Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Third version of EAFORD story

I rewrote for the third time this short text to clarify the accusation and its relevance in the article, added a JPost source, a link to the original statement from EAFORD's web site, and moved it to "Claims that the UN ignores antisemitism". Please try editing and/or discussing instead of deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the process for dealing with disputed material. You have to get consensus before you insert it. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neither on this page nor on the admin page you incorrectly posted the issue to did you get a consensus; far from it. You can't just keep inserting new editions. If you want to propose a new version, propose it here and allow others to comment on it. You are also free to try a page like the NPOV noticeboard, and you can even request formal mediation. To start with: why do you believe you don't need to mention that HRC claims to be publishing the material unedited according to procedural rules? In my opinion it is essential for balance. Zero^talk 17:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero, you are right. Edit the text and let this pathetic debate die. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added a NPOV tag to this article. The reason is that a large fraction of it is just a selective and excessive dump of criticisms of the UN, largely from sources known for their support of Israel. There is hardly any attempt to locate answers made to those criticisms or to provide notable commentary in the other direction. In my opinion this is one of the most biased articles in the I/P-related section of Wikipedia. Zero^talk 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero, you are right (again). Locate reliable sources expressing the kind of opinion you are talking about and insert them in the text. You do not need to fix the whole article, just one small paragraph would be a good start. Don't flag, edit! Emmanuelm (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I've edited this article to add opposing views several times now, and you've reverted well-sourced material on each of those occasions. If you don't like the prose used by reliable published sources, stop deleting the material and break out your thesaurus. This article is indeed one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia and it needs to be tagged until that issue is addressed. The title of the article includes the United Nations and Palestine, but the article has an Israel sidebar and in many instances doesn't present the actual published views of Palestine or the United Nations. harlan (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan Wilkerson edits

Harlan, you write like a lawyer versed in international rights. That's good for you but is incompatible with the format of Wikipedia, which aims for article in plain English. I usually edit rather than delete, but in your case I simply did not understand what you wrote. Please re-write.

Note: careful not to overload the lead (introduction) paragraph; it should be a summary of the main text; see WP:Lead. Also, about the Israeli Arabs being under martial law, it is unrelated the United Nations and, therefore, does not belong in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of martial law, permanent UN responsibility for Palestine, & etc.

Emmanuelm, the Jewish Agency asked the United Nations to create a state for them and recognize their sovereignty over half a million Arab citizens. None of the other members of the United Nations have ever done that. The United Nations adopted several resolutions, including 181(II) and 194(III), which placed the civil rights and property of Israel's Arab minority under UN guarantee and called on Israel to allow them to return to their homes. Israel declared a state of martial law which lasted for twenty years and adopted legislation which prevented internally displaced Arab citizens from returning to their homes. That is the source of the original and on-going dispute between the UN and Israel. So, it is very unusual that it isn't mentioned in this article. For information on the regime of martial law and legislation see Anis F. Kassim, C. Mansour (eds), "The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 2000-2001, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN: 9041118179, page 5, footnote 13 [1] and Quigley, John 2 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992) Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel [2]

The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution on 4 September 1931 regarding the general conditions which had to be fulfilled before a LoN mandate regime could be brought to an end with respect to a country. The requirements included provisions for succession to treaties and assumption of public debts. There was also a requirement that the new government provide a Declaration acknowledging their acceptance of an undertaking to constitutionally guarantee the equal rights and the properties of their ethnic and religious minorities. See Luther Harris Evans, "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law, [3] The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that either written or oral minority rights declarations supplied to the League Council were adequate and tantamount to treaties. See International Human Rights in Context, Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 0-19-927942-X, page 100.

A study published by the UN Secretariat in 1950 noted that Resolution 181(II) implemented the LoN criteria in Part 1. B. and C. A key provision of the partition plan was "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession."

During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf [4] Mr Abba Eban said he needed a little time to produce the documents.

At the 51st session Mr Eban answered affirmatively that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, [5] The instruments that Mr Eban cited during that and the other hearings were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed and published in the official gazette), and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General. General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949 contains a footnote (5) regarding "the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel". The footnote cites the minutes of the 45th-48th, 50th, and 51st meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee contained in documents A/AC.24/SR.45-48, 50 and 51.[6]

Notwithstanding Mr. Eban's declaration and explanation, the first President of the Israeli Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira said "The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes."[7] During a 1949 Conference between Great Britain and Israel regarding the repayment of the expenses of the Mandatory and assumption of the public debts in accordance with resolution 181(II), Israel claimed that it was in no sense the legal successor to Palestine. See "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178.

In 1950 Israel denounced the provisions of resolution 181(II) regarding succession to treaties. The government of Israel based its decision on a claim that, despite Israel's offer to make the Declaration required in Part 1 B and D of the partition plan, "she was not asked to do so, and, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, was admitted as a Member of the United Nations without the said Declaration having been made." See page 21, paragraphs 21-23 [8] The material from Mallison, Crawford, O'Connell, Li-ann Thio, et al address Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [9] harlan (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, this article isn't a legitimate field for your innovative personal abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative legal theories -- or your really somewhat strange beliefs that, even though the Arabs vehemently denounced UNGA resolution 181 with vituperative contumely during late 1947 and early 1948, and never followed through on any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as respect for Jewish holy sites and borders freely open to trade), nevertheless all of the provisions of UNGA 181 which would have benefited the Arabs (if, counterfactually, they had agreed to it) somehow supposedly now have full legal force. You can't change historical nonsense into historical fact, no matter how much pseudo-philosophical verbiage is piled on... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos, you've been asked to drop the WP:Battle attitude, the personal attacks, and to stop using talk pages as your own general discussion forums. harlan (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And you've been asked to drop your constant pushing of exactly the same theories even after they have been shown on multiple occasions by different people to have very significant problems -- but you never do so. AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I get "my theories" from journals and textbooks on the Middle East published by Cambridge, Oxford, and other mainstream university press houses. I find they are chock-full of references to verbatim records, like the ones above, that back-up what they say. On the other hand, you have been known to start editorial conflicts that span multiple articles over off-topic rants, before finally admitting that none of it was ever supported by published sources. [10] You may not have noticed, but I'm still citing O'Connell above, and you are still making unsourced chatroom-style posts that are not about this article. harlan (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You certainly go through the formal motions and surface technicalities of citing sources, and you often write in a pretentious and ponderous manner which you seem to think lends your remarks some kind of pseudo-legal gravitas, but unfortunately in many cases the result of all your efforts really doesn't add up to much of substance (which can usefully be added to the article) in the end -- as has been pointed out on a number of occasions by different people. This not to deny that you actually have produced some quite interesting contributions from time -- such as tracing the history of the development of minority-rights protections in treaties of the 1920's and 1930's. However, most of these mini-essays were in fact not very relevant to the articles to which you attempted to add them... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) AnonMoos the ICJ started its legal analysis of Palestinian rights with Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin and discussed the safeguarding clauses for those pre-existing rights in the British Mandate and the chapter of the UN partition plan devoted to the declaration. See para 129 [11] Profs W.T. Mallison and Carol Fink both wrote about the concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties. That practice also originated with the Treaty of Berlin and was applicable to the cessions of territory made to the Jewish and Arab states under the UN partition plan. You and Jayjg deleted the so-called "mini-essay" and claimed it was WP:Synth. But neither of you checked to see how many of the sources actually mentioned the UN partition plan or how many of them I'd simply been quoting.[12] Then you started the unsourced and groundless discussions about Britannica. You claimed it somehow proved the Palestinians were double-dipping and had forfeited their rights under the partition plan. The Britannica article does not mention either of those imaginary topics, and the judges in the ICJ Wall case disagreed with your legal analysis. The information in the so-called mini-essay happens to be very-well sourced, and it is relevant to this and many other UN-related articles. harlan (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, if you really want to let it be publicly seen that you draw on sources out of a sincere degree to improve articles -- instead of unnaturally contorting the sources to somehow produce your previously pre-arranged conclusions, no matter how strained the feats of interpretation you have to perform in order to do so -- then you'll finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan.

This is a very simple and basic fact of history accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars, and the longer you continue to deny it out of some personal ideological motivations, the worse it reflects on you. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article was one quickly and easily-available source which says what all reputable historical sources say -- but of course you didn't accept what it said, and instead went on to parse its authorship in minute scholastic detail, in order to try to make it mean something other than what it clearly and plainly stated (though your efforts were undermined by a certain confusion between Rashid Khalidi and Walid Kahlidi). As long as you resort to such torturous contortion to try to deny the basic facts of history, your efforts on Wikipedia will continue to be contentious. AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted opinions of legal scholars that were added to the article. The additions were presenting one POV, probably minority POV,(certainly not those of the UN,UK as previous sovereign,or Israeli Supreme Court that do view Israeli basic laws as guaranties of protection of minorities rights and equality in its verdicts), presenting them as general opinion, while completely ignoring the others, including even those that were presented in the sources provided, such as Professor Aleh Hulatapa of Cambridge, in Senate hearing protocol . I do not think that this article is the place to discuss interpretations of resolution, because then the additions will be bigger then article itself now. If it is to be inserted here, it must be NPOV, and not selective in presentation of opinions. As of now I agree that it looks very much like it was made to produce previously pre-arranged conclusions. Igorb2008 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding discussion on the subject from harlan talkpage:

Harlan, I disagree that your additions were whiten in neutral stile or pertinent.My edit was made in attempt to improve the article and not to distract. I think you using your sources selectively to promote an opinion, and I see others in discussions believe so also. Frome what I understand this constitutes WP:SOAP, as you as addition must balanced to put entries, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. RegardsIgorb2008 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Igorb2008, if you continue to delete sourced material I'll request that you be blocked. Regards. harlan (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I presented the reason for deletion on article talk page, as well as here, so if you still believe that I violated policy,you welcome to submit your request.Regards, Igorb2008 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I will follow the normal dispute resolution process. The views of James Crawford, Mallison, and etc. are not minority views. They are the views of the Rapportuer of the UN International Law Commission and a legal consultant for the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.[13] The Wikipedia:ARBPIA general sanctions require that the published views of all the interested parties are fairly represented. Your selective deletions of UN and Palestinian views violates the general editing sanctions. harlan (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I only made one deletion, of the new addition to the article because, in my opinion, as well as some others on talk page, that addition itself was selective,made contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and did not fairly represent all views published, even by sources provided,presenting some of the opinions as facts. By rules of wikipedia it must be made NPOV, and present counter arguments, to each of these points presented by you

1)Li-ann Thio opinion, whether right of a nations for independence is conditional.

2)James Crawford and William Thomas Mallison opinions, whether Israel provide constitutional protection for minorities, whether,Israel was created pursuant either to an authoritative disposition of the territory, or to a valid and subsisting authorization.

3)Opinions if Resolution 181 is such disposition or authorization.

4)If previous sovereign accepted disposition or authorization.

And I do not believe that this article is a right place to discuss all those points, because such discussion will be bigger then the full article now.

I am sorry I cant seem to open UN link provided by you, but Israeli independence is accepted by UN,Palestine, as well as UK, and disposition of the Mandate of Palestine, as well as creation and independence of free states in its place, was accepted by UK also. I also think that this discussion should continue on article talk page, to allow everyone to contribute. Igorb2008 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Igorb2008, the views I added to the article were directly attributed to their authors in the text of the article itself. This article claims that "Resolution 181(II) laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy for the creation of the state of Israel." Crawford, Mallison, O'Connell, Quigley, Schmidt, Thio and a host of other legal scholars say that Israel ignored and violated the principles of customary international law that resolution 181(II) was based upon. The on-going dispute between Israel and the United Nations has its origins in the Palestinian human rights that were placed under permanent UN guarantee in accordance with the minority protection plan contained in UN GA 181(II). Israel displaced three quarters of a million Palestinians, declared martial law for twenty years on the displaced Palestinian Israelis, and never let any of them return to their homes and property. You can't have an article that claims the UN Human Rights Committee/Commission is unfairly picking on Israel, without including the views of the other interested parties to that dispute. That also means you cannot delete opposing views just because they aren't to your liking. harlan (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including the opinions of scholars but they must be posited as opinion. Your commentary below clearly indicates a personal bias and a desire to change the neutrality of the article. If you want to include the claims by radical academics - I totally support it. IMO, the on-going dispute between Israel and the UN has squat to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with an Arab super majority in the UNGA. Last I checked almost twice as many Jews than Arabs were expelled and yet there is no on-going dispute between the UN and Arab nations over Jewish human rights. But like your POV, mine has no place in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I've always attributed opinions to their authors. I'm going to cite the requirement for a minority rights guarantee from the Council of the LoN resolution; the UNSCOP majority plan; and the Secretary-General's study as an objective fact that is discussed by all of the authors I've listed. I'm also going to cite the views of the UN and Palestine with regard to the displacement of Palestinians, the imposition of martial law, and the confiscation of their land, and property.

It seems odd that you cite Alan Dershowitz as an academic authority with regard to possible bias at the UN, but characterize more prominent legal scholars as "non-major", even though they head-up major university law departments, possess PhDs, and publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals. Profs. Richard A. Posner and Brian Leiter have both noted that "Although he is a professor at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz is not a scholar." See [14] and [15]

In 1948 Israel was broke and in need of a 100 million dollar loan guarantee from the United States. Azure magazine published statistics provided by B. Scott Custer Jr., chief of the international law division of UNRWA (Gaza) regarding the 17,000 “internally displaced Jews coming from original mandate Palestine” who resided in Israel. They were provided support from the UNRWA agency. In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. see [16] harlan (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dershowitz isn't a "scholar" but a major commentator on the Israeli/Arab conflict. His status as a lawyer also gives him more credence as far as international law is concerned compare to philosophy/history majors. Dershowitz can't be any less reliable than Noam Chomsky - one of the most heavily cited commentators on the Middle East conflict and American foreign policy in general. FYI: Chomsky lacks a degree in law. As agreed by another editor in your dubious noticeboard complaint, fringe academics and sources cannot take precedence over mainstream scholars. A minority opinion gets minority status, if that. Your reference to the lehmen (sp) agreements has nothing to do with UNGA. The concept of Palestinian people did not exist. Israel's acceptance of refugees had nothing to do with guilt and was not enshrined in international law. It was merely an attempt to win the affection of the Arab states. Israeli government from the get-go wanted a negotiated peace and was willing to provide "confidence-building measures" in exchange for an agreement with the Arab states. The Arab states demanded reparations before negotiations, this was unacceptable as far Israel was concerned and the state of belligerency continued. the refugee problem was created by a variety of factors - first and foremost the invasion of half a dozen Arab states. the partition would have provided a "Palestine" more than double the amount of land they would receive today, and modern Israel would be 40% Arab. The Arabs - not Israel - accepted responsibility of the refugees. They built the camps, they ran the UNRWA, Jordan annexed the West Bank and declared every resident a citizen of Jordan and Gaza (historically part of Egypt) was occupied by Egypt. But again, this is irrelevant to the discussion. At this point you are grasping Harlan. Like I said before I have NOTHING against including information by unknown scholars who have no presence in the mainstream, but they cannot be given the same status as mainstream cites. You came into this discussion with the complaint that the article was pro-Israel. In my opinion, the article reflects the consensus and is supported by a wide-variety of sources. It seems anything that doesn't accuse Israel of racism and/or apartheid must be dismissed as "pro-Israel." Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, the people at the Fringe theory and No Original research noticeboards did not think the cases were dubious. I'm going to ask once again that you name your mainstream sources on the topic of minority rights and their connection to grants of territory. You are trying to turn this into a general discussion forum. Please make a good-faith effort to list the so-called mainstream sources that can be added to the article to balance the so-called minority viewpoints of the sources I've listed here. So far, all you've done is delete my well-sourced material and launch a filibuster. harlan (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you are the one that turned this into a forum. The sources you provide are out of the mainstream. You have admitted you are a follower of the Israeli-apartheid movement and the scholars you list are inconsistent with the mainstream cites in the article. Pleas explain to me how your info is remotely part of the mainstream and should receive the same representation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Article tagged for systematic bias

The article is highly biased towards the views of Israel. Editors routinely delete the published viewpoints of other interested parties. harlan (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is fine. I removed the tag.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not fine. Editors here have removed the NPOV tag and requested that opposing viewpoints be added. Then those views are deleted. harlan (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually you are right. The article is not fine. It does not show even 50% of unfair treatment of Israel by UN.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a new section at the NPOV noticeboard. [17] harlan (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I direct to you my prior invitation to Zero: find reliable sources that argue that the UN is fair or even pro-Israel, cite them in the appropriate part of the text, keep your text brief and in topic, and your edits will stay. Currently, the article cites over 180 sources. Surely, if the article is as biased as you claim, you can easily find one or two additional sources to support your views! Emmanuelm (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, you are removing relevant sourced material that supports my views, but I'll be happy to add the ones I cited in the talk page section above. This article lists three entities in the title, but the views of the United Nations and Palestine are not summarized in the lede or reflected in the article contents. harlan (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article remains one of the worst in all of the I/P section of Wikipedia. Like it says in the tag "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." So Emmanuelm: What you suggest is fine but not enough. One cannot make a pile of manure smell sweet by adding manure of another color. The "claims of" part of this article needs to be reduced to at most 1/3 of its current size and made balanced. Balancing it by merely adding material will make it look completely ridiculous. Zero^talk 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero, what you call "completely ridiculous" is what the rest of us call the Wikipedia NPOV writing style. From WP:NPOV: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." The NPOV policy is clarified in WP:NPOVFAQ which contains a chapter on Avoiding constant disputes. Emmanuelm (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, This isn't a case of reputable sources contradicting one another. I'll repeat the offer I made to Wikifan1234 and AnonMoos. I've listed over a dozen sources which say that grants of sovereignty over territory and grants of independence under the terms of the League of Nations and UN resolutions which governed the termination of mandates were conditioned on constitutional guarantees regarding religious and minority rights. Those sources include Oxford, Cambridge, and Martinus Nijhoff textbooks; the ASIL Law Journal; the Official Journals of the League of Nations and the US Senate Judiciary Committee; and a published study on minority treaties conducted by the UN Secretariat. If you think they represent minority or non-mainstream opinions, all you have to do is supply published sources which says otherwise. harlan (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you continue to tortuously manipulate and contort so-called "sources"[sic] to deny commonly accepted basic facts of history -- such as that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- I don't know that I'm greatly interested in your historical revisionism and your alleged "sources"[sic] (and this determination on my part was only reinforced when the Walid Khalidi ranting propaganda tirade PDF file -- which I wasted half an hour of my life reading -- did NOT in fact say what you very clearly implied that it would say). AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos there is no revisionism involved in quoting the 1931 Journal of the League of Nations, the 1932 ASIL analysis, the transcripts of Eban's declaration, and Dr Cattan's analysis. I'll save you the trouble of finding the Walid Khalidi material, I'll just include it in the article (again). harlan (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the sources you have provided do not fit within the mainstream of thought. I can't really tell what you're getting at, but from the looks of it the above explanation is hardly reflective of what the material you are trying to insert actually says. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, it is obvious that you and the others here are trying to make it appear that the UN Human Rights organs are unfairly biased against the state of Israel. You cannot prevent editors from citing opposing views, including well-sourced information from textbooks published by Oxford, Cambridge, MacMillan and other mainstream publishers; journal articles published by the LoN, the American Society of International Law, and etc.

The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution that specified minority rights treaties as part of the criteria for terminating any LoN mandate in 1931. During the hearings on Israel's membership in the UN, several states complained that Israel was violating the minority rights that had been placed under UN guarantees in accordance with resolution 181(II). For example, the representative of Lebanon said that

section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.[18]

The sources that I cited, Mallison, Cattan, Crawford, Quigley, the Palestine Yearbook of International Law, et. al document Israel's failure to fulfill its obligations under the terms of the minority protection treaty contained in resolution 181(II) - including the imposition of martial law until 1966 to prevent displaced Palestinian citizens from returning to their homes and property, and the failure to pay them the required compensation. harlan (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"the Palestine Yearbook of International law?" Are you serious Harlan? UN181 Resolution was a non-binding resolution and was categorically rejected by the Arab states. But anyways - it is clear you have your own POV and are trying to distort the mainstream consensus that Israel has unique status in the UN compared to other states. Trying to insert radical professors is fine - I'm totally okay with including all POVs, but you as an editor seem bent on totally changing the article to paint a picture that is far from balanced. There are thousands of academics with opinions on Israel. Look hard enough and you'll find one that says Israel = Nazi Germany (Norm Finkelstein e.g..) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan my views are in line with the ARBPIA general sanctions and NPOV policy. I'm citing analysis from published secondary sources, not my personal POV. ARBPIA and NPOV both require that the published views of all the interested parties to the conflict be included in articles related to the I/P conflict. The title lists the United Nations, Palestine, and Israel. So, of course I'm serious about including the material from the Palestinian Yearbook of International Law. I'd be happy to provide cites to Dr Yoram Dinstein, Dr Ruth Lapidot, or a half dozen other scholars who have said that Israel failed to fulfill its obligation to constitutionally entrench the equal rights guarantees that were contained in resolution 181(II).

FYI, the League of Nations mandates were contained in resolutions. All UN treaties, covenants, and conventions are contained in General Assembly resolutions, e.g. "Genocide" - GA Res 260; Convention on the Elimination of "Racial Discrimination" - GA Res 2106; "Apartheid" - GA Res 3068, & etc. I've provided several sources above which explain that GA Resolution 181(II) contained a minority rights treaty. It was cataloged in a 1950 study of minority treaties conducted by the UN Secretariat. The State parties were required to provide a declaration acknowledging the undertakings and obligations. The General Assembly acknowledged Israel's declaration in GA Res 273 of 1949 and the declaration of Palestine in GA Res 43/177 of 1988. See John Quigley, The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, 35 RUTGERS. L. REC. 1, 6 (2009), [19]; Tim Hillier, "Sourcebook on public international law", Routledge, 1998, ISBN: 1859410502, page 217; and Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine. An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations”, The British Yearbook of International Law, l990, pp.l35-l53. harlan (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused - what exactly are you trying to add to the article? The article discusses minority rights vis-vis Palestine/Israel here. The resolutions above have nothing to do with 181. It is already stated in the article that some scholars say Israel didn't live up to conditions in 181. What more do you want? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikifan12345, regarding the comment "The resolutions above have nothing to do with 181." The sources that I've provided explain the connection of resolutions 273 and 43/177 to resolution 181(II). In any event, both of the resolutions specifically mention the "resolution of 29 November 1947" or "resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947". I've given you two talk pages of good faith explanations and published citations. It would violate WP:BOLD if editors needed to clear-up your mental confusion before they could edit this or other articles. harlan (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my above post - your issue is mentioned in the article currently. What more do you want? Notice how I have not once opposed your edits. The concern is you're trying to change the mainstream and consensus (which is accurately reflected on the article) to a more revisionist form. After all, you came into this talk discussion complaining about a "pro-Israel slant" and then citing academics that are a part of the fringe israel apartheid movements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, the statement of the representative of Lebanon about Israel's violation of the provisions of the resolution regarding minorities and the Palestine Yearbook information about the use of martial law to prevent Palestinians from returning to there homes and properties is certainly relevant to any discussion about possible bias towards the government of Israel on the part of UN Human Rights organs.

The terms of the UN minority protection plan said "The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations." It also provided that "Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice"

This article portrays the United Nations Human Rights organs as if they are picking on Israel for no apparent reason. The ICJ noted that the origin of the United Nations permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine was the Mandate and the Partition Plan (paragraph 49). The Court mentioned specific international guarantees contained in Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 and noted that article 13 of the Mandate and an entire Chapter of the partition plan had been devoted to safeguarding clauses that protected those "existing rights" (paragraph 129). I shouldn't have to remind you that it was always "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

I'm discussing the provisions of customary public international law that haven't changed since the 19th Century. There is no "slant" except in your imagination. States that are created with the assistance of the international community have legal responsibilities with regard to their national minorities that are different from other states. Shabtai Rosenne mentioned the differences when he was a mamber of the International Law Ccommission. See page 33 paragraph 6 [20] If a government wants to exercise sovereignty over another people they have to provide assurances that the rights of those people will be protected. The communities of Ottoman Asia were placed under the protection of the public law of Europe long before the Zionists acknowledged that their national home would have to be secured by public law.

On a number of occasions I've ask you to name a published mainstream source that discusses an opposing viewpoint regarding the customary practice of imposing minority rights treaties on new regimes, not only as a condition of recognition, but as a condition for terminating mandates, and receiving specific grants of territory. Since you can't even name one, please stop pretending that I'm "trying to change the mainstream and consensus". Here are some discussions of those practices e.g. [21] [22] and [23] harlan (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, what do you want to change or add into the article specifically? Like I said before I totally understand the minority right issue of Palestinians - this dispute is mentioned in the article as I linked before. Do you want to expand that into a separate section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan I added the material you are talking about and restored it after you removed it. I think it is clear that I've said this article needs sections on the published views of the Palestinians and the United Nations. I've already listed additional material on martial law, provided links, and discussed it with you extensively here and at the noticeboards. Nonetheless, Emmanuelm deleted it and said it has nothing to do with this article. You will just have to live with the POV tag until that and the other disputes Zero mentioned get settled. harlan (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because there is a content dispute over your edits does not mean the article is pro-Israel. Neutrality tag is perfectly fine IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is going all over the place, is impossible to follow. Please divide it into separate headers.

Harlan, I hope you noticed that I did leave, after some shortening, your text about minority rights. You see, the article may be biased but, thanks to your contributions, it is getting better. Now please read WP:UPE before adding anything else. Clarity is a great quality.

About the bias flag, everyone please read WP:WEIGHT. This article sounds pro-Israel because the majority of mainstream media articles on the subject are written by pro-Israel authors. WP:WEIGHT says articles must fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". But perhaps I am reading the wrong newspapers. Please find more mainstream sources and add to the text. Emmanuelm (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove template removed

Please discuss here which parts of the text need additional sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding a cartoon

Hello, I wonder, if it will be appropriate to add cartoon to the article, because this carton says it all. Thanks.

--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't ok. Zero^talk 15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really one of the finer efforts of editorial commentary, and if it has no specific independent notability, then it has no special claim to be included... AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

this cartoon has an air of relgiousity, since this is a secular site we shouldnt want this kind of delusion to be propagated, unless it were for the lulz, but thats not the case here, i think the poster is sincerely religious, hence my diasgreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234456556BK (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The UN gave refugees status to Jews from Muslim countries?

This article claims that the 800,000 Jews that fled Muslim countries after 1948 were given refugee status in 1950 by the UN. Can someone find more details? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the source given by the writer, In Ishmael's House by Martin Gilbert. In chapt 16, he writes that By the end of May 1950, at least ten thousand Iraqi Jews had crossed the border into Iran. These Jews -- no longer citizens of Iraq -- were taken to a refugee camp near Teheran administered by the American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (...). From Teheran, the refugees were flown to Israel. Therefore, Robert Fulford is wrong. And I am right to write in my personal page that the UN has never given refugee status to any Jew anywhere. Please prove me wrong. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If we count the territory of Arab Palestine you are incorrect. The FRUS reports that during the Lausanne Conference the Israeli delegation reply to the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) stressed that any repatriation in Israel would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the international community and that such assistance would be extended to resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab controlled areas Palestine. The Israeli delegation did not raise the subject of refugees from any of the four Arab states that participated in the conference. [24] According to B. Scott Custer Jr., chief of the international law division of UNRWA, in 1950 17,000 internally displaced Jews coming from original mandate Palestine who resided in Israel were provided support from UNRWA. In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. [25]

In 1959 Foreign Minister Golda Meir protested the involvement of the PCC and said the solution of the refugee question should be completely separate from the over-all Israel-Arab settlement. Meir said Israel would support a resolution that would limit the PCC's involvement. She said that Israel could not go back to “49” and mentioned simply offsetting Arab property claims against the loss of Jewish properties in the Arab states. She did not mention Jewish refugees, individual compensation, or the possibility of repatriating Jewish refugees to their Arab states of origin. [26] harlan (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is biased, this article or the UN?

If the UN was neutral, this article is indeed biased. But if the UN was truly biased against Israel -- as countless sources claim -- then the article is fair, right? How could one differentiate between the two possibilities? One example: let's compare the 2002 attack on Jenin and the 2007 attack on Nahr al-Bared. These two military operations are very comparable but the UN's reaction is not. Why? Could a neutral article answer this question, knowing that the answer will inevitably expose a blatant anti-Israel bias at the UN? How should this answer be worded to be fair, balanced and neutral? Emmanuelm (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was the brilliant hasbara campaign conducted by the drunken D9 operator? "I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp" On the other hand, the government of Lebanon and its armed forces are the duly constituted authorities in Lebanon. They were attacked by the Fatah al-Islam militia, who took up positions in the Nahr al-Bared camp. The Fatah al-Islam militia are uninvited guests in the country, and in the camp.[27] The IDF is not the duly constituted authority in the Palestinian territories, it is a belligerent occupant. The Palestinians are not uninvited guests in Palestine.

The big difference then, is that Article 2(7) of the UN Charter says "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter". Israel claims that Palestine is not part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2,[28] or E/1990/6/Add.32,[29]

FYI Israel voluntarily waived the right to assert its domestic jurisdiction in connection with its acceptance of the UN minority rights protection plan during the 51st session of the Ad Hoc membership committee hearings. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, [30] harlan (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Emmanuelm is saying is that the Lebanese government faced a similar threat Israel dealt with in Jenin, and al-fatah used the same strategies the Palestinians in the West Bank used, and the results were nearly the same - but the media and UN reaction were night and day. Fatah al-Islam is a Palestinian Islamist movement funded by a foreign benefactor - Hamas and Islamic Palestinian groups in the West Bank are also funded by foreign benefactors and are "uninvited guests." Under the laws of "belligerent" occupation the IDF has every right to go after terrorist threats. A little side note: In Lebanon, the Palestinians have no representation in parliament and do not qualify for citizen in any Arab state, nor can they enter the Lebanese state for social services - whereas the Palestinians the West Bank have their own elected officials and up until 2009 had the same health benefits as Israeli citizens. I find your indifference to Lebanon's ruthless policies towards their Palestinian minority quite amusing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty that serves as the constitution of the organization. The UN organization is only permitted to intervene in matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of the member states with their consent. For example, the UN didn't react to the US Government siege of the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas or a host of other situations that are matters falling within the domestic jurisdiction of member states that effect an essential interest.

Israel cannot claim that attacking Jenin was the only way it could safeguard its essential domestic interests. It is not "necessary" for Israel to occupy, annex, or colonize territory outside its sovereign jurisdiction. The Palestinians are not guests or visitors in the West Bank. So, Israel, acting as a co-belligerent, has contributed to the "situation of necessity". See Article 25 of the UN Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. [31] harlan (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I was just clarifying Emmanuel's POV. I am not a lawyer and do not understand the UNGA (non-binding) resolution on international wrongful acts. It seems Israel is in a catch-22. Israel is the military occupier in the West Bank, yet does not have the same rights as an occupier and cannot deal with elements that threaten the stability of the occupation. From my perspective than UNGA has always been biased against Israel from the very beginning - with the founding of the UNRW to the indifference of the Arab presence in the WB/Gaza (notice no resolutions on their military operations against Palestinian uprisings). The UN is not a democratic organization. It is not the Supreme Court. The UNGA is basically a mob of states - whoever has the most friends wins. Thus Morroco's response to terrorist groups in Western Sahara, Saudi Arabia's response to terrorist groups in Yemen, etc...are immune from attack. The compromised integrity of the UN and its lack of neutrality, as well as its inability to live up to its own charter (as confessed by former UN secretary generals) makes it difficult to put so much weight in extremely biased resolutions put form and written by Israel's declared enemies in the UNGA. At this point the discussion as become a soap-box, you clearly have your own POV and are trying to put it into the article. That's fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I didn't need you to clarify Emmanuelm's question, I had already answered it. The UN Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts are not a non-binding UNGA Resolution. They are a codification of existing customary international laws produced by the International Law Commission. Binding international law does not become a recommendation when it is annexed to a General Assembly resolution or mentioned in an advisory opinion. See for example the application of Article 25 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts at paragraph 143 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion in the Wall Case.[32] Unless Emmanuelm is basing his question-begging analogy on a third-party verifiable published source it is completely irrelevant to this article. harlan (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you didn't respond to Emmanuel's post accurately (nor mine) and instead went on a legal semantic tanget. Emmanuel's point was that Lebanon did the exact same thing Israel did and yet the UN said squat and the media said squat. The UN's criticism of Israel in Jenin had nothing to do with UN24 and everything to do with allegations of war crimes and "disproportionate use of force." The ICJ stance on the West Bank barrier was an advisory opinion. As well all know the international courts are merely an extension of European imperialism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, Lebanon obviously did not invade and occupy Palestinian territory or attack the Palestinians in their own homeland. Please stop trying to sell me the nonsensical idea that they did the exact same thing Israel did, and climb down off your soapbox. Neither you nor Emmanuel are discussing material from reliable published sources that can be used to improve the article. You appear to be citing nothing more than your own personal opinions. This isn't supposed to be a forum for general discussions, so I'd suggest you drop it. harlan (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for clarifying for us Israel's legal obligations to Palestinian refugees and her untenable legal position when dealing with terrorist attacks from Palestinian territories.

You are certainly more knowledgeable than us on the rights of refugees. Please explain to us the legal obligations of Lebanon regarding its Palestinian refugees. Can the army of a host country bomb a refugee camp? What circumstances would the UN accept as justification for forcefully evacuating, then destroying 80% of a camp for 28,000 defenseless refugees? Can you find a published legal opinion on Nahr al-Bared's destruction? What is your opinion on the following : “For those who believe in human rights, what UNRWA is doing is a crime against humanity,” shouted an irate Arkan Bader, a representative of the PFLP faction in Nahr al-Bared. [33]. You might find this detailed article interesting, and also this scholarly article.

Your insight would be invaluable in answering my original question, "How should this answer be worded to be fair, balanced and neutral?"

Folks, this sort of discussion violates the rules about the use of talk pages. Zero^talk 04:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I've already pointed out that the UN has no jurisdiction or legal mandate to intervene in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of its member states. I supplied you with links above to reports in which Israel said that it could not be held internationally responsible for human rights in the occupied territories, because they were not part of its sovereign territory and jurisdiction. Israel also claimed that the IV Geneva Convention does not apply and blocked UN efforts to investigate the attack on Jenin. The Israeli administration in the territories did not request funding or assist in rebuilding the camp. [34] I supplied you with a link to the remarks of a D9 operator which indicate that neither he, nor his superiors ensured that he was distinguishing between military and civilian objectives during the attack on the camp. You can certainly mention all of those facts regarding the dispute between the UN and Israel in the article.

Here is the verbatim record of the September 2007 Security Council session in which the government of Lebanon asked for $382 million to assist Palestinian and Lebanese communities affected by the fighting in Nahr al-Bared. The Under-Secretary General paid tribute to the LAF soldiers and stressed the importance of the Lebanese Government exercising its full sovereignty and control over all Lebanese territory, and for securing a victory for all of Lebanon against a clear threat to its sovereignty and stability from the terrorist organization. [35] The Lebanese government subsequently investigated allegations of Army abuses at Nahr al-Bared. [36]

The page you are citing above is produced by a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It says the UN appeal for $445 million to rebuild Nahr al-Bared went unfunded. My opinion is that UN relief agencies cannot be held criminally responsible for the actions of the Lebanese Army or Fatah al-Islam, and that Arkan Bader's claim that UNRWA is somehow violating human rights is an example of preposterous hyperbole. That material does not appear to be relevant to this particular article. I'll let you do your own original research on analogies between the two attacks and figure out how to phrase your hypothetical question, so long as you do it somewhere else. harlan (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, let me attempt to summarize what you are saying in plain English, for the rest of us. Lebanon was not blamed for destroying Nahr al-Bared because the camp is within its borders, but Israel was blamed for destroying Jenin because the camp was outside of its "borders". Right?

But, in the case of Israel, the situation far from simple. The 1949 cease-fire line (always called the "pre-1967 border" by journalists) separates Israel, a sovereign state, from the Palestinian territories, a land that has always been occupied, never sovereign. This unique situation allows the enemies of Israel the freedom to interpret international laws to suit their needs. And the master tool for international law is the UN, hence this discussion.

The argument of countless observers is that, while staying within its limits of influence, the UN spares developing countries of criticisms and focuses all its legal might on a single small country, year after year, relentlessly. It might be legal, but is it fair? If not, how can one describe unfairness in Wikipedia while being fair?

Finally, do not flag, edit! Explain why it is fair for the UNGA to focus 75% of its country-specific resolutions on one small country. For example, you might want to create a new chapter explaining relevant international law issues. Please be concise; these topics belong elsewhere, in particular International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict and Status of territories captured by Israel. And, as always, please use plain English. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, I've already cited sources which explain that Palestine represents a unique legal situation for the United Nations. The organization has only adopted decisions to created a few states, and the other states have not attempted to turn the bulk of their national minorities into permanently displaced, dispossessed, and stateless refugees.

The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series presents the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. It contains a Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the State Department Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Jordanian sovereignty over the new territory. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 [37]

The right of self-determination is an accepted jus cogens norm of international law. Half the seats of the lower house of the Jordanian Parliament were allocated to lawmakers that represented the West Bank. Discussions about the "sovereignty" of indigenous populations are moot. Entire books have been devoted to deconstructing the colonial era doctrine of "sovereignty", e.g. [38] Ralph Wilde, explained that "the racialized concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples." See page 10 of 58 [39]

Ernest A. Gross, a senior U.S. State Department legal adviser, authored a memorandum for the United States government titled Recognition of New States and Governments in Palestine, dated 11 May 1948. He expressed the view that the Arab and Jewish communities, including Transjordan, would be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 (the date of expiry of the British Mandate) to proclaim states and organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by their respective communities. Gross said "the law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government." The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, page 964 and is cited by Stefan Talmon, in "Recognition of Governments in International Law" (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), page 36. harlan (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, you certainly know a lot. But, while you explain why Palestine is a unique case, you do not explain why it deserves 75% of all country-specific UNGA resolutions. I say the UN is unfair, you call me unfair, we go in circles. Please explain why the UN is right to blame always Israel, only Israel, and to spend that much energy doing so. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuelm, according to Adam Keller, Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place. See "Is Israel singled out – and why?" [40] I've already explained that the material from Mallison, Crawford, O'Connell, Li-ann Thio, et al address Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [41]

The UNGA has minority rights treaty obligations that resulted from its role in terminating the Palestine mandate and the situations created by the government of Israel. The General Assembly has a direct responsibility for insuring the human rights of the inhabitants of Palestine. There is no corresponding UNGA treaty obligation with regard to the other member states. In any event, the majority of UNGA resolutions are not country-specific and Israel has never been on the receiving-end of punitive sanctions like those imposed on South Africa, Rhodesia, or Iraq. harlan (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for the references. I only read the online article by Adam Keller. It is moderately well written but, stunningly, Keller appears to ignore the existence of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He writes "The Jewish State in Palestine was created in 1948 and greatly overstepped the boundaries set for it by the United Nations, while the Arab State in Palestine is yet to come." "In 1949 Israel was accepted as a member of the UN without being asked to give up the territory which was not assigned to it in the partition plan, and the Palestinian refugees were regarded mainly as a humanitarian problem to be given a humanitarian solution. The Israeli position – that what the Palestinians lost in 1948 was forfeited due to their intransigence – was generally accepted on the international arena (and is in fact still so accepted)."

"Greatly overstepped"? "Palestinian intransigence"? Nonsense! It was the Arab League, not Israel, that formally declared war to nascent Israel (ref in article) with the clearly stated goal of destroying it, that militarily invaded all they could, i.e. the Arab partition, and occupied it. It is therefore the Arab League, not Israel, that deprived the Palestinian Arabs of a country and turned them into refugees. Keller repeatedly talks about Israel's "debt" to the international community. But what about the Arab League's debt? Why was there no UNGA resolution condemning Jordan and Egypt for their treatment of Palestinians refugees during the 19 years they occupied the Palestinian territories?

I have noticed that, like Keller, the UN's supporters tend to ignore the 1948 war. In my amateurish opinion, I think this war essentially nullified the resolutions signed prior to, or during, it. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The war did not nullify the Palestinian right to self--determination or a state of their own. Your amateurish opinion is an unpublished thesis, not a WP:RS. Crawford, Mallison, De Waart, et al have noted that GA Res. A/RES/43/177 of 15 December 1988 recalled resolution 181(II) and noted 'the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181(II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people'. GA Res. A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations should guarantee 'arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries'. The General Assembly listed resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution" in its 2004 request for an advisory opinion. The Court noted that it was the source of the General Assembly's permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine. See for example Paul J. I . M. De Waart, International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (2005), pp. 467–487, doi:10.1017/S0922156505002839 harlan (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I repeat my challenge: can you find a single UNGA resolution criticizing one or more Arab state for violating the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" between 1949 and 1967? If yes, insert it promptly into the article. If no, admit here and now that the UN is anti-Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmanualm, this article's scope does not include any states, except Palestine and Israel. If you want to conduct an irrelevant off-topic fishing expedition be my guest, but I'm not going to do the leg work for you. harlan (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What Harlan is trying to explain, in layman terms, is that the UN has, by various resolutions, ensured that it itself will only be able to scrutiny, criticise and condemn Israel. It has carefully ensured this stance by selectively passing resolutions that only apply to the very special case of Palestinian territories, Palestinian refugees and Palestinian borders. Of course, bound by its own resolutions, the UN can now only act in a way that "seems" biased - it simply "has no mandate" to act otherwise or act similarly on other cases, be it Darfur or Chechnya. As an example, and in order not to be labelled "NPOV" and "original research", Palestinian refugees are the only refugee group whose status is inherited.
The attempt to cover the bias is sometimes ridiculously transparent, as for example in the numerous cases of Human Rights committee. Imagine if US Congress tried to pass a law allowing "presidents of formerly oppressed ethnic background elected prior to 2010" to serve their second term without reelection. Such law would sound unbiased, until one understands it could only possibly apply to one person. 109.65.29.115 (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your example is based on a common myth. In fact there is little difference between the UNRWA and UNHCR treatment of families of refugees even though there are technical details which are different. "Item 184: If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity... Item 185: As to which family members may benefit from the principle of family unity, the minimum requirement is the inclusion of the spouse and minor children. In practice, other dependants, such as aged parents of refugees, are normally considered if they are living in the same household..." (UNHCR Handbook, HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1) Zero^talk 04:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

However, it's still true that only UNRWA creates a hereditary caste system where "refugee" status can be transmitted down multiple generations, and that there are millions of UNRWA "refugees" who would not be considered refugees under the UNHCR definition. Too bad for groups like the Pakistani Biharis -- they're not enemies of Jews, so they don't get any special UN help... AnonMoos (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The I/P and AnonMoos do not mention the rather obvious parallel to the Zionists who employed the notion of a "Galut" in which Roman conquest of the Holy Land had supposedly created a hereditary caste system that had been transmitted down a tremendous number of generations to millions of Jews. They said the plight of the homeless Jewish people had been recognized in the Balfour Declaration, which was endorsed by the League of Nations and the US, and made part of the law of the United Nations under the terms of Article 80 of the Charter. They insisted that the UN immediately set aside a port and sufficient area of the hinterland of Palestine to deal with the needs of Jewish refugees in Europe.

The Security Council already has acted upon requests that it refer the situation in Dafur to the International Criminal Court. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Ahmed Haroun from Darfur, Ali Kushayb also from Darfur, and Omar Al Bashir from Sudan. Needless to say, Israel has resisted similar suggestions regarding a referral of the situation in Palestine to the ICC.

It is a matter of public record that the Jewish Agency was already discussing the United Nations and planning to present the Jewish question to the international community during the Biltmore Conference.[42] The limitations on the functions and powers of the United Nations that I mentioned above were established during the post-WWII UN organizing conferences, and were well-known to the Zionist Executive. Those limitations have been invoked on several occasions by the State of Israel. Membership in the United Nations is hardly mandatory. Israel brought its problems to the UN for a solution, not vice versa. harlan (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Analogies to Sudan are morally humiliating. Sudan was very close to being admitted into the UNCHR during the on-going Arab League-sponsored conflict that led to the deaths of more than 2,000,000 humans. For nearly 2 decades the conflict in Sudan went unchallenged - the poverty, the 10 million+ refugees, the massacres - silence, silence, and silence. The non-alignment movement's super majority in the UN enabled the Arab states to essentially prevent any discussion on the conflict that might incriminate the allies of oil states. During this time, dozens of resolutions were passed against Israel, probably as a lightening rod to shield the crimes committed by the foreign benefactors of the PLO. The "situation in Palestine" is irrelevant in comparison, only someone delusional could draw parallels. Interestingly, the Palestinian leadership embraced the racist Arab leadership in Sudan. This isn't surprising, considering the Palestinian leadership's historic allies include Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, and Adolf Hitler.

What editors are saying Harlan is that the UN has an historic bias in favor of Islamic states and enemies of Israel. We can debate the resolutions passed against Israel all day and night, but you cannot debate the truth that the UN has devoted a disproportionate amount of time to the Arab Israeli conflict and the Palestinians, at the expense of nations and people experiencing far worse oppression and subjugation. This really isn't a controversial opinion and has been conceded by numerous UN officials, including Kofi Annan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Harlan, your ranting tirade well displays your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases, but it has no real direct relevance to the actual issues under discussion here. Namely: 1) Why is it that the Pakistani Biharis get nothing, while the Palestinians get huge allocations of funds and United Nations attention, including the unique hereditary right to be considered "refugees" down to the fifth generation and beyond (something which is denied to every single displaced group in the world other than Palestinians)? If there's any valid reason for this discrepancy other than that the Pakistani Biharis are not the enemies of the Jews, then it certainly has not been brought to my attention... 2) Far more have died in a single year in Darfur than have died over the whole last 75 years of the Israeli-Arab struggle, yet the United Nations still treats the despicable Sudanese regime with tender kid gloves, usually carefully refraining from calling the Darfur situation a genocide, while the Arab League is falling all over itself in its anxious eagerness to slobber Omar El-Bashir with kisses -- and there has still been more condemnation of Israel from the UN over the past 6 years or so than condemnation of Sudan. Right when the Darfur genocide story was breaking in early May 2004, Sudan was specially rewarded for conducting its massacres by being elevated to membership in the Human Rights Commission -- which tells you just about what you need to know about the UN system in general! AnonMoos (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, your post does not cite any reliable published sources. You are not suggesting any improvements to the article and you are asking other editors to perform original research.

I've already pointed out the parallels between the legal status of the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish people and the basis of the permanent responsibility of the UN until there is a just settlement of the Palestine Question. The Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government of Israel employed the Balfour Declaration, the LoN Mandate, and article 80 of the UN Charter as part of their claim that a legally-binding hereditary status existed which included Jewish refugees and displaced Jewish people everywhere after hundreds of generations. They said that it was part of the "Law of the United Nations" and claimed that the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the establishment of a Jewish State.[43] [44] [45]

India was a member of the LoN and a founding member of the UN in 1945. The British partition was not a UN undertaking and the resulting states did not obtain their independence through the assistance of the UN. The International Committee of the Red Cross established and does fund the camps for the Biharis. Pakistan has funded the resettlement of Bihari families from Bangladesh despite the fact that they are not stateless and are not required to live in refugee camps, e.g. [46]

Omar El-Bashir has no apparent connection to the topic of this article. There are obvious parallels to the case of Omar El-Bashir and the cases of the many Israeli officials who have been charged with war crimes. Despite the fact that several judges have found sufficient evidence to issue arrest warrants and have the responsible individuals stand trial, governments have cooperated in assisting them to avoid answering the charges in court.[47] [48] [49] [50] Israeli officials have been tipped-off and the governments involved have either rewritten or pledged to rewrite their laws on universal criminal jurisdiction after public outbursts from the government of Israel. [51] [52] Unlike the state of Israel, the state of Sudan has not been the subject of any cases brought before the international court. harlan (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"There are obvious parallels between the case of Omar Al Bashir and Israeli officials." LOL. A) Israeli officials have not been charged with war crimes by any serious international body. Token European judges bought by pro-Arab pressure groups is hardly the same as an international tribunal charging an individual with genocide. b) "Universal jurisdiction" is an affront to international law and merely an extension of European imperialism. Last I checked no European politician has been accused of war crimes for overseeing conflicts in Kenya, Algeria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Falklands, etc..etc. Business as usual...Harlan soaping away. Parallels to Sudan...lol what a joker! You are a funny one Harlan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, universal jurisdiction is not an affront to the state of Israel. It has used its own 1950 Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law to prosecute individuals for crimes committed in other countries before the State of Israel came into existence, e.g. Adolph Eichmann & John Demjanjuk.

Palestine submitted a written statement in the ICJ Wall case that said the direct or indirect transfer to occupied territory of the occupier's civilian population, or the transfer of part of the population from occupied territory - constitutes a war crime (page 170, 215-216 [53]) and cited Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Additional Protocol 1, Art. 85 (4)(a) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, Art. 8(2)(a)(iv), (b)(viii). The Court found that Israel had transferred portions of its population into the occupied territory in breach of international law and in contravention of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para 120 and 134). The Court noted that many of the state parties argued that, under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under an obligation to search for and bring before its courts persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, grave breaches of international humanitarian law (para 144-145 [54]). harlan (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, trying to analogize the Jewish people as they have existed for 2,500 years or more (depending on the exact definition chosen) to the United Nations politically-motivated definition of Palestinian refugees over the last 60 years, really doesn't correspond to anything in the real world except your apparent religious-based antipathies. The Jews long ago adopted definitions of inclusion and exclusion (so that tribal affiliation descends through the father while Jewish identity descends through the mother etc.) in order to further their survival in an uncertain and often antagonistic world. In contrast, the distinction made between the Palestinians and all other refugee or displaced groups was a purely politically-motivated UN hack job, which has allowed the Palestinians to suck at the teat of United Nations benefits indefinitely in perpetuity for the last 60 years and counting, while many other groups get nothing. You still haven't explained why it is that Palestinians get a special indefinite hereditary "refugee" status which is denied to every other group in the world (so that large number of Palestinian so-called "refugees" would not in fact be refugees under the standard UNHCR definition of refugee), or why the Palestinians get everything from the UN, while the Pakistani Biharis get nothing. P.S. You know nothing about the history of the subcontinent if you think that the Pakistani Bihari problem was created in 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing Harlan of Antisemitism for a good faith explanation of the article's subject is out of line. He's been very patient with finding documents that answer your questions and that's probably not been for his benefit. Look at the linked documents. They answer your question. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolutions in comparison with other conflicts :Graph synthesis?

Where did these come from? The text following one of them "1 : compiled from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. When a range was given, the median was used. 2 : compiled from www.un.org, 52nd to 61st Regular Sessions. Number of UNGA resolutions with the name of country or region in the title. For the Israeli-Palestinian-Lebanese conflicts, number of resolutions with one of the following words in the title: Palest*, Israel*, Middle East, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Disengagement, 1967, Golan, UNRWA, occupied Arab territories, Bethlehem. Each resolution counted once." looks like an admission of synthesis. And why are there 3 of them? Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sol, I created these tables in 2007; several editors added more data later. The allegation that these tables constitute WP:OR was discussed at length in 2008. Briefly, yes, one could argue that this table is OR since this data is not taken from a published source. On the other hand, no, to call OR the statement of self-evident facts is a distortion of the original intent of this WP policy. In the words of Jimbo Wales, articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, (...) or ideas that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

In 2008, the debate strangely ended when I pointed out that the numbers in the table and graphs were less damning for the UN than the number published by Anne Bayefsky's eyeontheun.org, the only published source for this data. If you want to replace my table with data from Bayefsky, go right ahead. But if you simply delete this data, I will revert, arguing that to erase one argument in a debate amounts to defending a POV. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Emmanuelm. You've obviously put some work into the "A comparison of major conflicts" chart. I don't think calling it OR is a distortion, it looks pretty textbook per the policy page, "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." The chart implies that the UN's criteria for issuing resolutions is somehow based on the number of deaths (and maybe it should, but that's another topic); most of the resolutions against Israel are for territorial or human rights violations. Even if Bayefsky's numbers are less favorable to a certain perspective it would be in line with policy to use and cite them. Although if the numbers are also wrong is she a reliable source? Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The text quotes Bayefsky's numbers when comparing number of resolutions about Israel vs. other states. She is quoted because she is the only source, which makes her, by definition, a reliable source since no one is arguing with her. But she does not publish data about resolutions vs. severity of conflicts (here reflected by deaths, for lack of a better metric). Therefore, as far as I know, there is no published substitute for the "Comparison with other conflicts" table. Now, at Wikipedia, the final test of all policies is reader challenge. Do you question the numbers in the table? If no, why raise the issue? Emmanuelm (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sol partially, the deaths have no relevance to UN resolutions. I created a comprehensive chart 1 year ago but it was removed from the original article. The UN enumerates resolutions according to conflict or agenda (i.e, the "Palestine Question"), but I'm not sure if it qualifies as OR to physically count the resolutions and add the data to a graph. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan partially agreed with me?! Huzzah! :P

Emmanuelm, so Bayefsky doesn't even use the death metric? And the other graphs and charts, are they also original? I'm not sure if presenting data is synthesis if you haven't really changed anything but the presentation although there is lots of wiggle room in presentation. I'll look into it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:OR and with the graph's creator's agreement that it is such, the "A comparison of major conflicts" chart is pretty clearly not kosher. Devoting a large section predicated on a number of misleading insinuations (that the UN issues resolutions solely based on casualty rates and not on international law/UN charter violations) is also a large NPOV problem. I'm still not sure about the other graphs, they might contribute to WP:COAT but that's worth discussing. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New rewrite as text

To address the criticisms of OR and SYNTH, I replaced the origina table with a new text. All quoted numbers are sourced. I trust that this new version of the data will satisfy Sol and everyone else. Please discuss here before deleting. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still OR and SYNTH. That you synthesize with text instead of tables does not magically make it not SYNTH. nableezy - 15:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you deleted my 21 lines of text 3 minutes after I posted it. Did you even read it? In the original post, I wrote "refer to discussion in talk page"; you did not discuss before deleting. I reverted your deletion, adding in capitals "please see discussion before deleting"; you deleted nevertheless, 2 min later. I am reverting your deletion a second time. If you delete it again without adequate, civil and factual discussion here, you break the WP:3RR, thus turning this into an edit war.

Now, specifically what fact in my text do you call OR or SYNTH? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When somebody reverts your addition you should not re-revert it, you should seek consensus on the talk page. Edit-warring is not some thing that everybody else does and you are just doing the right thing. The problems with the text are the same as the problems with the charts. No reliable secondary source is making the comparisons that you are making in the article. nableezy - 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll hold off on the revert to give time for discussion. Contrasting data to imply a conclusion in a manner not done by a reliable source is prima facie synthesis. I hate to oppose something you've put time and effort into but I don't see how this passes muster. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let me clarify. At 15:14, Nableezy accuses this text of being OR, but at 15:36, the problem is RS. That's two entirely different accusations. Let's address them separately :

The text is OR and SYNTH: No. The text states facts, not opinions. All numbers are sourced. If you feel that my facts are cherry-picked to support an opinion, you may add more data to correct this bias. But to delete a plain statement of fact because it appears to support a conclusion you do not like amounts to a POV.

EyeOnTheUN.org is not a reliable source: EyeOnTheUN is the only source for this data. Therefore, since no other source contradicts it, it is a reliable source. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't muddy the water by trying to tackle the reliability of the source but let's take one bit from the new section "The UNHCR counted 969,300 refugees by end 2009.[46] For the four states involved, the UNGA produced 4 resolutions (2% of total) , the UNHRC 3 resolutions (5%), the UNSC 32 resolutions (15%).[47]" And now the WP:SYNTHESIS example: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security and since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

So we've got information from two separate sources that is being compared in an original manner with various implied conclusions for the reader. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Sol, you win this time about --and only about-- the SYNTH. I will rewrite at another time. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

League of Nations

Not relevant. Story should start at the foundation of the UN and foundation of (the modern) state of Israel. Fair enough, the statement is not long, but this article can't afford any extra and over. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which statement you are talking about. But the League of Nations Mandates are relevant to the UN and are covered by Articles 77, 79, and 80 of the UN Charter. The ICJ is the primary judicial organ of the UN. It said the responsibility of the United Nations and its subject matter jurisdiction in the Wall case had its origin in the LoN Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. That responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in al1 its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" See para 49 [55]

The article is supposed to be about Israel, Palestine, and the UN. It doesn't even pretend to present the UN or Palestinian POV. I'd suggest it be renamed to clearly indicate that its topic and content are strictly a Zionist or Israeli POV. See Articles whose subject is a POV harlan (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, thank you for your knowledge, but your personal opinions are not helpful.

Judith, this short paragraph explains that UNSCOP and UNGA resolution 181 were not the UN's idea. They followed the decision, inherited from the League of Nations, to create a Jewish state in Palestine. In other words, the UN was created with a pre-determined duty to create a Jewish state. You may rephrase the text to clarify this, but the 1922 LoN decision belongs in this article.

As an aside, I want everyone to note that, at least this once, I agree with Harlan. I feel funny inside. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The League of Nations never adopted a decision to establish a Jewish State in Palestine. In fact, Ben Gurion wrote that in 1937 the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had informed the leadership of the Jewish Agency that the Palestine Mandate could not be implemented according to the Agency's wishes. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 135.

Here is how Israeli historians and public records say that it happened. Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. See "Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999", by Benny Morris, Knopf, 1999, ISBN: 0679421203, page 138

Yossi Katz outlined the details of a partition plan that was developed by the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937. See the whole book "Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era", Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN-10: 0714644013 Katz says the partition plan that the Jewish Agency developed in 1937 was not pursued by political action alone. The Agency directed its land purchases and settlement activity to securing the borders it had set out in the plan (page 163). Uri Ben-Eliezer describes settlements that were established in lightning operations with the assistance of the Palmach in areas that would be outside the Jewish zone in the event of partition. See Uri Ben-Eliezer, The making of Israeli militarism, Indiana University Press, 1998, ISBN 0253333873 page 144

Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Oxford-trained historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the "Field Battalions" under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the "Avner Plan", which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan D. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing partition proposals and planned the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. See Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli-Arab tragedy, By Shlomo Ben-Ami, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, ISBN: 019518158, page 17 Morris cited a letter that Ben Gurion wrote in 1937 which said that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said that "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country with or without the consent of the Arabs. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153.

In 1943 the US Minister in Egypt cabled the State Department "I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of "negotiations" with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be "imposed" on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt." Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1943. The Near East and Africa, Page 755

The Jewish Agency refused to even accept the Grady Morrison Plan as the basis for discussion. A spokesman for the Jewish agency, Eliahu Epstein, told the US State Department that the Agency could not attend the 1946 London conference if the Grady-Morrison proposal was on the agenda. He stated that the Agency was unwilling to be placed in a position where it might have to compromise between the Grady-Morrison proposals on the one hand and its own partition plan on the other. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946, The Near East and Africa Volume VII, page 692-693

Moshe Shertok and Zalman Liftshitz, who led the development of the earlier plan, presented the Zionist demands to the UNSCOP subcommittee. Katz said it is not hard to detect the Zionists fingerprints on the UNSCOP plan. See Postscrpt or Prelude? in "Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era", Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, ISBN-10: 0714644013, pages 177-194

Military historian David Tal wrote that "the Jews initial acceptance of the Partition resolution was not mere rhetoric; the strategic planning of the war against the Palestinians was based upon it." See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471. Ben Ami wrote that after the UNSCOP was formed in May of 1947, Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority." He pledged to Mapai's Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said ...'the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders ... the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. ... We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.' Ben Ami says "The paradox of the winter of 1947 was that the Jews, who accepted Resolution 181 - the Jewish public acclaimed its endorsement by the UN with genuine outbursts of jubilation - were ready and well deployed to face a war should this be the outcome" See page 34 Scars of War harlan (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical overview;The early years

The section about conditional recognition present opinion of Mallison alone,nowhere in the source it is mentioned this is opinion of other legal scholars. If his statement that Israel refused to comply with Religious and Minority Rights obligations is presented, how is it makes sense not to include the fact that Israeli representative to the UN said that Israel accepted them,as noted by the UN resolution 273. It also does not make sense to present Prof. James Crawford arguments, and then delete the fact that the Mandate has expired, or that UK recognized Israel. It cannot be deleted as Synth, since no conclusions or even new opinions added in the latest edit. Is is undisputed documented facts,not conclusion from the sources presented,that Mandate has expired,that UK recognized Israel,or that Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. So there is no "A and B, therefore C" element of the WP:SYNTHESIS policy.If the addition contradicts other opinions presented, it only advances NPOV, and cant be deleted because of the contradiction. Igorb2008 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I'd read the edit entirely the wrong way. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Igorb2008 is obviously suffering from amnesia. We had already discussed the views of several other authors that had called attention to Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See for example Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98.[56] Henry Cattan and D.P. O'Connell were also specifically cited. The thread is still available in the talk page archives.

Provision of minority rights guarantees through treaties and declarations were a standard requirement for the termination of a League of Nations Mandate regime. See Luther Harris Evans, The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 [57]

The LoN Mandates did not "expire". Crawford explained that UN resolution 181 had at least one legal consequence, because the ICJ had affirmed that a Mandatory could not terminate a mandate without the consent of the General Assembly. He noted that the State of Israel was not established in accordance with the conditions laid down in the UN resolution. There is no argument about that. Article 28 of the Mandate provided for the assumption of public debts by the successor upon termination of the Mandate. Israel refused to accept the provisions of resolution 181(II) regarding state succession to public debts during a conference in 1949 and claimed it was established by its own acts and was in no sense a legal successor to the former government. See also "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178

I said that Henry Cattan had written that Israel's application for membership was delayed because some delegations asked for evidence that Israel had supplied the required declaration. During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, the representative of Cuba pointedly asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf [58]

During the 51st session of the UN membership hearings Mr. Eban answered affirmatively that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution. He even claimed that only Israel had supplied the required declaration. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record [59] The instruments that Mr Eban cited during that and the other hearings were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (which had been signed and published in the official gazette), and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General.

Notwithstanding Mr. Eban's declaration and explanation, the first President of the Israeli Supreme Court Justice M. Smoira said "The Declaration expresses the vision and credo of the people; but it is not a constitutional law making a practical ruling on the upholding or nullification of various ordinances and statutes."[60] The Knesset web site says "Some were inclined to view the Proclamation of Independence, and especially its declaratory section, as a constitution, but the Supreme Court stated, in a series of decisions, that the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it." [61]

The General Assembly resolution had said "The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them." [62]

General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949 contains a footnote (5) regarding "the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel". The footnote cites the minutes of the 45th-48th, 50th, and 51st meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee contained in documents A/AC.24/SR.45-48, 50 and 51 that I linked to above. [63]

D.P. O'Connell noted that Resolution 181(II) contained a declaration to be made by the successor States regulating the problems which would arise from the change of sovereignty. He says the declaration was never made and refers to Israel's statements with regard to the application of those provisions in 1949 and 1950. At that time, Israel appears to have denounced or denied that the provisions of resolution 181(II) regarding succession to treaties and minority rights were binding. The government of Israel based its decision on a remarkable claim that, despite Israel's offer to make the Declaration required in Part 1 B and D of the partition plan, "she was not asked to do so, and, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, was admitted as a Member of the United Nations without the said Declaration having been made." See page 21, paragraphs 21-23 [64] and "The Law of State Succession", Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, D.P. O'Connell author, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178 harlan (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the United Nations itself was not bound by the provisions of League of Nations mandate documents, and could rejigger the situations of the mandates how it chose -- and the decisions by the General Assembly to pass the November 29th 1947 partition plan, and then to admit Israel to UN membership two years later, are sufficient indications that it chose to do so. Furthermore, why should Israel accept obligations connected with the mandate, when the British had conspicuously refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to any party during their 1948 "law of the jungle" withdrawal, thus creating an abrupt and significant discontinuity of government all across the former mandate?? Abba Eban said that Israel voluntarily chose to abide by the non-binding minority rights protections contained in the November 29th 1947 partition plan (non-binding, since the plan never came into force). Funny thing how you make a big production of accusing Israel of not living up to such commitments when you don't seem to have the slightest tiniest problem with Jordan passing bigoted racist laws banning Jews from being citizens of Jordan or owning land in Jordan, or destroying most of the synagogues in Jerusalem. As for the rest, your personal innovative legal theories about the extreme current-day legal continuity of the League of Nations mandate are Original Synthesis (or worse)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos as usual you are in battle mode and ignoring the published sources I've discussed with you a dozen times before. They make a big thing about Israel's failure to live up to its obligation.

Right at the moment the only person dishing out Original Synthesis (or worse)... is you. The UN is not free to "rejigger" customary international law. Try reading the published sources on the Minority Treaties that I've cited, and quit subjecting everyone to your unpublished personal opinions.

Minority treaties were already a fixture of customary international law according to the Allied Powers that conducted the Paris Peace Conference. All of the new states were required to make guarantees and declarations. see Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93 [65]; THE JEWS AND MINORITY RIGHTS, (1898-1919), OSCAR I. JANOWSKY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1933, page 342; and Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37.[66]

Li-ann Thio, noted that many international law norms and customary practices developed in the inter-war years by the League of Nations are still in use today. She specifically addressed the procedures for managing intrastate and inter-ethnic issues through (1) International supervision; (2) regional integration (aka economic union);(3) minority protection; (4) plebiscites; and (5) partitions. She cited the Palestine and Bosnian Partition Plans and 1990s European practice as examples of conditioning recognition of statehood on human rights, democracy, and minority protection guarantees. See the discussion on pages 97-98 and footnote 353 in Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century, Li-ann Thio, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004141987 [67]

In any event the rights were placed under a UN guarantee and the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. The 1950 Secretariat Study of Minority undertakings, E/CN.4/367, devoted an entire chapter to the Minority Protection Plan contained in the Plan for the Future Government of Palestine. The Chairman-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Minorities subsequently advised that no competent UN organ had made any decision which would extinguish the obligations under the minority rights instruments concluded after World War II. He added that it was doubtful whether that could even be done by the United Nations. See the discussion in Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122.[68]

The majority opinion in the ICJ Wall said "The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below). This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002)" The Court included the international guarantees and safeguarding clauses in the Treaty of Berlin, the Mandate, and the Partition Plan in its analysis (para 129). harlan (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I would be the first to admit that you seem to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the developments of minority rights provisions in various treaties in the 1920s and 1930s. However, unfortunately for you, this only has a somewhat tangential and indirect relationship to the innovative personal legal theories that you've been advocating -- and when the conclusion of your profound historical legal studies seems to be that somehow such minority-rights provisions can never protect Jews, that tends to collapse your whole house of cards. P.S. you know exactly how to get me out of "battle mode" -- when you get yourself out of historical revisionism mode, starting with your most blatant example flagrant denialism, by finally fully and unequivocally admitting that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (something which of course is solidly established and well-accepted among the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars in the field). Of course, you won't -- which is why despite your undeniable intelligence and knowledge, your editing efforts on the whole create more problems for Wikipedia than they solve... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your perfunctory boilerplate about "public statements" does not require much of a response. Wikipedia does not write articles limited to the remarks made in primary sources. In any event, the Jewish leadership publicly claimed the subsections of the plan were not integral and that the establishment of a Jewish state did not require each of the other parts of the plan to be carried out. So their "acceptance" was empty rhetoric according to many reliable sources.

Rabbi Silver told the Security Council that there was no requirement to establish the Arab State. See Jewish reaction to the trusteeship plan [69]

Standard college textbooks say the Zionist leadership did not accept the provisions of the partition plan regarding treaties, public debts, borders, economic union, plebiscites, minority rights, or the internationalization of Jerusalem. Many of them say the Zionist leadership made deliberately misleading public statements. Zionist military historian David Tal wrote that the leadership never accepted the internationalization of Jerusalem and that "the Jews initial "acceptance" of the Partition resolution was not mere rhetoric; the strategic planning of the war against the Palestinians was based upon it." See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 071465275X, page 471. Shlomo Ben Ami makes the identical claim based upon declassified archival material. I think it is high time we restore the material you deleted that represents those published views and move this discussion to I/P Collaboration. harlan (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- we've been all through this multiple times. If the Arabs suspected that the Jews were not assenting to the 1947 UN partition plan in good faith, then the Arabs' best move would have been to also assent to the plan and so test the Jews' good faith -- in which case, the partition process would have been guaranteed by the great powers and overseen by the United Nations; and if the Jews had not upheld their end of the agreement, they would have placed themselves in the wrong in international opinion, and would have been subjected to diplomatic pressures. When the Arabs instead adopted the course of refusing to agree to the plan (while the Jews did agree to the plan), then the Arabs instead placed themselves in the wrong in international opinion, and ensured that they would not have meaningful support from non-Arab or non-Muslim states during the critical period 1948-1949. Thus the Arabs chose of their own free will to flush the international guarantees etc. contained in the 1947 UN partition plan straight down the crapper and instead venture on the "double or nothing" gamble of initiating a war in order to throw the Jews into the sea, so that it was really their own responsibility when they rolled the dice and snake-eyes came up instead of lucky sevens. Of course, the true reason why the Arabs could not agree to the 1947 UN partition plan was that they regarded any Jews exercising national sovereignty over one acre of land for one day as an intolerable insult to the Arab nation, which could only be avenged and washed away with blood -- and indulging in such abstract metaphysical maximalist extremism in place of hard-headed rational pragmatic cost-benefit analyses is what has caused the Arabs to "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" on many occasions...

However, all this does nothing to challenge in any way the accepted consensus of mainstream scholars that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. Nor does it change the fact that denying the preceding is blatant historical revisionism... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism

Copy & pasted from above for a clearer discussion:

(...) The terrorism section also has issues: the Security Council set down a definition of terrorism back in '04. The first sentence needs a source. "The text of GA resolutions does not distinguish terrorism from military operations" doesn't even make sense: the article goes on with a quote condemning war crimes and excludes the section refuting it "including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror;". The implied meaning of "All available means" is that terrorism is A-OK by the UN. That's not what this means. There's got to be better material. (...) Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, there are plenty of sources in Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, several more recent than 2004, including one from 2006 by Sami Zeidan mentioning Palestinian fighters as a source of difficulty. Show us how you want to edit this section. Unfortunately, to my chagrin the link to the UNDOC text quoted in the article is dead. I'll see if I can find it again.

Avery Plaw's 2008 opinion about the "by all available means" decision should be quoted in the article; please do, right next to the 2002 opinions by the Canadian and German delegates arguing exactly the opposite. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They aren't here is the problem. That current section of the text is largely unsupported. And the Canadian and German delegates aren't saying that "by all means available" is equivalent to condoning terrorism: they are saying this particular resolution is unbalanced, fails to condemn the PA for its crimes and could be seen as promoting violence. The phrase in question is never mentioned. Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, did you read the source of the quote of the Canadian and German delegates? It was from the discussions of UNCHR E/CN.4/2002/L.16. The German says "it was unable to support it because the text contained language that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence." The UK delegates said "the text contained language which might be interpreted as endorsing violence and condoning terrorism." And it goes on like this over 6 pages. If this source, which contains expert opinions about a U.N. resolution, does not satisfy you, no source ever will. Please be more realistic. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent clarification in the article. I think Ms Glover of the UK's quote is more supportive here "Although her delegation agreed with many of the concerns expressed in the draft resolution, the text contained language which might be interpreted as endorsing violence and condoning terrorism. The text was not a balanced one; it contained language inappropriate to the Commission and did not refer to the responsibilities of the Palestinian Authority, express clear regret for the civilian casualties on both sides or condemn terrorism." (page 4) What about substituting it for the Canadian or German one? Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem. I feel stupid for not realizing this earlier but this looks like it's a draft resolution from ECOSOC. Did anything come of it? Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, on p.5 of the source, it says "20. The draft resolution was adopted by 40 votes to 5, with 7 abstentions." The expression "by all available means" was used in resolutions since 1982. From a quick Googling, it seems like this 2002 resolution is the last containing it. I take your suggestion and quote the UK text instead of the German text. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! This is what I get for looking over too many documents and forgetting which is which. Good work! Sol (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Article too long and poor quality

As far as I can see, the article is likely to remain a magnet for attempts to push one or the other POV, while it continues to try to repeat the whole of the post WW2 history of the region. The "claims of", "claims of" section heads, repeated ad nauseam, aren't conducive to neutral writing either. The referencing needs much attention too. I wonder whether the article is actually needed? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the UN has played an extremely prominent and extremely controversial role in events continuously from 1947 to the present moment, so the article can't be simply deleted; and if merged, then merged to what? It's convenient to have a central place to focus on the U.N., instead of merely making brief allusions to the U.N. in various separate general history articles. And the "claims" wording is a convenient way of signalling that there are extremely conflicting opinions, so that many would describe the U.N. as a welcoming haven for the worst form of bigoted hatemongering anti-Semitism, while many others would flatly deny it just as strongly. AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It's tough to do justice to the UN's role in the area while keeping the article to a readable length. Could we spin off some of the smaller subsections ("Claims that the Special Rapporteur on the Right to food is anti-Israel" etc.) into sub-articles or even merge them carefully? There's a lot of chaff in the article we could re-work to be shorter which is another approach. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think that we need to rewrite the subheadings taking out all or most of the "claims that", so that "Claims that the special rapporteur on the right to food is anti-Israel" would become "Special rapporteur on the right to food". Many of these subsections could be merged. The controversies should be described and then readers will be able to decide for themselves how deep the controversies are, rather than us having to signal their depth or importance. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Go forth and conquer! I think we have some people watching the article so any disputed changes will have a sounding board. Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute! This article covers a very controversial subject. It has been in its general form since 2007. It is a hard read because it is a battlefield. If you want to edit it, do it one small step at a time; major edits will be reverted unless discussed first. Please read the recommendations in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors reminded.

About the article being too long, deletions will be perceived as a POV and challenged; length is the price to pay for the NPOV style. About dividing the article into several separate articles, it has been tried before. You may want to read the discussion in June 2009 about the creation of Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations by a very determined editor. It has since been deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about major reverts sounds perfectly reasonable! Let me get your thoughts on a few things:

"Claims that the 2009 Durban Review conference was antisemitic": Isn't this more about Ahmadinejad spewing his regular anti-Israel rhetoric? It's disgusting, but it's not the UN fault, is it?

"Claims that the UN is antisemitic": Same deal. Are racist statements made by non-UN officials the organization's fault?

"Claims that the 2001 Durban conference was antisemitic" Again, racist rhetoric by attendees is deplorable but not really the UN's fault.

"Claims that Israel does not recognize the authority of the United Nations": Making fun of the UN isn't quite the same thing as not formally recognizing it's authority. Israel hasn't withdrawn from the UN and allows some UN actions so I'm not sure if this section makes sense.

"Claims that the Commission on the Status of Women is anti-Israel": All synthesis except for perhaps the 4th source which seems to be a dead link or something.

We could resource, rephrase or rework these sections but they have some issues. I'll look through the rest later. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest cutting the article size down as a way of ensuring NPOV and stability over the long term, not as a way of increasing it. Some articles that have been battlegrounds eventually end up as quite high quality, just because lots of people are watching them. Perhaps this one can be taken into that category. I'll work within BRD (bold, revert, discuss) and will expect every single sentence to be well sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone -- On your first point, why did they choose to let Ahmadinajad speak at what was known long beforehand to be a highly-sensitive occasion (considering that the first Durban conference was considered by many people to be more of an event for the promulgation and promotion of racism than an "anti-racism"[sic] conference, and came close collapsing in complete disarray)?? They might as well have invited Jean-Marie Le Pen to give the keynote, if they wanted to obscure and befuddle the issues and give the U.N. yet another public-relations black eye... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sol, your questions are all over the place: I cannot possibly answer them all. Please focus on one chapter; edit the text (one edit at a time please) and, at the same time, create a discussion topic here with the chapter title.

Judith, I think you are wrong. A short text will, inevitably, represent the interpretation of the writer, not the original thoughts of the sources, and will therefore be a POV. To resist criticisms, a controversial article like this one must look like a quote farm, regardless of what the WP style police thinks. Again, articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict are, before all else, a battlefield. The fact that we, over the past three years, have kept the conflict at low level is no small feat; do not throw bombs. Emmanuelm (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think those sections make sense or belong here. Awful remarks by UN attendees aren't the UN's fault. The last two sections mentioned are either poorly sourced or non sequiturs. The article might end up looking like a quote farm but it will hopefully be a well-sourced and topical one. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The terrorism section also has issues: the Security Council set down a definition of terrorism back in '04. The first sentence needs a source. "The text of GA resolutions does not distinguish terrorism from military operations" doesn't even make sense: the article goes on with a quote condemning war crimes and excludes the section refuting it "including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror;". The implied meaning of "All available means" is that terrorism is A-OK by the UN. That's not what this means. There's got to be better material. If anyone has objections to the proposed deletions or wants to reform them, have at it but I'd like to get working on it soon. Some sections aren't exactly rewritable as they don't contain any usable information. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week or so and I'd like to proceed with removing the Durban conference sections and the "Claims that Israel does not recognize the authority of the United Nations" section for the reasons above. Sol (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Durban conference was a swamp and cesspool of unrestrained bigotry and blatant hatemongering, while for some very peculiar reason the organizers of the Durban Review conference chose to let Ahmadinajad spew forth, despite the fact that it was a train wreck which could have been foreseen long in advance... AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Short of not inviting Iran to participate, what can they really do? It might have been a stupid set-up or poor planning but I don't think they exercise much control over what the representatives do or say. If they do and are actively encouraging hate speech then let's find a source and put that in. If not, using member's behavior to target the UN is unfair. (Ahmadinajad just cleared another UN meeting of delegates by accusing America of causing 9/11, a one man diplomatic demolition squad). Sol (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy all that helpless hand-wringing stuff (see my most recent comment down at the end of the page), and there are a lot of other people who don't buy it either. The Iranian delegates could be left perfectly free to participate in the work of the conference (in committees, etc.) without the UN giving a free international publicity forum to bigoted hatemongering rants. If the UN bureaucratic hierarchy is saying that there's no way that the UN can run such conferences without giving a free international publicity forum to bigoted hatemongering rants, then they're really admitting that the UN is not the appropriate body to sponsor such conferences, and that some other entity should come forward to host such conferences, or be created to host such conferences. Of course, since the bigoted hatemongering rant was directed merely at Jews, the UN in fact sees no reason to change... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@EmmanuelM above. The reason we advise editors against overquoting is that it produces articles that are difficult to read. Yes, I know that the Israel/Palestine articles are constantly warred over. In my experience that leads editors sometimes to mistake the wood for the trees. They are looking for balance rather than readability. They forget that the purpose of the encyclopedia is to inform rather than to persuade. This seems to have happened here. I don't intend to look back at who contributed, or to attach any blame, rather to hope that the article can move forward. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

About the authorship of a 2002 PLO report

This 2002 report is used as a source in "Claims that the UN is pro-Israel". I removed (for the second time) the names of Weller & Metzger from the text about this reference. John Z, who reintroduced them, presents them as the author of the study but on the cover page, it says "A report of the Negotiations Affairs Department, Palestine Liberation Organization". One has to look in the acknowledgments to find "The Department is grateful to Marc Weller of the Centre of International Studies in the University of Cambridge for having contributed the substantive sections of the study, and to Dr Barbara Metzger for having assembled the tables." By definition, authors are not mentioned in the Acknowledgments. I conclude that Weller & Metzger contributed data but cannot be considered authors. Who says they are comfortable with the interpretation of their data by the PLO? I edited the article text to reflect this. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Finkelstein in his Images and Reality refers to Weller as the author [70], and what else could "contributed the substantive sections of the study" mean? Would "prepared by Marc Weller" be OK?John Z (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you are clearly attempting to add a veneer of credibility to a policy paper by the PLO. It is authored by the PLO, nothing else. I could easily argue that the PLO is not a reliable source and delete the source entirely but I think all sources on the Israeli-Arab conflicts are biased and belong in the article, as long as their authorship is clearly and unambiguously identified. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am merely saying who the report and another reliable source say wrote it; to suggest to the reader the credibility that is implied by these facts. If highlighting this association is illegitimate, how much more so should mentioning antics of people at UN conferences be? Marc Weller "contributed the substantive sections of the study" would be indisputably correct to add.John Z (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)