Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled section[edit]

Article under construction....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Still waiting on Einsteindonut to complete his section on the list as he has only placed Israeli dead in making the article POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1933[edit]

I've read several times that the last Jews were evacuated preemptively in April 1936 so you'd better check this. Shragai is usually very well informed about Hebron, but Gudrun Kramer's History of Palestine p.232, to cite one of several sources, gives the date of evacuation as April 1936. I have several other corroborative sources somewhere in a file, but can't find it yet, since I haven't organized the Hebron files so far Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've read the main evacuation was 1933..but will check around...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a movement of Jews from Hebron 1936 but also 1933. The re-establishment from 1931 was losing members with Ya'akov Ezra efforts to revive the Jewish community failing. The British Government docs do not state that the British evacuated the Jewish community of Hebron.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know but we are talking of the last and major evacuation and unequivocally this occurred in 1936, April, as I noted in citing Gudrun Krämer's book, The History of Palestine Princeton UP, 2007 p.232 (if you don't know it, check it. I'm, writing this from memory). I like you prefer to look at original documents, but you have to be extremely careful about this, since it almost invariably, except for direct quotes, tempts one into violations of WP:OR, as ourt friend Ceedjee rightly points out. Secondary sources are to be preferred and GK's book is an authoritative secondary source. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Gudrun Krämer's book, The History of Palestine Princeton UP, 2007 ISBN 0691118973 unfortunately. The diminution of the Jewish community in Hebron doesn't really come across in Wiki...I'll try to get hold of Krämer, as I have been using original docs (they do tend to show up POV of other writers)....It says it came out in March 2008, how did you get a 2007 copy? ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's poifect. I quoted everything from memory, which is a slapdash thing to do at my age. Apologies Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

microcosm[edit]

I don't know if you've picked up the hang of leads, Ashley, so that you have the confidence to do one on your own, but apart from Hertz's note, the opening sentence with 'microcosm' is an 'editorial judgement', technically. I don't think we're going to jump on it. Hertz's sobriety on this is exemplary, but eventually someone would be in their rights to question whether the idea that Hebron is a small-scale cameo of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict is editorializing or whether you have source for it. I think, personally, that it's okay, but as you read around, keep your eye pealed for a RS that might make that 'synecdochic' relation, just in case (If the point is ever worried, 'microcosm' is the operative word). The lead should deal briefly with everything prior to 1979 (Israel = post 1948 marker, it wasn't taken by Israel till 67, only briefly occupied in 1968, until the famous episode of 1979 after which the conflict really became severe (several episodes in the 70s are recorded). (3)I think one or two of the images not bearing directly on conflict can be removed (as long as they are retained on the Hebron page). Eventually an image expert can draft in more appropriate ones. If I'm wrong on this, I hope someone corrects my counsel. Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nishidani. Hebron is virtually ignored.It seems there is more interest in it here on WP than in the real world.--Shuki (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Hebron as a microcosm of the wider conflict occurs from several places, it does sound a bit like editorialising. I was just trying to get someone to jump in..The Star of David on a Palestinian home I thought is a fair opening picture (the Shavei Hebron yeshiva in the Beit Romano building of the Jewish quarter in old Hebron. was equally appropriate) as I personally believe that it should start from British Mandate (although nobody has comeback to me on my choice)..I'm trying to stick a toe in the water seeking consensus..putting a picture of an Israeli at a check point I felt was way too confrontational.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is aware this may be your first attempt at drafting a lead para or two, that you are building an article others can then look over, and will give you time to get something substantial into shape before it is subject to consensual review. People need something of substance to chisel away at. A hammer at a few pieces of plywood makes the wielder look bad! So take your time, no harm in a touch of boldness. Craft on! Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-line[edit]

As it is, this has all the colour of a time-line or chronology, as Hertz justly remarks. It would only change that aspect if research can come up with several RSources that venture to adumbrate several aspects of the general phenomenon, something like (a) overall interpretations, (b)statistical break-downs of percentages of casualties, by ethnic group or as a chronological grid over time (c) ideological factors identified as specific to the violence, Kach and Hamas, (fundamentalism, several good studies mentioning Hebron there, Lustick for example) on both sides, etc. There is a covert and complex struggle, not only politically but culturally, there between Hamas and the PNA. It is I should add one of the West Bank areas where pacificism has made some inroads (CPT, Nafez Assaily and the ex-soldier activists. In fact these kinds of studies do exist: I'm familiar with Israeli case-studies of the sociology of violence in that area. But this perhaps is best relegated to the long-term work. The important thing is now a good succint lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had every intention of doing precisely that...although it would be nice to know which studies you are alluding to. I know of a few but always like to add..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around over files, since I'm following a debate with an economic idiot of some local power at the moment. There's no hurry over all this. Use what you have, otherwise you clutter things. But for starters (apart from numerous B'tselem/Human Rights Watch monographs you seem familiar with), have you read these?
(1)Ian Lustick, For the land and the Lord : Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. New York, N.Y. : Council on Foreign Relations, (1988) 2nd.ed.1994 (Preface focuses on Baruch Goldstein and Hebron/Kiryat Arba, but very good on theological fundamentalism underlying those groups settling also in Hebron)(downloadable online for free)
(2)Ian Lustick, Unsettled states, disputed lands : Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1993 (fine comparative perspective, which is necessary)
(3)David Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press, 2007 (reviewed by Avishai Margalit A Moral Witness to the 'Intricate Machine'. Margalit’s piece is itself RS, and touches on sociological aspects of the second generation of settlers esp. in the Hebron hills area.
(4)Cheryl Rubenberg,The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003, chapter 5 (‘Hebron:Caldron of Hate’) pp.157-192 (pp.182f = note re the idea of conquest by an exiguous minority proud to have taken over the whole city and Meron Benvenisti's comment, etc.)
(5) Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire; Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan, London, 2007 (very good on the political fights surrounding the settlements including Hebron)
Wiki lacks a David Shulman article. Remarkable man.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few "RED LINKS" to David Shulman, Human rights activist and Ta'ayush. It's finding the time to fill them in that's the problem especially when my reading list gets extended....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Views differ on red links. I tend to dislike them on aesthetic grounds. Some editors put them in to suggest the person has not been deemed notable, and thus imply it is a dubious source. On the other hand, it can flag the need to do an article on a notable person not yet provided with a wiki page.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Para[edit]

Hebron with its rich cultural heritage has become the backdrop to the nationalistic and religious tensions that exist between Israel and the West Bank. The wider conflict, that has its genesis in the both the First World War and Russian pogroms, is being played out in a city of 160,000 Palestinians and a Israeli settler population of 500-800 living in close proximity to each other. The vacillations in the Israeli cabinet after the six day war, over annexation and the political realism in wanting to maintain the majority Jewish demographic of Israel left the Israeli leadership in a quandary in ways to deal with the newly occupied territories.[Golda Meir ISBN 978-1906142131 p. 293] Hebron is a city where the settler presence is assured by the Hebron agreement and guarded by the Israeli Defence Force......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ak3: I realize the above is only a first try. What is needed is definition, not commentary. Besides representing a flagrantly original synthesis, what you wrote is, unfortunately, very far from the standard expectations for a lead paragraph. For a useful guide to writing one, I refer you to WP:TPA, especially where it says "A perfect Wikipedia article... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail", and to WP:LEAD, especially its "Opening sentence" and "Introductory text" portions. If the article is going to be in timeline or list format, then it may be that a few lines (very few) will serve to introduce it. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the moment, that Hertz has the right take on this. Leads look simple, they take however, usually, quite a long time to run up. Perhaps for the moment you should aim for a timeline/list format type lead, short and sweet. Adopting this creates a quick framework to work in. I'll stand corrected if Hertz disagrees but, beginning with a timeline format, and then gradually working up an adequate lead, on the talk page, more appropriate to a text that can be converted into a proper article exploring the theme of settler/Palestinian violence in Hebron, shouldn't be problematical. I'm sorry I can't pitch in actively, but I'm already overdoing my retiring from my retirement. Festina lente.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an original synthesis...The ideas behind it a very clear from the writing of Anita Shapira...it is not however the norm found in populist writings....most of the conflict has been written up as in the terms of Jewish nationalism versus anti-semitic attacks with no notice given to Arab nationalism and the part Arab nationalism also plays in the events.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct. But usually, in sketching a lead, one does well to source each statement, paraphrasing an RS. I'll try to offer some suggestions over the following week to help out, since I haven't time to work on this, except for brief look-ins. One thing. They weren't 'Russian' pogroms, but Eastern European pogroms. Some of the most violent killing, tens of thousands of Jews, went on in the Ukraine, under Petliura. And immigrants fleeing that area did inflect the situation of Arab-Jewish relations, (as Anita Shapira showed) because they kept reading 'incidents' and very rare 'riots' in which few people over the decade were injured, as comparable to the systematic and massive pogroms that were a blight on Eastern European countries. The 1920 Palestine riots are highlighted as highly significant in Zionist historiography, but they were, in global perspective, insignificant blips.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence has got to go. --Shuki (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the sources for each sentence...and as usual you are correct the "Russian pogroms" were more correctly "pogroms within the Russian empire"....I was offering something up for thoughts.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron Jewish since 2000 BC[edit]

Balderdash one man buying a cave does not make a city Jewish......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wikipedia is not concerned with the 'truth' of claims, but the verifiability of claims made by notable people in reliable sources. Most of the claims in so many articles are silly (on both sides), but that's how the encyclopedia works, and as editors we shouldn't waste our breathe on judging them (especially when their falsenees is obvious). Refresh your reading of the rule.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the quotes to show that it was a "politicised" interview and should be treated as such, rather than "factual"...it should have been placed in quotes in the first instance.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on your 'balderdash' remark :). You don't need to bracket (Ben-Gurion) after 'he', since the subject is obvious, by the way. You don't need to 'guide the reader' into making the 'right' evaluation either. Anyone curious can check links, and find out for themselves whether this is true or not. No need to italicize either. These are small things, but, to do them oneself saves other editors from having to jump in and correct them. In every edit, optimally, one should revisit one's material thinking 'How would the average Jewish editor view this?', 'How would the average (pro-)Palestinian reader view this', and strike the proper balance, underestimating the intelligence of neither. I know that very few editors actually do this, but mastering it early one will save you an enormous amount of time defending edits that otherwise will come under challenge, either by experienced editors or people 'on the other side' with a POV as strongly charged as your own may be. This is what makes edits stick, and difficult to challenge. Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just one of my wild editorialising comments caused by BG's blatant lies, that that I'm trying to curb....I thought I was being neutral :-)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go, again. But I'll use the repetition to thump home an elementary principle of the historiographical imagination.
In studying the past, you are bringing, ineludibly, a contemporary mind, with all of its knowledge, ethical sensitivities and modern prejudices, to a dead world (for that reason the other Croce, not the singer, said:'All history is contemporary history'). Unlike the rest of us, historians (and anthropologists) are taught to 'suspend' their intellectual and ethical modernity, and, by mastery of language, sources etc., to put themselves into a (fictive) identity close to what they imagine might have been the case with figures of the past.
Ben-Gurion of course was a modern man. He lived in our (my) generation. But he made that comment in 1967, as an old man extremely well-read on many subjects. His remark was not a 'blatant lie' at all. For when he was young, middle-aged and even old, it was a commonplace in a certain vein of historical studies of the Middle East to give some credence to the fundamental historicity of the bible (William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt, to name but a few), in reaction to the text-critical scepticism of 19th.century scholarship. Even as late as 1958, Cyrus Gordon, who I had the privilege to hear lecture, concurred. Gordon took that a key verb, shr, Genesis 23:16; 34:10) associated with Abraham, and usually taken to meat 'to wander about', actually bore the sense of 'to trade', making Abraham a tamkarum or merchant, a business which gave him the means to buy the cave at Machpelah (Gordon assumed a much later date than that assigned Abraham by traditional chronology). Albright a conservative on this, jumped at Gordon's thesis and tried to tie it to the 19th.century BCE (W.F. Albright, 'Abraham the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation', BASOR 163 (1961), pp. 36-54., is one of several articles he wrote on this, using recent discoveries in Negev archeology)
So, while if we, after the intensive debates that arose from modern scholars like Thomas Thompson and Israel Finkelstein and so many others, are comfortable in dismissing this 'literalism' and returning to the older paradigm that reads the early historical accounts in the bible as accomodations of stray facts to a mythic template, Ben-Gurion, in his retirement, wasn't, and for good reason. He was, as likely as not, prone to drawing on Jewish Christian traditionalist chronology as that was re-justified by archeologists from the the 1930s onwards, and perhaps find consolation for this in the hypotheses of the Gordons and Albrights, Grey eminences of biblical scholarship of his day, and pontificate in the conviction that the traditional date was also that verified by modern knowledge. There is indeed a hint in the quotation, indeed, for careful readers, that in making this remark, Ben-Gurion had Albright's thesis in mind. Jewish dating him put him roughly (median range) around 1750-1700 BCE. Albright, whose early studies in the 40s argued for a 19th-18th century range, upped it someone towards 2000-1900 in the 1960s. Hence Ben-Gurion's remark may well recall a reading of Albright, and merely reflect an acceptable academic intepretation for a man of his time and age.
That is why saying 'blatant lie' is, well, stupid. ('Blatant' is an abused adjective with a tone of moralizing outrage, by the way, and suggests one lies in the teeth of a known and public truth, almost to mock others). You have not reined in your mischievous tendency to chiak, have not suspended a POV Pavlovian instinct, in order to ask yourself, for a few seconds, 'would it be natural for a man at that time (1967) in Ben-Gurion's position to think the traditional date true?' It would indeed be wholly natural. That Ben-Gurion uses this to justify a politically motivated landgrab is also obvious. But that is another story. The truth can often serve instrumental ends (I dare to venture that a majority of I/P editors plunk their truthful facts into articles for their instrumental value, not because overall they contribute to a neutral narrative). Be careful. Every statement of what we know, can be picked apart to intuit what the person does not know. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding my reasoning.

  1. purchasing one cave does not make a town over (the date is immaterial)
  2. David taking over the administration of an Edom city again does not make the population Jewish anymore than a change of administration did in 1967.
  3. What settlements in Hebron? one dairy does not make several settlements.......

all this was known in 1967....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstand or don't understand many things. Usually when I note this is the case, I shut up. I think here I understood why your statement that the following remarks were a 'blatant lie' was, apart from wiki regulations about editorializing, wrong.

'in the cause of peace, Israel should take nothing in the conquered territories, with the exception of Hebron, which 'is more Jewish even than Jerusalem'. Jerusalem became Jewish three thousand years ago under King David. . . Hebron became Jewish four thousand years ago under Abraham and included a number of settlements that were destroyed two days before Israel was established.'

That this is a statement reflecting a Zionist ideology is self-evident. That is contains several untruths, but only if you step out of a Zionist ideological perspective is self-evident. That is a fatuous statement full of assumptions, if you don't share a Zionist belief-system, is self-evident. All because, in saying:-
(a)In the cause of peace (meaning, 'towards the aim of securing peace') Israel should take . . .Hebron.
Ben-Gurion is contradicting himself. To say, in 1967, that one would have to annex Hebron, could not be a step towards securing peace, because it was, to the contrary, a step towards ensuring a very high degree of conflict. Securing 'peace' means precisely that, avoiding conflict. The proposal disguises as a peace claim what is a threat to strengthen tensions by seizing a key centre of West Bank life that was 100% Arab from its inhabitants.
To say, 'Hebron . . is even more Jewish that Jerusalem' is to say that 'Jewishishness' is a quality magically attached to any area in the Middle east which Biblical myth and history associate with the passage or activities of Jewish figures, mythical or historical. That is the obvious assumption, which however automatically undoes the preceding generalization, with its spuriously eirenic offer. For if this assumption underlying the demand that Hebron be returned to the Jews is correct, it means not only all the West Bank, but all the Revisionist/Jabotinsky/mapping of Eretz Israel (from South of Beirut to the Suez Canal to much of Jordan and Syria) provides a legitimate charter for conquering most of the Near Middle East in the cause of peace. In the cause' of peace means therefore, logically, give us everything in Eretz Israel (Litani-Sinai-Transjordan-Half of Syria) and we will sue for peace. But that was the ultra-Zionist position, not Ben-Gurion's official position by this date. In his dodderage, BG confuses his own practical deal-cutting with the ultramontane, 'no deals-we want everything' position of his opponents to the extreme right.
The statement Hebron became 'Jewish' because Abraham purchased a cave from a Hittite is nonsense, as you note. It illustrates the assumption above. Whatever is mentioned as an area of the Middle East where, according to the Bible, Jews were active is, ipso facto Jewish forever.
  1. 3. This is the only thing that is not immediately obvious, and shows where you have really failed to understand what B-G. was alluding to in this political suggestion (which frightened most senior Israeli politicians of the day. On this background see Gershom Gorenberg 2007)
His final statement, including a 'number of settlements that were destroyed two days before Israel was established' gives further things away. His use of 'Hebron' actually does not refer to the city itself (a small patch of land). He is referring to what is now known as the Hebron Governorate, a very large piece of territory indeed, because the town of Hebron did not 'include' any settlements destroyed 2 days before May the 14, 1948. The allusion is to Gush Etzion which fell on the 13th of May, and in saying 'a number of settlements' his memory is not flagging: he means the three places associated with the Gush Etzion settlement area north of Hebron, Ein Tzurim, Revadim, or Masu'ot Yitzhak. By saying he wants 'Hebron' as a gesture towards peace ( =another piece of land), B-G was saying he wants all the land around Hebron and Gush Etzion in the Hebron Governorate.
So to repeat. I understood your statement, but Ben-Gurion is not 'lying'. He is asserting a belief, a conviction, about Jewish rights, totally absurd, indeed hallucinating, in any modern sense, but a belief which has driven much of the battle for the land of Israel. You are challenging the basis of those beliefs in terms of what may be the 'historical truth' or the legal lay of the law in international terms post 1948, in which claims are adjudicated not according to myths, but title and precedent. When American Presidents talk of 'God' and the 'nation', many of them may believe it (most know it is indispensable to believe in order to get elected), though this God, like the God of the Bible, is a provincial tribal emblem for a belief that there are special dispensations of providence for a unique ethnic identity. Though the art of lying is what most successful politicans must master if they are to have a successful career, they tend very quickly to believe their lies, especially when telling them gets electoral results. From cynics they become true believers. It is no longer a matter of lying, but of pushing a belief-system that promises a rich harvest of votes, power and, as with Ben-Gurion here, territorial gains which he thought Israel was entitled to.
Therefore, you were wrong to say 'blatant lie'. 'Intelligently befuddled and befuddling thinking that disguised a clear political design on captured Palestinian territory' is what is involved here.
If my self-imposed monitoring role with your work is a burden (it's why I'm hanging round like a bad smell, instead of sticking to my retirement), I don't mind being told to eff-off! You're an editor of promise, but unless you are careful, you will see a lot of your good work thrown out because of a few stray cracks, and conflicts, meaning it was not worth the candle, and wiki I/P might lose another promising content editor. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aroma from your words is of freshly made ground coffee....yes I did note that the only way to read his statement was to incorporate the whole of the Hebron Governorate, and rather further than Allon went....Hence Italics and pointing out that it was personally BG's belief system...but as you previously commented possibly to much reader leading...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the place to state that Judaism (as the world's first monotheistic religion) seems to have been invented in Jerusalem between 800BC and 700BC? p.2 Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. "The Bible Unearthed" 2002. The earliest indication of a distinctive community (but only identifiable by the absence of pig bones) in these parts can be discerned in Iron Age I between 1150-900BC in the "small early Israelite villages in the highlands". p.119. PRtalk 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not the place to discuss this here, esp. since Judaism wasn't the world's first monotheistic religion necessarily (Akhnaton). A religion isn't 'invented'. In 800-700BC, Judaism as it then existed was not quite 'monotheistic'. There are tons of uncontroversial edits to be made here and elsewhere PR. I haven't been shadowing you (or anyone else) but I do hope you polish your expertise in some areas to enrich articles with content they lack. Anyone can tackle 'controvfersy', but all too many wiki articles are poor on rather banal obvious but unnoted details that would merit inclusion. Cheers and stay way clear of conflict.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AK3, the term 'settlements' does not only mean the narrow 'village' definition it is given today. Settlements could refer to the different neighbourhoods settled in Hebron. Joseph's Tomb was also refered to as a settlement. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Dairy cannot be termed settlements, the only way BG's remarks can be made any sense of is to include the Gush Etzion block. This makes BG's remarks about the Hebron Governorate rather than Hebron city....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AK3[edit]

I suggest that AK3 be blocked from editing this page. The editor has little interest in improving WP and repeated disruptive edits are made in order to push the editor's POV, rather than attempt NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the page to make such wild and cheap accusations. No doubt people are gathering evidence to see if Ashley can't rein in the occasional, unwonted editorializing comment. As a (comparatively) new editor, Ashley still has quite a few things either to learn or to hone. There is absolutely no doubt however that, once these things are sorted out, that AK3 will be a valuable WP editor for the simple fact that he is one of those rare people in the I/P area who read many many books, and actually buy them or consult libraries to get the facts straight from quality sources, instead of keying in google to make searches for contrarian information that might serve a deletion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT material. As an editor who has clashed with Ashley in the past, but noted his willingness to learn, and modify aspects of his initial emotive brio, I stand by his right to feel free to edit here. He, like me and almost everyone else in the I/P area, has a strong POV. Unlike many, he studies hard. If you dislike several of his edits, or outbursts, as an editor of long-standing, you should remark on them, and help him by constructive dialogue, not seize on incidental matters to call for a ridiculous ban. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<upset>
Shuki, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
If you have comments concerning content issues, they are welcome here.
Else, there is WP:AN/I but I doubt you would be welcome there with such comments.
</upset>
I left a message on your talk page.
Ceedjee (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

1st paragraph of Background section states : As a result of the 1929 Hebron massacre, the Jewish community of 750 people was disbanded. Was it evacuated? Removed? Disbanded cannot be correct for a community that returned two years later.AMuseo (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is misleading the readers that Hebron is the epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while it is merely a small arena, relatively quiet in the last years. It is also unsourced title, not used in the literature. In addition there is no prescedent on such article anywhere on wikipedia, like "Iran-Iraq war in Baghdad" or some "Syrian uprising in Homs" - which sound completely WP:OR (it is part of history sections usually, unless there is a specific event like the Siege of Homs). It is herewith proposed to rename to a more proper title Politics in Hebron. Please vote Support or Oppose.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this is too vague, it sounds like it's a discussion of rival platforms for the mayoralty elections or something. I'm not sure what you mean by an unsourced title, it's descriptive and thus typical of Wikipedia article titles. It doesn't imply that Hebron is the epicenter of the Israel-Palestinian conflict anymore than "Politics in Hebron" implies that Hebron is the epicenter of politics. I'm not sure how WP:OR applies either. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per P.T. Aufrette. ENeville (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The title[edit]

As the conflict "refers to an ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict", the title should be changed to Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it now. I also noticed that this was the original title but it was changed because this "is more accurate", which it is not as explained above. The lead also got changed then but this was corrected for some months ago. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation[edit]

The article is marked with coordinates and the type "city". This seems wrong as the article is about an event, not the city of Hebron itself. This is relevant because if you look up articles via the coordinates, this page is included as a city. 185.53.224.86 (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Hebron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit]

The sentence:

H2, which was inhabited by around 30,000 Palestinians is under Israeli military control with an entire brigade in place to protect some 800 Jewish residents living in the old Jewish quarter.

needs a comma after "around 30,000 Palestinians". Aleck, Smart (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_in_Hebron&oldid=1207752971"