when human rights are supposed to be universal for every human being. He confirms Palestinian allegations, as you say, from what I consider a very racist and supremacist perspective ("We're doing you bunch of Neanderthals a favor, so behave", so to speak). That's what needs to be balanced in my opinion. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, I think you are confusing racial with political. "Racist" has a particular meaning and YKH doesn't say anything about race. As for the chicken farm, the verbs and actions he associates with Palestinians are very human: (1) negotiation and the ability to accept or reject compromise; (2) committing or stopping terrorism; and (3) having dreams and goals. You might disagree about whether these positions are correct but I do not see anything in this writing which is racist -- only political.

Since we are on the IWBB page, all of this just makes his point, even with your interpretation, about the barrier all that much stronger if you can say rightly or wrongly, "see, even a racist and supremacist like YKH openly admits that the barrier is a way to grab (or solidify previous grabs) of land and perhaps all this talk about 'security' is just a smoke screen!" SeattliteTungsten 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Too Long

The article is long. What about summarizing the legal aspects (Israeli and Int'l) in about two paragrahs with a pointer to something like, Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects? Any other ideas for dividing? -SeattliteTungsten 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Much of the history is irrelevant (who cares about the Shahal commision) and the route is covered 3 times (4th if we consider the map). Zeq 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the text to the appropriate section in International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict with a short summary remaining here. The article is still too long. I need to get rid of Israeli West Bank Barrier, Legal Aspects. SeattliteTungsten 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Realities on the ground" revisited

There is a discussion in the archives which debates the inclusion of Bush's April 2004 comments concerning "realities on the ground" and future borders and the relevancy of such comments to the Wall article. Objections relating to original research were raised and caused the edits to be removed. I have now returned them having conducted research which provides direct outside analysis and speculation linking the phrase with the Wall. I know it's an issue from last year but I thought better to expplain my revisiting the matter in Talk rather than just an edit summary, since the issue had been contentious.--AladdinSE 08:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article too long without these added specualtion. You can describe it 8 words about the route "palestinian fear it will become the defacto border" Zeq 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is sourced analysis about history and purpose of the Wall from analysts and the PNA itself in direct response to the comments of the American President, comments which have been consistently described as "Earth-shattering" and a departure from 40 years of stated US policy. The comments and reaction to them are extremely important, and cannot be distilled. Do not delete sourced material again. --AladdinSE 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me,

• much of AladinSE's paragraph is relevant;
• "do not delete cited material" should generally be upheld;
• The following sentence seems immaterial, not relevant, possibly OR (linking Bush's 'realities on the ground' to the meaning implied by another source, and might be removed: "The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall...";
• this is definitely not "history" and probably not "purpose" and might be better organized in the Effects and Consequences section;
• Yossi Klein HaLevy, correspondent for The New Republic, writes, "Building over the green line, by contrast, reminds Palestinians that every time they've rejected compromise--whether in 1937, 1947, or 2000--the potential map of Palestine shrinks. That message is the exact opposite of the left-wing trajectory of increased concessions under fire--from Camp David to Taba to Geneva. The fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them. Indeed, the fence is a reminder that the 1967 border isn't sacrosanct. Legally, the West Bank is extraterritorial: The international community didn't recognize Jordan's annexation, and, because Palestine isn't being restored but invented, its borders are negotiable." [28] This could be added to a writeup of "barrier as negotiation tool" section. However, unless there is sufficient reference to this as an original purpose and not an incidental -- or even important -- after effect, it cannot be listed under "purpose" because this represenation is OR.

SeattliteTungsten 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every so called "relevant" idea should be at line 27 and take 10 lines. The idea in this long paragrpah can be sumerized in 8 words without too much specualtions. Zeq 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

These 8 words of yours conveniently exclude all mention of the actual comments Bush made that represented a major policy shift, described as "Earth-shattering" and "the most significant in 40 years". Six sentences for this kind of information isn't excessive in the least. This includes the reaction and analysis that followed, all of which was meticulously sourced. The ATFP material comes directly form the linked source, and is directly connected with the Bush quote, also contained in the source. The material goes directly to analysis and speculation by outside sources of the purpose of the Wall, and it belongs in the History and Purpose section.--AladdinSE 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand what you argue above. Do you want to inclucde 10 lines on what Bush said ? Zeq 08:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Including this as "Purpose" means there should be cited sources that describe (1) intent, and (2) desired causality not a side effect. (For instance, I boil water to make coffee. As a result, my kitchen window becomes foggy. It would be a mistake to claim that the "purpose" of boiling water is to make my window foggy.) Note that there could be sources that provide evidence that the purpose of the barrier was to create facts on the ground but these citations don't really do that. Hence, "Purpose" is not the right place for this.

• George Bush quote: should go in "International Opinions". There is already a paragraph for Bush quotes and policy there.
• "realities on the ground" effecting final status negotiations: should go in "Effects and Consequences". Note: interestingly, this effect can be described as "good" (Yossi Klein HaLevy), "neutral" (Bush), or "bad" (PA) which is consistent with NPOV -- showing all views.

Maybe one idea is to break up "History and Purpose" into "History", "Purpose/Purpose As Security", and "Purpose/Purpose As Negotiation" sections.

On the ATFP statements, I can't really see how their use of "realities on the ground" can be used to support that this is the meaning of Bush using "realities on the ground" which has traditionally used to refer to settlements. (The ATFP statement is still interesting but not, IMHO, related to the Bush statement.) SeattliteTungsten 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Oh, first, Zeq: What's so difficult to understand? The 8 words you proposed are radically insufficient for such an important policy shift and reactions to it. There are six sentences by my count. I don't know what measure "10 lines" revers to. SeattliteTungsten: The sources consistently show that "realities on the ground" have been seen as including the Wall. Even though Bush does not mention it specifically, the PNA in their rebuttal said it amounted to a legitimization of the "apartheid Wall" among other things. Causality is described exactly as it appears in the sources, i.e. this type of language is vague and worrying and has been feared to include/legitimize the Wall as a land grab tool as a main intent, not a side effect. I already did put another Bush quote in the opinions section, July 2003 was my addition. This one is in the Purpose section because the reaction and analysis which deals directly with views that the Wall is being referred to and used to leverage an imposed border. This overpowers the reasons, which do exist, of placing it the "international opinions" section, which as you can see, includes mostly quotes without reaction/analysis. As for splitting History and Purpose, that is not a bad organizational edit, perhaps you should start a Talk section and illicit opinions. If this happens, I think there should only be one purpose section, with both claims (security and land grab) being described equally. Regardless, the Bush comments and related comments, reactions and cited sources are where they belong. --AladdinSE 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to add. If it is about the future borders be accdurate. If it specualtion based on Bush owrds - this is not the place. Zeq 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever Bush says and whatever the PA (rightly or wrongly) interprets the Bush quote as meaning are not central to "purpose" which must be supported by evidence of what the purpose for the Israeli's is.
• I did mean one "Purpose" section with two sections as you describe. My talking about it here is the talk in the talk section.
• These are my ideas... I'm trying to brainstorm here how to best incorporate what the three of us are saying. If I get motivated later in the week, I'll make some changes based on this and whatever other discussion is here. If you disagree, try not to revert but to make/suggest a compromise position consistent with Wikipedia values. Thanks.

SeattliteTungsten 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq: I added a quotation of a highly pivotal policy speech that Bush made, and the reactions to it as it relates to perceived purpose of the Wall. If you still don't understand, I am not the one to explain it to you.

SeattliteTungsten: The purpose section must, and does, describe opposing views of what the Wall is for, not just the Israeli perspective of what the purpose for them is. As for discussion about splitting the Purpose and History section, please do create a separate Talk section for that. Certainly I look forward to the results of your brainstorming, but as far as I can tell, Zeq wanted wholesale deletion of my edit, he has offered nothing that requires integration. As for Wikipedia values, I think you will find me ready to step up. Before I made this edit I started a Talk section and linked to the archive to facilitate full discussion and debate. If I revert anything, I will explain fully in Talk, and before I revert, I will consider carefully if there is a compromise wording. --AladdinSE 09:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the purpose should describe all POV including POV other than official Israeli government. In fact, I even added the quote (in talk -- looking for a place on page) from YKH suggesting pre-building intent of land-grab, "[t]he fence is a warning: If Palestinians don't stop terrorism and forfeit their dream of destroying Israel, Israel may impose its own map on them."

The difficulty is that to be included in the "Purpose" section the material must show or strongly suggest some pre-building intent otherwise it must be classified as an "Effect". The Bush quote does not in any way suggest what the intent was. It just say, "OK, here we are now... and this is how it should go based on the situation now." This cannot accurately be construed to be "purpose". Of course, there could be some other material that shows the U.S./Bush believes the purpose is to create a border or negotiating tool. SeattliteTungsten 16:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the reaction and analysis to Bush's comments that is the main reason for inclusion in Purpose. He said "realities on the ground," including Settlements as an example, and not excluding anything else. Those sources clearly speculated that the Wall is part of those realities. The material and sources discuss all of this in the context of purpose of the Wall as a land grab. --AladdinSE 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bush quote, and the reaction to it, are good examples of the effect of the barrier, i.e., actions and responses that follow. To show 'purpose', it must more clearly document the a priori intention of the people building the wall. Probably, it is possible to do this by finding writing and speeches from some right-wing Likud (or other) people. Otherwise such speculation is really not very appropriate in an encyclopedia article. SeattliteTungsten 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose the material be moved if the History and Purpose section no longer reads "and Purpose". This way, "Opinions about future borders" etc becomes an appropriate place for them. However, the deletions and curtailment of the analysis related to the Bush comments are unjustified. --AladdinSE 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? I'm not exactly following. (To be included in "Purpose" section, it much -- in the words of the Purpose page -- show "deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". Neither the Bush quote nor the commentary on it show that the builders of the wall (Israeli government) had intent or ""deliberately thought-through goal-directedness". The Bush quote only says, my paraphrase, "hey, I don't know why this was done but considering now that it is done here's the scoop...") SeattliteTungsten 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I changed the section title to History and stated purpose. This justifies the movement of the material to the recently created "Future Border Opinions" section, as stated purpose now goes directly to the official Israeli government position and does not appear to give preferential treatment to Israeli claims over Palestinian ones. The commentary to the Bush quote does show deliberately thought-through goal-directedness that the PNA and most of the Wall's opponents have attributed to Israel of the Wall being a land-grab ploy. --AladdinSE 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I'm still not exactly following, which may be my fault entirely. The only part of the third paragraph in "future borders opinions" that deals with "purpose", "intention", "deliberate goal-directedness" is the phrase that the IWBB is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians", the key word here being "meant". The other parts have to do with the PNA's or the ATFP's opinions on the barrier or the barrier's effects not the Israeli's intention, purpose, or motivation. (Moreover, it is quite tautological to say that the purpose of a barrier is "meant to separate". This seems pretty obvious and is consistent with any POV.) SeattliteTungsten 20:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We are in direct disagreement here. The PNA and ATFP's comments most certainly do deal with, and unambiguously at that, what they consider to be Israel's true intentions regarding the Wall. Also, it is not redundant to say the purpose of the barrier is "meant to separate etc" because separation for purposes of defense, and separation as a unilateral action towards disengagement from the Palestinian population, as well as any number of other separation "reasons" can be applied, and they are all distinct matters. Also, since consensus has agreed to renaming the "History and Purpose" section to "History and stated purpose", I likewise agreed to the movement of the comments to the recently created "Future border opinions" subsection. Ergo, our disagreement about what constitutes "purpose" has become moot. --AladdinSE 06:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Which words from the PNA or ATFP in the citation address Israel's true intentions? SeattliteTungsten 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comments says that he is rewarding aggression, illegal settlements, and the "Apartheid Wall". That is, settlements and the Wall were placed there, in their opinion, for exactly the purpose ("the very essence"), Bush was now granting... unilateral imposition of borders. The ATFP's comments directly discusses the context of the Wall as one of those "realities on the ground" being created for the same reason. --AladdinSE 01:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The PNA reaction to the Bush policy comment is therefore addressing Bush's intention -- not Israeli intention. The ATFP may believe that a result of the barrier is that it is "the very essence" of realities on the ground but, again, this is a statement about the ATFP's opinions of the barrier and not ATFP's opinion of Israeli motives. The ATFP might believe this about Israeli motives but it's not reflected in these statements. The mistaken inference from a sequence of events that earlier ones "cause" later ones or that the purpose of earlier ones is to cause later ones is common. In fact, the mistake is so common that there is a name for it, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Example: I do a rain dance, then it rains. "Seattlite's rain dance caused the rain" is an incorrect inference. Or, I drive to the store because I ran out of milk. As a result, I cause air polution. "SeattliteTungsten drove to the store for the purpose of creating air pollution" would be an improper inference even though "SeattliteTungsten caused air pollution" is true. For this reason, I rewrote the awkward sentence with the word "leverage" and replaced it with "prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines" -- a phrase from the original Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel. SeattliteTungsten 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware if the causal fallacy you speak of, I studied it in my youth. It does not apply here. To put it succinctly, what we have here is either a failure to communicate, or a diametrically opposed understanding of English grammar and sentence structure. The PNA most certainly is addressing Israeli intentions regarding the Wall. What they see as Bush "rewarding" Israel for its "Apartheid Wall" goes directly to Israel's "real secret intentions" as to imposing annexation of West Bank land. It does not deal with "Bush's intentions" regarding the purpose of the wall. As for the ATFP, for goodness sakes, their opinion of the Wall IS that it is a part and parcel of Israeli intentions to impose borders. You cannot divorce the two; in fact there is no "two," They're talking about Israel's intended purpose, period. Your text change was completely unjustified and introduces material wholly unrelated to the quotation and moreover is covered elsewhere and is attached to a Bush quote that actually talks about the armistice lines, and urges temporary nature, etc. The compromises regarding the location of the material and the rewording of the subsection titles removed all cause for this debate some time ago. I sincerely hope that this matter is now closed; we have been repeating ourselves for some time.--AladdinSE 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a different understanding of the meaning of certain words. The PNA, using the word "reward" discusses Bush because Bush is the one doing the rewarding. It is possible for a "rewarder" to "reward" something that is either intentional or incidental (not purposeful). Therefore, it is OR and an inaccurate inference to claim that "reward" means the PNA thinks the behavior being rewarded was purposeful. (Example: I write a poem because I like to write poetry. You submit my poetry to a contest, and it wins. "Seattlite wrote poetry for the purpose of winning the contest" is an inaccurate inference.) I missed the phrase "real secret intentions" in the text. If this was somewhere, it should be included in the article and I agree that this would clearly show the PNA's view of Israel's intentions. On the ATFP, I also missed the word "purpose" which I cannot find in the quote that is cited. This is your interpretation and it would be OR to read this into the quote. The do say that the wall is "meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank" but this could be for any number of purposes which are not stated in the citation.

Instead of just blindly reverting back, if you feel my latest (shortened) version is still not right why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that uses more direct citation of the material? Or, use other primary source material that can be better cited to flow the way you would like? In other words, instead of having an edit war over someone's interpretation of cited material, let's just write a paragraph that uses the cited material more directly and minimizes the non-quoted introductions so that we don't have disagreements about the accuracy or POV-ness of the non-quoted summary text. Thanks, SeattliteTungsten 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no blind revert. Your edit was read carefully, and the revert was discussed in Talk. "Blind reverts" entail no discussion, and revert to the editor's last version, wrecking unrelated edits that might have occurred in the interim. Now, very briefly as we are definitely in rehash mode here: The PNA's focus is unambiguously to make clear that Israel's original intention with the Wall, as they see it, has been validated by this US policy shift. To be OR, we have to be saying as a matter of course that this is in fact Israel's true "secret" intention, but it cannot be plainer that this is merely PNA speculation and POV and stated as such. In any case, the material was moved out of the Purpose of the Barrier section directly as a result of our previous discussion. The ATFP, in the citation, says "the very essence of creating realities on the ground" in direct context of the Bush quote. QED.

Moreover, your version is actually longer, and splices, in a most confused manner, other material into this section that has already been covered, where Bush urges the temporary nature of the Wall, and talks about not prejudicing final borders, etc. Why are you trying to dilute the speculation regarding Bush and reaction to the "realities on the ground" comments? The PNA and ATFP (and other sources) are being quoted, cited, and the material goes directly to their opinions about the Wall as a future border, and is in the "Future Border Opinions" not the History and Stated Purpose section. --AladdinSE 18:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it does seem to be rehash but there is still a problem so let's take a different approach. (Deleting the cited material and non-collaboratively reverting isn't going to help: that's why we should try something else.) First, let's represent all POVs including the POV (a) that the statement isn't any change of policy [see original armistice agreement], as well as the POV (b) that the statement represents a new policy and is referring indirectly to the barrier. If you don't like the way I have incorporated both POVs, why don't you suggest a different way to do this? But, please, don't merely delete.

Second, the sentence with the word "leverage" is not an accurate representation of what the groups said. Let's find another way to introduce these statements. If it's difficult to agree on how to summarize them, perhaps we can just write something that excerpts the exact primary text. (It's difficult to argue that pieces of the primary text are not representative of the primary text -- although still possible if they are grossly out of context.)

[On "shorter", I meant relative to my previous suggestion not relative to your revert. Sorry for the misunderstanding.] SeattliteTungsten 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply, I was not able to get to Wikipedia sooner. Alright. First, I must say that this new approach of yours is indeed much easier for me to follow, and finally presents more for us to go on than a mere difference of interpretation, and rehashing of opinions. I see room for compromise here, principally regarding the rephrasing of what you found to be awkward and/or inaccurate as far as "leverage" goes. I will rephrase your edit somewhat, I hope you will find it acceptable.

As for your point re presenting both POVs, well I think I see where you're coming from here, only it is redundant insofar as it is already stated clearly in the International Opinions sub-section, where Bush is quoted directly for that purpose and the exact same point is made. Therefore, splicing it into this section here serves only to dilute and obfuscate the speculation by the sources cited all of whom are not talking about Bush's reiteration of past policies, but commenting with particular emphasis about how his comments represent a major policy shift. Moreover, your source for your statement about what "Bush reiterates on the one hand" does not support your claim. It is a link to the text of the armistice agreement itself, and has nothing to say at all about what Bush reiterates. Lastly, what I disagree with completely, is that the sentence about the "realities on the ground in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is inaccurate. I have gone over it repeatedly, and triple-checked the source material. It is a fair and neutral statement supported by the sources. I do hope that we can move on now. --AladdinSE 11:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making progress. The main sticking point is whether we believe some particilar Wikipedia summaries are accurate representations of cited material. I still believe "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" is not accurate way to summarize those citations. So, here's my new approach: just report what's actually in the cited material and use actual quotes instead of our rewrites, as much as possible. Then, we won't argue about the rewrites, summaries, and interpretations. "X says, 'Y is Z'" -- if "Y is Z" is really part of the cited material, then we can all agree "X says..." is accurate. We don't need to try to paraphrase what X said.

I took a stab at rearranging into three paragraphs,

P1: "Some people describe the barrier as the de facto future border..."

P1 includes people's opinion of a land grab/barrier-as-border, including the YKH one I added and "evidently intended to redraw Israel's borders" which I extracted from one of the cited articles.

P2: "On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said..."

P2 is about Bush's quote and whether anything is new or rewarding occupation. One POV is that Bush, himself, says "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion", i.e., nothing new. Another POV is that the PNA says he is "rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall", i.e., something new in response to the wall. Both POVs should be included.

P3: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace suggests..."

P3 is about the meaning of "realitites on the ground". Turns out, when I checked the references, two of them don't say that this includes the barrier. One quite clearly says, "[t]hose 'new realities' of course are large Jewish settlements" which is the traditional (pre-barrier) meaning: not the barrier. The ATFP believes the new realities include the barrier so this POV is presented, too. However, the ATFP's statement is not in reference to Bush's statement so it becomes a speculation on top of a speculation to say that the AFTP's meaning should be attributed to Bush's statement.

I believe I kept all of the references except MIFTAH [29]; I couldn't find a direct quote here that worked but feel free to try to incorporate something from this citation into the page. SeattliteTungsten 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like for every step forward, we take 2 steps back. The wording "include the use of the barrier to prejudice the outcome of border negotiations" which you describe as inaccurate are in fact your words which I substituted for mine as a compromise because you objected to my version which used the word "leverage". Editorial summaries are indispensable and common in every corner of Wikipedia. Most of your edits have the effect of diluting the analysis of the sources about the Barrier as a border, relative to the phrase "realities on the ground".

• P1 edit is fine. I have only separated the Guardian material into a separate paragraph.
• P2: "all previous efforts.. have reached the same conclusion" has no correlation to your evaluation "nothing new". At least, it is not nearly that simple. Neither the quotation nor any citation makes the POV you are trying to splice into this paragraph. However I did merge some of the material you introduce in P3, into P2. MIFTAH's citation is perfectly valid, and goes directly to how I phrased the material on how realities on the ground are sometimes interpreted in the context of this conflict. No opinion whatsoever is attributed to Bush that he does not state.
• P3: Merged into P2. I have incorporated your citations here into the POV you insist on mentioning despite my opinion that the point has been made elsewhere. I added: While there is considerable consensus that Bush's comments singled out settlements as the most important factor [30] [31]

I have compromised repeatedly, and found common ground with you on several fronts. If you insist upon deleting references to "realities on the ground in the context of this conflict" despite my having incorporated your material and citations about settlements, then on this point I fear that we are at an impasse.--AladdinSE 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Actually, "the use of the barrier" was not my phrase. I do not think this phrase is supported by the citations. The phrase "[the existence of] the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations", based on the phrasing in the original armistice text, was my addition.
2. If you are accusing me of editing to "have the effect of diluting the analysis", you are correct. Wikipedia should not present original analysis. Accurate summary of cited material, yes; analysis, systhesis, and speculating about the meaning of cited material, no. Here is my challenge: if you are having a hard time using actual excerpts from the cited sources to write the paragraph the way you want it to read, it probably means that the cited sources don't say what you want them to say. Therefore, let's just stick more to the cited sources with less editorial precisely because we are disagreeing about what the cited sources actually say.
3. I'm wondering what the issue is when you write, "'all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion' has no correlation to your evaluation 'nothing new'" The PNC states that Bush's position is "rewarding... the apartheid wall" meaning that the PNC believes there is a cause and effect ("wall" causes "reward"; or "reward" given because of "wall") and that the Bush position would otherwise be different if it weren't a reward or caused by the wall. By contrast, Bush -- himself -- says, "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" which is precisely the opposite meaning of "wall causes reward". Bush says (my paraphrase) there is no reward because "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" -- nothing different this time.
4. I made several edits in succession; if you don't like them, at least you can reference them specifically. Please forgive this one: "23:33, 1 March 2006" because I accidentally move Bush-specific responses out of the Bush paragraph.

SeattliteTungsten 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize once again for the late reply. I've been having less and less time for the articles lately.

1. I beg your pardon but it was. Here is the edit where you replaced my wording with: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis."
2. There is no original analysis. We have had this point out before. No opinions are being attributed to Bush that he does not state, and the sources clearly articulate the speculation that is backed up by the cited analysts. If you disagree, as I said, it may me we have reached an impasse. However, your last edits are mostly acceptable, as I explain further below:
3. "all previous efforts... have reached the same conclusion" has nothing to do with the perception of the Wall as rewarding illegal Israeli expansion, and you have forwarded noting that supports this position. It's actually irrelevant now, as your latest edits are mostly acceptable to me. The only sticking point is the false declaration that Bush said and meant settlements ONLY by his use of "realities on the ground". He in fact said "including already existing major Israeli population centers". Including does not mean exclusively. There's no question that Settlements were singled out for attention, but we can't say that there is agreement that Bush only meant settlements, as of course several analysts including the PA have stated categorically that they believe Bush is including the Wall as a reality.

--AladdinSE 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The first analyst says, "the Bush letter adds... 'the new realities on the ground'--namely settlements" and the second analyst says, "those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements" so the summary "analysts interpret 'ROTG' to mean 'settlements'" is accurate whereas reading your interpretation into it is OR and inaccurate. Perhaps there are other analysts who support your view. If you find them and cite them, it would be appropriate to add your interpretation. Until then, the two cited analysts are clear that ROTG = Settlements. (Also, I'm not sure why you think I added the phrase "the use of the barrier" -- this was not my phrase in the diff you found.) SeattliteTungsten 17:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Namely" is not an "equals" (=) sign. It means mainly, principally. Also, you provide 2 analysts and assume a world-wide consensus. I changed it to some, and rephrased accordingly. As for the diff, look I don't know where we're going wrong here. I just checked it again, and the version you inserted in that edit is, and I am cutting and pasting here: "some people speculate that "realities on the ground" includes the barrier and that the construction of the barrier will prejudice the outcome of border negotiations in favor of the Israelis." That was your formulation. Mine was "by some analysts to include the use of the barrier as leverage for imposing a future border." Regardless, we've moved on from those edits.--AladdinSE 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This section need to be re-written

It looks like a badly writen editorial. Need facts , relvant facts not speculations.

"On April 14, 2004, American President George W. Bush said "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” [32] The phrase "realities on the ground" in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been speculated by some analysts to include the use of the Wall as leverage for imposing a future border. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] The American Task Force on Palestine, for example, says "the construction of a wall meant to separate Israel from the largest concentrations of Palestinians on the West Bank is now well under way, walling in a significant amount of territory east of Jerusalem that even moderate Palestinians hope will be a part of a future state someday. It is, to use a well-worn phrase from the region, the essence of 'creating realities on the ground'." [38] Furthermore, in direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied: "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall." [39]"

Who can propose a re-write for this section ?

Zeq 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This material, which has been meticulously sourced, deals with analysis and reaction to comments by the US President, which represent a pivotal policy shift. They ARE speculation, and are clearly presented as such, not as facts. There are outside analysts, not Wiki-editorialization, backed up by sources. --AladdinSE 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysts / 'realities on the ground'

SeattliteTungsten, you cannot cite two sources and on that basis claim that "analysts generally interpret". I am not changing your formulation of their actual analysis, only that 2 analysts do not a cacophony make. "Some analysts" is more than fair. Also, the PNA most certainly does comment on Bush's phrase Realities On The Ground. Their comments were in direct reaction to the cited Bush quotation, not to some vague mention of "US policy". Specifically, the source says:

Speaking at a press conference beside a beaming Sharon in the White House, Bush publicly stated what his letter said: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," meaning the Green Line.

The Palestinian leadership reacted vehemently to the outcomes of the Sharon-Bush meeting yesterday warning that the US assurances given to Israel would mean "clearly the complete end of the peace process" as well as security and stability in the region. President Yaser Arafat met with his Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei and representatives of the different Palestinian factions in an emergency session Wednesday afternoon at his battered compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah to discuss the "dangerous escalation". In a statement, Arafat stressed that the pact would prompt a "cycle of violence and end all the signed agreements" between Israel and the Palestinians. "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall," the leadership said.

This is indefatigable evidence of a the direct relationship of the PNA comments to Bush's ROTG quotation from the Sharon meeting.--AladdinSE 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree 100% that there is a direct relationship between the PNA comments and the entirety of Bush's statements. Therefore, the text, "In direct reaction to Bush's comments, the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority replied" is accurate and should be left in. However, the PNA does not actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground" so it is not supported to say that the PNC would be an example of someone interpreting Bush's use of the phrase to include the barrier. Therefore, "whereas others, as well as members of the Palestinian leadership, have interpreted it to include the Barrier." We would be looking for a quote like, "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" [40] or "Those 'new realities' of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank" [41]. In fact, the citation which you excerpt above mentioned the words "settler", "settlements", or "settle" nine times before the PNC quote but not "fence", "wall", or "barrier" even once so even if they made any reference to "realities on the ground" and to Bush's use of this phrase, which they don't, it might actually be a better inference to say that they are talking about settlements.
2. A quote like "those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them" is not support for the proposition that Tony Eastly (the analyst) believes Bush's use of 'realities on the ground' is meant to include the Barrier. He says very specifically, "[t]hose 'new realities' [mentioned by Bush] of course, are large Jewish settlements in the West Bank". He is clear.
3. I agree 100% that two examples of analysts cannot be generalized to "all analysts"; however, all (both) of the references here of analysts who are commenting specifically on Bush's use of the phrase ROTG in those particular statements by Bush speculate that Bush means "ROTG = settlements". This is the consensus opinion of what Bush means in this instance (not what other people mean in other instances) and there are two examples to support this. Therefore, "All analysts agree Bush means ROTG = settlements" is wrong; "some analysts believe Bush means ROTG = settlements" is misleading because it implies that there is other sourced material showing an analyst who believes that Bush, specifically in this instance, means "ROTG includes barrier"; "Some people use ROTG to include the barrier" is true, e.g., the ATFP quote but this doesn't mean that whenever someone else (not the ATFP) uses the phrase we could assume they also intend to include the barrier. We can't assume this.
4. "namely" really does not mean "principally" but "to wit", "specifically" or "in other words" or "i.e.". The only accurate interpretation of "realities on the ground [mentioned by Bush are]... namely settlements" is "ROTG means settlements". This cannot honestly be cited as a reference to "maybe ROTG includes barrier".
5. (Also, I apologize for writing 'See Talk' with no talk. I got pulled away on other things with my Talk entry open but not sent.)

SeattliteTungsten 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are now regurgitating settled disputes. Your own repeated edits [42] [43] settled most of our discussion above, leaving only the disagreement as to what the Guardian citation supports. Now you return to gut the past consensus and begin afresh.

• The PNA does actually comment on Bush's specific use of the phrase "realities on the ground", and is presented as such in the source. The source quotes Bush and then, like a film director, cuts directly to the comments about the apartheid wall. No reasonable person can fail to distinguish this direct relationship. There is no question that settlements have been clearly and repeatedly singled out for distinction by Bush and analysts, and I agreed with much of your edits that supported making this more obvious. Nevertheless, the sources and extracts I quoted also leave no room for dissemblance that there is direct and unambiguous speculation that Bush's ROTG directly includes the Barrier.

• Yes the analyst is quite clear, only you are incorrect as to who the analyst is. Eastly is the interviewer, the quoted analysis is provided by Mark Willacy. He mentions the ROTG and specifies settlements just as Bush does, and then talks of the barrier encircling the settlements in direct context of a border. Here is the excerpt, again (bold emphasis added):

GEORGE BUSH: In the light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two state solution have reached the same conclusion.

TONY EASTLEY: President Bush speaking there. Mark Willacy, how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?

MARK WILLACY: Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them.

Eastly quotes Bush's ROTG comments, asks Willacy what they mean for a Palestinian State, and Willacy responds directly by fingering settlements and the Barrier! It's black and white.

• The "some analysts" qualifier is applicable and in no way misleads as to what else is or is not speculated by other analysts. You are overcomplicating a simple sentence that limits itself to what is explicitly stated. The sentence says some analysts say such and such and provides the links for it. It makes no mention, direct or implied, about what others say or think. You cannot pretend that "analysts" is better than "some analysts" and that it is somehow distinct from "all analysts".

• No problem about forgetting to include a Talk entry which you cited in an edit summary. I used to be too apt to doing the same myself when I first joined, so now I try to always make my discussion entry before my article edit. --AladdinSE 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, your interpretation is just your point of view of what you think the citation means but does not actually say. Politicians everywhere (American, Israeli, European, Palestinian, etc.) are expert as saying vague things that each interest group interprets to believe what they want. The actual text here could be interpreted to mean any number of things that it does not actually say. Two examples, among many, are "The US assurances THAT THE FINAL BORDER WILL NOT BE ON THE ARMISTICE LINES... WE REMIND THE WORLD AGAIN THAT They are rewarding A COUNTRY WHICH HAS ENGAGED IN illegal occupation, settlement -- NAMELY 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- and the apartheid wall WHEN THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHING SUCH A COUNTRY FOR THESE BAD ACTIONS" or "The US assurances THAT THE BARRIER AND SETTLEMENTS HAVE PREJUDICED BORDER NEGOTIATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE ISRAELIS... They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall AS REFERENCED BY THE PHRASE 'REALITIES ON THE GROUND' -- NAMELY SETTLEMENTS AND THE BARRIER." We don't actually know which of these meanings, or some other meaning, was the intent of this statement by the PNA. It would be OR to ascribe your belief of the meaning of the PNA phrase to one possible meaning and not the other. Therefore, to say the PNA has "interpreted [the phrease 'realities on the ground' to include the Barrier" is not appropriate. The PNA statement does not even use the phrase 'realities on the ground' so it is a very weak case to claim that in the statement the PNA is interpreting this phrase. How can they interpret the phrase when they don't even mention it? It is very ambiguous so we should omit OR and POV introductory comments.

• (I think they both can be called analysts.) Notice that Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' and not 'what did Bush mean by ROTG?' In this exchange, Eastley says that 'Those new realities of course, are large Jewish settlements' and Willacy agrees that 'Those new realities of course, are these large Jewish settlements' so the black-and-white inference would be that this is a conversation between two people who state clearly that they both believe Bush's use of ROTG means "settlements".

• I believe "analysts generally" (the text) is different from "all analysts". How about "two analysts"? I will make this change.

• Good idea. Actually, I didn't forget; I just got pulled away by other unexpected things; I remembered. Thanks for the suggestion. I will do this.-SeattliteTungsten 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for removing your comments from where you placed them. It has been my experience that in a protracted discussion, interspersing comments paragraph per paragraph can lead to extreme confusion and difficulty in following and replying to a particular fork . Please do not disrupt the contiguity of my posts, and let us keep to the earlier format. Bullet points should be sufficient to help us reply on a point by point basis.

• It is not my point of view. We simply have to disagree about this. The PNA does not use the ROTG phrase but the source has it replying directly to that phrase. Your analogical mock quotations are superfluous because you've done them before, and I've replied to those arguments. Note that the source quotes the PNA's reaction right after they quote the Bush ROTG comment. Splitting hairs will not obfuscate the clear connection. Your own edits [44] [45] left this format in tact. For the life of me I can't understand why you want to gut the consensus (and my many compromises due to your input) that we achieved after exhaustive discussion. I would summarize my position thus: The PNA statement said "The US assurances are being made at the expense of the Palestinian people and the Arab world without the knowledge of the legitimate Palestinian leadership. They are rewarding illegal occupation, settlement and the apartheid wall,". NO WHERE in any of those US assurances quoted by the source is the Wall explicitly mentioned, only "Realities on the ground", including but not limited to, Settlements. Therefore, saying that the PNA speculates that the Barrier is included and thus rewarded, since they replied to those Bush comments with references to the Barrier, is perfectly valid, unambiguous and entirely supported by the source.

• Of course Willacy is answering the question 'how does this then affect a future Palestinian state?' And what is the "this" that he is asking about? You are misrepresenting the sequence of the quotations and responses. The previous line clearly quotes the Bush ROTG line and asks what it means for a Palestinian state. His reply is: "Well, it totally redraws the borders of any future Palestinian state. In fact, it threatens to carve large chunks out of it. The settlements which are earmarked for annexation stretch from Ariel in the northern West Bank down to Maale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, right down to Kiriat Arba in the southern West Bank. Now, those settlements are all scheduled to have a security barrier erected around them." The settlements quotations you bold-faced are from elsewhere not from this exchange which I have used to illustrate that the speculated link is in fact made between ROTG and the Wall. The parts you referenced certainly mean ROTG includes settlements, that has never been disputed. Settlements are the clearest and most oft-mentioned "reality" by both Bush, Palestinians and analysts.

• This brings me to your suggestion that we use "two analysts" instead of "some analysts generally". This would only be necessary if I were disputing that more than 2 analysts believe this. I have said before that Settlements are often and repeatedly singled out in this manner. I don't need more sources actually cited for me to accept that more analysts think this way. My objection only goes as far as removing the false premise that all analysts think this to the exclusion of the other POV that ROTG includes the Barrier. This is why I prefer "some" to "two". I will agree to the removal of the word "generally" as a further qualifier though, to illustrate that some analysts do see ROTG exclusively as settlements, or at the very least make no connection with the Barrier.

--AladdinSE 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Jerusalem

Does anyone here know if East Jerusalem will be divided from the West Bank by the separation barrier? I ask this question because the figures given for the number of Palestinians left on the Israeli side of the barrier vary from about 10,000 to 49,400, but these figures obviously don’t include the approximately 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, the majority of whom do not have Israeli citizenship, if I understand correctly. Can anyone explain this to me? Perhaps I misunderstand the barrier route. In any case, the article could be more clear on this issue. Gregor Samsa 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They have Israeli "green-card" and most of them would be on the "Israeli" side of the barrier. (excpet those in Kfar Akeb and Shuafat camp) Zeq 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

why did you remove this: [46] Zeq 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is POV, not least in using the terms "fence", "judea and samaria". It is also a history and propangada piece for a little-known pro-barrier group: if we include every pro/anti barrier group in this article, well, what's the point of that? It almost certainly does not belong in such an extended format in the history section between Rabin's decisions and the Israeli Supreme Court's decision. Why not just include a link to it in references? Lokiloki 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a history of how the barrirer came about. "Fence" is part of their name. Zeq 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am undecided about the prominent exposure of this one group in the article. There must be several organizations advocating the same thing. Are there any reliable sources that cite this organization's work or influence? If it is not very influential, I think it would only beong in the external links section. If it is shown to be rather influential, it should stay, with a possible reconsideration of the heading title.--AladdinSE 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fence for Life", Dani Atar [47] and Uzi Dayan [48] were instrumental in pushing the Sharon goverment to build the barrier. FFL was the biggest among these groups. It was really te Israeli public that demanded it. Sharon used the public outcry for security fence to set the route in an outragous political way. Zeq 05:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS settler groups mostly objected any fence because they knew it will lead to removal of settlments beyond the fence. Indeed this is Kadima party platform now. Zeq 05:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, neither of those links you provided even mentions the organization "Fence for Life". Furthermore, Hayom Hashvie is not a recognized reliable source. You have to cite the actual influence of the organizxation itself, not the activities or influence of individuals who happen be members. If you have no other reputable sources that show a consistent view that this is as influential an organization as you say t is, it belongs in the external links section only. Note that deletion of the section does not invalidate the arguments made by that particular organization. Indeed, such arguments are fully articulated elsewhere in the article.--AladdinSE 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

if you delete ffl maybe you dont have the information that they conceived the security fence they started the struggle for the security fence as they do untill now here are only a few of the links that you asked that mentions this organization and shows it's big influence. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] i think you also better read this: (wait untill it goes up): [64] there are lots more if you didn't convinced yet, i will give you more i hope that you will be an objective and that you will decide to put back the section of ffl i hope that you dont have something personal against ffl ffl 18.4.2006 0008

84.229.1.208, this is the English language Wikipedia. Every one of your links is in Hebrew! How are English-speaking editors supposed to read them? How can I have something personal against an organization so obscure, I never heard of it in international news coverage (And I watch and read a lot of news)? There must be some minimum level of acknowledged influence attributed to an organization in order to build an entire section on it. --AladdinSE 10:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

it looks like you don't have an information about the civil struggle to built the security fence and how was the public pressure on the government- you can see again what zeq wrote to you - it look that he knows about this- you can also give me your phone no or I give you mine. we can talk and give you all the information. here are the international news coverage that you have asked for [The Washington post [65] and the same at [66] [67] The Jerusalem post [68] [69] [70] [71] cnsnews [72] [73] katifnet [74] arutz sheva [75] Associated Press [76] And the same at fox news [77] And ctv news [78]

if still needed I can pass you scanned articles from haaretz in English and from Ney york times and I can try to get the full 2 of the articles from jpost not just the summary. there were also at the cnn and others that I cant find you can see - everyone wrote about fence for life in Israel in and abroad. as it is written in the first article- the idea of fence for life- security fence the only way - was security fence without connection to withdrawal the same which is now being implemented -and ffl began with the civil struggle to built it and made a big pressure on the government in many ways- contrary to other organizations that were talking about fence with withdrawal. you can also see the story of the sf in fence for life web site. Waiting for your answer. sincerely yours ffl 22.4.06 18:51 barouh@zahav.net.il

Some of those Washington Post and other links look a bit dodgy, as they are not links to the paper itself. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Post and some other links like Fox News seem like verifiable English-language reliable sources to me, therefore I have returned the section.--AladdinSE 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks. i deleted the end of the section and i am asking for your permission for the deletion, because otherwise if you want to put it back i can try to rephrase it to be more accurate because this specific campaign of building a fence by self means at the gilboa was led by dani atar. 23.4.06 07:30 ffl

[edit] WP:Point

To Loki : I suggest you read the above policy.

If indeed you have a source that show what you claim (that the effort is not succesfull) or you think that not enough facts about how succefull the grassroots effort was - than, please feel free to change the headline to a more approrpriate one.

Instead you choose to disruopt and delted the whole section. Well you made your point but now you will need to fix it and restore the section you un justifaiably deleted. Zeq 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important links

Tasc, not having been a part of a very exhaustive discussion about the links of analysts speculating about the Barrier, you perhaps underestimate the meaning of the 2 links you removed. They illustrate the breadth ad range of the existence of this kind of analysis. Please stop deleting these two links. Thanks.--AladdinSE 06:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links removed

This wall is also commonly known as "Wall of Shame". Some users are deleting the link to the term without explanations. Please stop. Boninho 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible impersonator

Please check this edit and other edits by 65J7 (talk · contribs), a suspected impersonator of 6SJ7 (talk · contribs). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change "with little common ground between supporters and opponents"

I was thinking it would be a good idea to change this statement, "The barrier is a very controversial project, with little common ground between supporters and opponents" because in many ways there is a great deal of common ground but people have different values and different emphasis. For instance supporters claim the intention was for security and opponents claim the effect is a land-grab. However, these are not inconsistent. They could both be true. Or, supporters claim a major effect is to save lives while opponents claim a major effect is to create hardships. Again, both of these could be true. Does anyone else agree with this and is there a better phrasing that could capture this idea that there is some common ground but different perspectives? SeattliteTungsten 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are both true, in both cases. My feeling is, on this and a number of other related articles, we are doing too much telling and not enough showing.Timothy Usher 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

I've commented out the section stating:

The International Solidarity Movement describes the barrier as part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid, ^[1] a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid.

To begin with, it's not about the phrase "Apartheid wall" itself, but actually an opinion about the barrier. Even worse, it's from a highly partisan unreliable source, known for controversy. Apparently the book is also self-published. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The International Solidarity Movement may well be an unreliable source for facts about barrier, but Peace Under Fire, published by Verso, is reliable as a source documenting their opinions, which are generally representative of those activists who use the "apartheid wall" epithet. Gregor Samsa 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Effects

We had a long debate above that ended with what I assumed was compromise after you stated that

"If you are no longer arguing for any changes in this section, seems like we're all set. SeattliteTungsten 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"

You have taken advantage of the passage of time to re-introduce the exact original research that you tried to do before, namely your hypothesis that the barrier has caused an improvement in the Palestinian economy. If you insist on stating this, you must use a reliable source to back you up. Otherwise, as I explained at length above, you are pushing a malicious POV. I don't agree with most of your past edits, but I didn't fight your Excel figure, and didn't argue with all the info you wanted to add to the paragraph. I was content with providing all the information you'd like, just not tying them together because no publication that I can find has even suggested the hypothesis that you are pushing. Quite the opposite, in fact. So I hope you will either stick to what I thought was a compromise, or we can request arbitration because, while I'm not in favor of censorship on Wikipedia, I'm also not in favor of disseminating false or deliberately misleading information. Thank you. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is problematic for a few reasons,

1. the section is "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevent facts about GDP are real growth numbers after the start of the WBB, not before. "Effects" are things that happen after.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here because they are before major construction which only started in late 2002.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted" so the numbers for 1999 and 2002 are not very useful, anyway. I think they should be removed.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Certainly, in a section on "Economic Effects" of X, you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" This is only a basic starting point- not establishment of causality.

[Kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks- just stick to the topic at hand. I am editing in good faith. I took another look at this and it still has problems so I'm trying to fix them.]

SeattliteTungsten 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph to start with the economic changes after the barrier because this makes more sense for "effects" or "possible effects". For instance, if someone said "I think the steak we had for dinner Tuesday night was bad. Were you sick?" you wouldn't say "I was sick all day Tuesday." You might say "I was fine Tuesday night and Wednesday" or "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday." You might also say, "I was sick Tuesday night and Wednesday but I have had the flu since Monday." In other words, the most logical arrangement to "possible economic effects [of WBB]" is to study how the economy changed after the WBB. Like this example, the structure might be "The GDP changed [like this] after but also [changed like this] before." SeattliteTungsten 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry but I don't follow the steak analogy at all, especially that I prefer shrimp. Accusing me of ad hominem attacks may itself be an attack on me because I'm don't like being accused of something unless there is merit for it. From my point of view, I do see merit in questioning your good faith because you discarded everything we seemingly agreed to above and re-established the same ideas that we had argued over in the past and re-introduced a direct link between the barrier and the GDP. So yet again, I'm going to have to present my arguments:

1. the section is about "Economic Effects" of the WBB so the most relevant facts about GDP... STOP. Economic effects do NOT only mean GDP (read my old entries above). It is you who have introduced what could be considered a strawman's argument, i.e. the economic effects automatically refer to the GDP and GDP only, and then proceeded to argue against it. In fact, the Palestinians said "economic activity" which could mean anything from unemployment, poverty, per capita GDP, transportation costs, inflation, cost of living, etc. If you want to argue that everything about the wall and the economy is just real GDP, source it please. Find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP. That's all I ask. If you can't, then just let it be. There are more important things in life.
2. the absolute GDP numbers comparing 1999 and 2002 are not very useful here. The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective. Remember it is you who started the GDP business. I would have focused on the other aspects that are based on verifiable sources. But if you want to keep GDP, we can certainly incorporate more recent numbers and projections.
3. we somehow lost the footnote for "it is not know if these numbers are nominal or inflation-adjusted". I saw that, I don't know who did it but I can reinsert it.
4. there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period. Who determined the "relevant time period" here? You are referring to a time when less than a third (anywhere from 2% to 15%?) of the barrier was completed. Your last GDP entry is 2004, a full year before the barrier even reached 33% construction. As far as I'm concerned, even I am being ridiculous here, because we don't have a source for any of the assertions we're trying to make, except you seem to want to add them to the article anyway.
5. Believe me, I am very much sticking to the topic at hand. You took another look at this, you find it still has "problems", then you should have come back here and discuss them before re-stating the same original research statements that got us into this debate in the first place. That is good faith editing. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. You are correct that Economic Effects/Changes/Consequences can be reflected in things other than GDP like unemployment, poverty, etc. Feel free to add how these metrics changed, too, if you think they are useful. (If you want a source that GDP is considered important by economists to determine economic well-being (or whatever), look in any Econ textbook. Mansfield, 4th Ed., says GDP "is important... [because it] indicates how prosperous we are", and GDP is "one of the most closely watched numbers in existence.") There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004" which is sourced and that the World Bank calls economic activity since 2003 a "modest economic recovery" which is also sourced.
2. I am not sure what you are suggesting. Soon, some reliable GDP numbers for 2005 should be available. We can add them.
3. Rather than (i) reinserting a footnote saying the data about absolute GDP is not useful to compare, it would be better to (ii) find the correct data about absolute GDP that can be compared or (iii) remove the absolute GDP data. I vote for (iii) but if someone else wants to do (ii), they should go for it, but (i) is not a good solution, IMHO.
4. I am not sure that you are suggesting. As I mentioned, when 2005 numbers are available we can add them.
5. Let's just talk about the article.

SeattliteTungsten 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It's frightfully simple: You say There is no need to "find a reliable source that defends the hypothesis that the barrier caused an increase in Palestinian real GDP" because the article text does not say this. The article text says, "Real GDP growth in the West Bank increased modestly in 2003 and 2004". Good. This is something you added, not something that miraculously appeared in the article, but the point remains What does that have to do with the barrier? Is there any relationship between this and the barrier? If so, source it. If not, it shouldn't be in this article, it should be in another article about Palestinian economy. Full stop. A vague statement referring to a "suppressed economy" by the Palestinian ministry of finance in which several factors were pointed out, with the barrier being last on the list, just doesn't suffice. I could also cite statistics about infant mortality rates between '99 and '01, and compare them to the rates from '02 to '05. But unless it has something to do with the barrier, it just doesn't belong here. Secondly, you say Feel free to add how these metrics changed. I will only do that when I use a verifiable source that explicitly or even implicitly blames or gives credit to the barrier for any such changes. Otherwise, I'd be a hypocrite wouldn't I?
2. What I am suggesting is that stating GDP numbers without any reason or verifiable source to tie their existence in this article to the barrier itself, is original research.
3. But I assume you'd be okay with comparing GDP numbers from '01-'02 with numbers from '04-'06? (Before barrier, after barrier?) Of course, again, unless there is a publication out there that is blaming the barrier in whole or in part for such numbers, I am not going to copy your style of introducing unsourced concepts.
4. What I am suggesting is extremely simple: You wrote above "there is no OR here or establishing causality; it only shows how the GDP changed during the relevant time period", and I am simply disagreeing that the time period between '02 and '04 is relevant, because first (I re-re-re-reiterate) the relevance of any of this to the barrier is unsourced, and second, '04 cannot be the "after X" in your argument where you say: "you would want to start with "what was the economy before X?" and "what was the economy after X?" ", because 2004 is no where near "after X", it's not even in the vicinity of "after X", because 2004 is a whole year BEFORE the barrier was... only 33% complete?. So at the end of 2004 maybe it was, I don't know, 19% complete? Would 19% qualify as "after X"???? If so, according to who? You? That's original research. So again, instead of arbitrarily setting your own &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;before" and "after" dates, find a source for the claims you're trying to make, or at least find a source that states that the commencement of barrier construction caused in increase in GDP (which is the POV you are trying to push as I understand from your January comments).
5. You're right, I will cease discussing the natural habitat of the Australian outback, the personal philosophy behind Ehud Olmert's bowel movement habits, and my great aunt's ingrown toenail and focus only on the barrier. And excuse me, I don't see how you can call my assertion that you 'reneged' on a compromise a personal attack (ad hominem, ad absurdum, ad popsiclum or otherwise), especially when you did it so blatantly and unapologetically. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point WRT to the time period. It's improper to use 2003-2005 GDP figures to show improvement in the economy because only 33% of the barrier had been completed by then, but it's ok to use 2001-2002 figures which show a decline in the economy, when even less of the barrier was complete? Isarig 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I already wrote above: "The GDP numbers for 1999, 1889, or 2009, are not relevant at all from my perspective." This should answer your question of what I think is ok and what is not. If you read the debate that occurred several months ago you will see that none of this belongs in this article in my opinion, because there is no source whatsoever (that I can find) that links GDP to the construction of the barrier per se. Unless there is a source, the initials "GDP" do not belong here at all, at least not in the way presented now. The writings were an attempt at compromise with an editor who in my opinion is performing original research and adding misleading snippets of information out of context. This all will be moot anyway if the GDP turns negative again this year and the next as the World Bank predicts. And even then, it wouldn't belong here, this is an article about the barrier not the Palestinian economy. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This whole section needs to go. Isarig 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between GDP growth and the barrier is that the PNA Finance Minister specifically states that "[r]eal GDP growth in 2004 is estimated to have remained weak" and attributes causal factors to this including that "[e]conomic activity in Palestine continued to suffer in 2004 as a result of ...the construction of the separation wall." This citation is included in the text. Here (as elsewhere) "economic activity" is measured in GDP. These terms are pretty much interchangeable because it is definitional, i.e., GDP is defined as the sum of all economic activity. The World Bank has a different take on the economy since 2003 namely that it is an "economic recovery" albeit a "modest" one. SeattliteTungsten 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Realities on the ground"

There seems to be some obsession with the phrase "realities on the ground", to the extent that some poorly written irrelevant material laden with original research is being pushed into the article. I've retained the main point of the section, that some people assert the barrier is creating "realities on the ground", while removing the irrelevant discussion about what "realities on the ground" might or might not mean in various contexts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

it's better now- before it was awkward. there was also a problem of clarity and meaning because it implied that there was "one meaning" of the term, or that when one analyst interprettted the meaning in some context, that meaning could be applied to or inferred from another context. it cannot. certainly, before there ever was a barrier the meaning did not include the barrier so one never knows what it means in any context unless the speaker, who is using the term, says 'i mean this phrase to be settlements' or 'i mean this phrase to include barrier'

[edit] POV/NPOV Intro: "Supporters argue...", "Opponents argue..."

It seems to me that the sentence starting "Supporters argue..." should use the phrasing, or defer to the phrasing, of the supporters like "terrorist attacks", or whatever. And, "Opponents argue..." should use the phrasing of the opponents like "illegal settlements", or whatever. Obviously, a single sentence ("Supporters argue..." or "Opponents argue...") is going to be POV. The whole paragraph should have all POVs summarized and will, therefore, be NPOV. HailMaryFullOfGrace 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but have observed that edits by Rudyab have now made the intro very POV. It now says that opponents of the barrier "note" and "understand" certain things, but supporters "argue." Give me a break. I almost reverted the whole thing back to Bibigon's last edit, but there are probably a few words of Rudyab's edits that are ok, and I don't have time to go through it word for word right this second. Instead I put a POV tag on the article. In addition to POV, the intro is now just a mess. At least one sentence is now repeated in the same paragraph, and the last paragraph of the intro has been changed from grammatical to ungrammatical. 6SJ7 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7% vs 5%

hi folks - just wanted to point out that the article contradicts itself - mentioning 5% as the figure for concreted sections, then reverting to 7% in section "4.5.1 Opponents of the term" - i have no idea which is correct, so just thought i'd point it out here so someone can fix it as appropriate! cheers.

[edit] Apartheid Opinions

1. removed "The barrier is called the 'apartheid wall' by some of those who oppose it" which is redundant with earlier text "some opponents of the barrier refer to it in English by the epithet, 'Apartheid Wall'"
2. change subsection title to "Apartheid opinions" more parallel with previous subsections; nomenclature is already covered earlier in the article. SeattliteTungsten 07:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing renaming and moving this section to the top of the opinions section, and expanding it to summarize the opinions which follow. It's a little odd to give all the opinions on the controversy first, and then explain what the controversy is at the end, right? Kendrick7 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel News Agency

There has been protracted discussion of this as part of several AfDs and DRVs; the consensus is that whether or not it is notable, it is not a reliable source. It is also the subject of sustained SEO spamming by its creator. And given his opinion of Wikipedia I'm sure he would not want his blog agency associated with us anyway :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No probelm. I had them confused with a different agency Isarig 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of the barrier

"Names of the barrier" is a succinct, simple, neutral heading. There is no need for a long extended phrase especially in the heading since "names" is neutral. An epithet is a type of name. When kids say, "she/he called me a name" they are not talking about a compliment :-) so I think "names" covers both positive and negative. Also, "the naming of the barrier is itself controversial" seems like a relevant point that someone unfamiliar with the topic should know. SeattliteTungsten 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. I also don't agree that an "epithet" is equivalent to a "name." However, as of yet I have not changed it back. 6SJ7 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a distinction needs to be maintained between the "name" (or names) given to it by its builder and owner (Israel) and the "name-calling" names. This distinction is important and is clearly explained in the text. However, it need not be explained in the heading. The heading should just be a simple, well,... heading. The previous longer phrasing was unusual and awkward. SeattliteTungsten 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of CNN citation

Someone removed this citation: "U.N. court rules West Bank barrier illegal" (CNN). That was inappropriate. It's a ruling from the International Court of Justice reported by CNN. --John Nagle 18:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I added a brief description of what the article says. The article says that the ICJ issued an advisory opinion, which was non-binding, and that Israel did not participate in the hearings, so I put that all in. I did not put in that Israel does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of that court, although arguably that should be in there as well. 6SJ7 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --John Nagle 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article summary paragraphs

The summary paragraphs to this article should be short, concise summaries. To this end, I am moving some details about the ICJ to the ICJ section instead of the top summary. The current version (before the edits I am about to make) has about 55 words for 'Supporters argue...' and about 110 words for 'Opponents argue...' It should be realistic to get both of these to nice, short, concise summaries of about 50 words each. The format I propose is, simply, "Supporters argue A, B, and C. Opponents argue D, E, and F." There is no need to rebut A-C or D-F in these summary paragraphs. SeattliteTungsten 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question - can we use this picture?

The Israel Defense Forces have a nice picture of the fence system. [79]. Can this be used in Wikipedia? Not sure about copyright in Israel government output. --John Nagle 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StandWithUs

I am thinking of taking out the recent addition of source from StandWithUs. While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article for the following reasons:

1. the article is long and since there are serveral volumes of material that could be written about the barrier, we need to be careful about what goes in.
2. most of these points are already made elsewhere in the article -- very little is new
3. some of the points are out-of-date (e.g. percentage wall/fence)
4. the organization is based in LA and is probably not a valid "Israeli Opinion"
5. this source is not the ideal, preferred source according to Wikipedia guidelines; while it could be used (especially if it contributed something different), better sources would not have a stated agenda; would be academic, government, or recognized publications; have PhDs; etc.

Comments? SeattliteTungsten 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

StandWithUs is probably not a reliable source. It's not clear who they really are. They don't give the names of their officers on their web site, and their domain registration info (123 Street, Los Angeles, CA 12345 Phone:+1.3335556666) is phony. --John Nagle 02:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning", although rarely are edits on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "well-meaning" these days. I would most definitely agree that using it as a source is against policy. Sites such as StopTheWall.org, which though partisan (they call it the apartheid wall), are actually much more informative given that they include first-hand accounts from Palestine and can be sourced as such, but nevertheless have been refused on WP. If third-hand account propaganda sites like StandWithUs are allowed to stay, then that will open the door to other partisan sites as well. That's as far as StandWithUs goes. Now as for the specific material added here, it's terribly redundant, and thus not really helpful. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conflict" vs. "Peace Process"

Somebody changed "Conflict" to "Peace Process". That was a bit too much happy-face, even for us in California. --John Nagle 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, its important to understand context. We did create a template on the conflict but after a while it seemed to be more focused on the peace process. Thus we moved that template from "Conflict" to "Peace Process". We are now in the process of making a second template that deals with the conflict aspects. I was fixing all the double redirects that were created by the move. Please join in the discussion here Template_talk:Israel-Palestinian Peace Process -- see especially the bottom, more recent section. Best. --Ben 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid wall

Call me crazy, but am I the only one that thinks Apartheid wall should redirect here? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do you wish to change the redirect page?Bless sins 04:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the redirect at Apartheid Wall per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall. --John Nagle 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the loaded term "apartheid wall" and think it should be deleted, it obviously refers to the Israeli West Bank barrier, so it should redirect there if it must exist. Abe Froman 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Apartheid Wall should not redirect here. We have already determined that the term "apartheid wall" is a biased term and flagrant propoganda. Furthermore, calling this wall an apartheid wall is an insult to everyone who suffered during the apartheid in South Africa. If Apartheid Wall were redirected here, it would supply readers with false and misleading information, for they would assume that the practices of the Israelis are the same as the practices of the Apartheid government of South Africa. User: Notecardforfree 18:58, 15 Jan 2007

[edit] External Links

I was thinking of reorganizing the external links section. The new categories would be Israeli government and courts, United Nations, Resources in favor of the barrier, Resources against the barrier, and General News Resources. Any thoughts on this?Oneworld25 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV of image

the second image in this article here is POV for the previous sectionhere, which talks about the dispute of the name, i mean for the reader who actually never saw the "fence/wall", he/she wouldn't see more than a harmless fence beside a road! i believe this image is the one that sticks into his/her mind ... a fence(a name i dispute, just like many other Palestinians and israili and international organizations ) ... the word fence fits more for a garden (with a fence), on the other hand an image like this() would leave the reader with a totally diffrent POV. i suggest putting both images, a fence ... and a wall.--Mayz 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)