[Wikipedia-l] NPOV and the israeli-palestinian conflict

[Jimmy Wales]

This really seems like a better discussion for the /Talk pages, but
it's probably worth discussing a bit on the list, too.  Obviously, the
Israeli/Palestinian situation is one of the most important stories of
our time, one for which our encyclopedia ought to provide a solid
background.  But equally obviously, it is a topic of great complexity
and passion that makes NPOV difficult to achieve.

I think that elian's approach is exactly the right one.  I, too, have
avoided certain topics where I was unsure that I could strike the
right balanced tone.

In this case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I have a few opinions
(against suicide/homicide bombings against civilians, against mistreatment
of any kind again Palestinians, the need for love and flexibility on both
sides to reach genuine longterm settlement), but don't know enough of
the complex history to write much about the factual background.

elian wrote:
> First, I see a problem with a lot of little formulations.  There were so
> many formulations which hurt: more than 100 killed civilians, women and
> children constituted the deir yassin "incident" - see edit history of
> "Irgun", where the Irgun was "supposed to have killed them". I am sure the
> deads would not consider their murder as "supposedly".

Is it generally uncontroversial that the Irgun killed more than 100
civilians?  If so, then I see no reason for the "supposed to have
killed them" formulation.  The word "murder" should be used, in many
contexts, but it should be used cautiously, I think.  

I'm sure we could have two weeks discussion of just what makes for a
murder versus other descriptions!  I wouldn't want to open that can of
worms unless absolutely necessary, so just understand me to be saying
that such judgments can be difficult and controversial, and that
sometimes the arguments could be avoided through careful word choices
to avoid the controversial conclusions.

> Or "Palestinians claim that the bulk of Palestinian refugees had been
> inhabitants of Palestine for many generations": doesn't this obvious,
> totally trivial fact, recognized by the UNO, earn a formulation as a fact,
> not a claim?

I think so, but perhaps it should be bolstered by estimates of the
percentage of Palestinian refugees who were born elsewhere, etc.

We might say (and I am making these numbers up, and perhaps valid
numbers are not available) that 80% of the Palestinian refugees are
children or grandchilden of people who lived in the area before the
creation of the state of Israel, and 15% are people from other
countries with cultural/familial ties that go back further than that,
and 5% are people who have intermarried into the Palestinian
population.

> Other things, on the contrary, seem to be facts: "The infiltration, which
> was usually carried out at night by desperate people, terrorized the
> Jewish civilians, some of whom lived in former Arab areas. Moreover, while
> most of the infiltrators didn't come with the intention to kill, many of
> them did steal property." (Palestinian_infiltration) There is no question
> that this "stolen property" may have been one year earlier the rightful
> property of the "infiltrator" before disseized by Israeli law, no, "they
> steal property".

Could we not here simply describe the uncontroversial facts, without
any _judgment_ as to the status of the property in question?  It might
be difficult to word properly, but it seems possible to me.

> It's a real question which definition of law applies in the wikipedia: is
> it the positive law, set by the victorious party in a conflict? Or do we
> adhere to some internationally defined standards of human rights and
> international law?

I think the right answer to this is: whenever there is controversy, we
do neither.  It is not up to wikipedia to judge the controversial
moral issues of our day, but to present information agreeable to all
reasonable parties in a controversy so that both feel that a neutral
observer will have sufficient data to come to the right conclusion.

> My last example is the part about the origin of suicide bombings in
> "Terrorism against Israel": First comes a view attributed to some Israelis
> and Americans that propaganda in palestinian schoolbooks incites
> terrorism. It is followed by a view attributed to Palestinians "that the
> homicide bombings are forgiveable and understandable effects of the
> unsatisfactory situation in which Palestinians live, and that it is the
> only way to achieve the results they desire." followed by "In contrast,
> Israelis and Americans point out that millions of people live in similar
> and worse conditions all over the world, yet these people never resort to
> waves of homicide bombings."
> 
> Okay, the thing with the schoolbooks should be clear for the interested
> reader, but what the hell is the "unsatisfactory situation"?

Would simply fleshing out the details of what Palestinians regard as
the 'unsatisfactory situation' be enough here?

> The goal of an encyclopedia should not be to justify terrorism, but it is
> definitely one of its goals to describe accurately what the source of this
> terrorism is. There are enough studies around the world who show that
> children growing up in an atmosphere of violence (for example african
> child soldiers) tend later to attempt to resolve conflicts in a violent
> way. Doesn't the experience of children seeing their parents beaten, their
> family home blown up and living under curfews or in permament danger of
> being shot accidentally when leaving the house merit a mention as possible
> influence of palestinian terrorism beside the schoolbook debate?

Yes, it does.

On the other hand, stepping a bit more into the controversy than I
like, I would say that most Americans are puzzled about the
differences between Palestinians and other people with grievances
around the world.  Why didn't we see suicide bombings and terror
campaigns by the victims of South African apartheid?  Why didn't we
see suicide bombing campaigns by Jews in WWII Germany?  Why didn't we
see suicide bombings against British rule in India?

It does seem relevant to examine what things, beyond the raw fact of
grievances, led to this reaction.  Part of this must be cultural and
religious (Islamic martyrdom).  And part of it is likely due to
differences in strategy and tactics on the part of Israelis?

> Where is the "arguing for the enemy" that the NPOV-policy demands?

Dig in and do it!  It would be much apppreciated, especially since (a)
you seem to know a lot about it and (b) you have a sensitivity to the
demands of NPOV.

> This is not always done by inserting "claims" and "supposed", but
> internationally recognized facts should be presented as such (even
> if the Israeli government or the Hamas leaders refuse to acknowledge
> them).

I agree with this, but caution that there are ways to get into trouble
here.  Sometimes the Israeli government or Hamas leaders may be right
to raise a denial, in which case we have to acknowledge that, as well.

> But human rights violation are human rights violations, even if the state
> Israel says, destroying of palestinian houses is lawful, because a
> terrorist lived in it. (see B'tselem discussion page) For the terrorist's
> little three-year-old sister, who is then forced to live on the street, it
> _is_ a human rights violation and according to the international
> declaration of human rights it is, too.

I agree with this, except -- it is not correct for wikipedia to take
the side of international law as put forward by the U.N. -- the
U.N. can be (and often is, in my opinion) wrong about right and wrong.

On the other hand, violation of a U.N. resolution is the violation of
a U.N.  resolution.  That's a fact that people could agree about,
whether they think the violation is acceptable or not.

> greetings and sorry for the horrible english,

Horrible English?  I thought it was perfect.

--Jimbo