Talk:Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"several shooting attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers"
I wonder is there any source for the claim that the DFLP has attacked civilians during the second Intifada? I'm not particularly aware of this having happened.
"The DFLP conducts occasional guerrilla operations in Southern Lebanon."
Also curious about this - is it perhaps out of date since the Israeli withdrawal?
- Can't find anything to suggest that this information is still accurate so am deleting it.Palmiro 17:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The previous version of this article had a bit of a C&P look to it, especially the peculiar grammar.Palmiro 22:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] West Bank and Gaza Strip
I see the reference to "occupied territories" has been changed to "West Bank and Gaza Strip", separately wikified. I don't think this is a good idea; the occupied territories are effectively a single political/territorial concept and it's not very fair that anyone trying to look them up should have to go to two different entries. Furthermore the West Bank article referred to introduces potential confusion as to whether East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank. In the context of this article (and I suspect most similar articles) it clearly is. I propose to change this to occupied Palestinian territories. It would be both at odds with Wiipedia naming principles (use of common name) and ease of use to do otherwise, in my opinion. The term 'occupied Palestinian territories' is widely used, relatively concise, and refers to an existing article, all of which make it preferable to West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, which is the only unambiguous alternative.
If the problem is with the name rather than the reference, I'd be perfectly willing to point it at a West Bank and Gaza Strip article if there was one that explained the location and status of the two bits of land together, but as you can see there isn't.Palmiro 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- "Occupied Palestinian territories" provides express support for a particular POV, which one cannot do on Wikipedia. As well, it means different things to different people; large numbers of people, for example, include Israel in the "Occupied Palestinian territories". "West Bank and Gaza Strip" is neutral, concise, and exact, and in used even more commonly than "Occupied Palestinian territories". Thus on all counts it is the preferred usage. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't accept that OPT provides support for any POV. While you might argue that it could logically include Israel, in the English language it's never used that way (unlike, for example "Occupied Palestine"); it has a clear, widely understood meaning. In any case, to be honest I'm not particularly hung up on the terminology, but I would like to find a solution that sends people who want to know what the territories are, or why it might be that the DFLP organises there in particular, to one place rather than two. Furthermore, as I remarked above, while you and I might well agree that "West Bank" is precise, the actual West Bank article muddies the waters. Can you suggest how we might address these two problems?Palmiro 12:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the actual West Bank article as muddying the waters in any way; can you explain why you think it does? Jayjg (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The following is the third paragraph of the West Bank article.
The status of East Jerusalem is controversial. Israel, having annexed it, no longer considers it part of the West Bank; however, the annexation is not recognized by the United Nations or any individual country. In either case, it is often treated as separate from the West Bank due to its importance; for example, the Oslo Peace Accords treat the status of East Jerusalem as a separate matter from the status of the other Palestinian territories, to be resolved at a later undetermined date.
If that doesn't suggest to you that there is doubt as to whether East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank, I'll be surprised.Palmiro 10:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why is that relevant, and why would adding the phrase "Occupied Palestinian territories" make it any clearer? From what I can tell, considering the 1947 Partition resolution, the "occupied" and "Palestinian" status of East Jerusalem is even more questionable than that of the West Bank. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
From your comment above it would appear that you yourself don't think the West Bank includes East Jerusalem. In that case, you certainly shouldn't have made the change you did in the article as it would render it misleading to anyone reading it with the same definition as you in mind. Incidentally the 'occupied' status of the West Bank including East Jerusalem has been established in the International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank fence/wall/barrier (as you please):
At the close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, the Court observes, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories have done nothing to alter this situation. The Court concludes that all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.
[1] Anyway, you still haven't addressed my principle point, which I will repeat:
I would like to find a solution that sends people who want to know what the territories are, or why it might be that the DFLP organises there in particular, to one place rather than two.
If you have a problem with the content or name of the "Palestinian Territories" article, you should address that by seeking to resolve those problems directly, not by going around breaking wiki-links to it from other relevant topics as you did here and on Palestinian People's Party.Palmiro 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The International Court of Justice's advisory rulings are interesting, though they are just that, advisory opinions. The 1947 partition plan certainly did not envisage East Jerusalem as being part of an Arab state. In any event, I see no advantage to the single link that is not outweighed by its disadvantages, especially because the links given are so neutral yet informative. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You still haven't explained what the disadvantages are! The 1947 partition plan is of no relevance, by the way. It didn't envisage the rest of the West Bank becoming part of Jordan either. The fact remains that neither area was ever recognised as being part of sovereign Israel but rather both were occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war.
You don't seem to understand the status of the ICJ ruling either. It was an advisory ruling as to whether the contruction of the wall contravened internqtional law. That means that the court's decision is not binding on any party and does not of itself legally require action from any party to implement it. However, in the course of its ruling, it made a number of findings, including the finding that the OPT are occupied territories under international law. The fact that this was stated in the course of an advisory ruling rather than a binding one does not detract from its authoritative nature. The ICJ is the authorative judicial instance in questions of international law.Palmiro 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I clearly explained above the disadvantages; excess verbiage, ambiguity, and politicization/POV. The 1947 partition plan is certainly relevant to whether or not East Jerusalem is part of the "Palestinian territories". And finally, who says the ICJ is the authorative judicial instance in questions of international law? It's just another international body which is attempting to extend its scope and jurisdiction into areas where it has no authority, by claiming it is the authority. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I dispute your remark as to POV. This was a link to a page that exists on Wikipedia. If you don't like the name of that page, you should seek to resolve that issue on that page, not by preventing other articles linking to it. Excess verbiage: "Palestinian Territories" is two words, "West Bank and Gaza Strip" five. Ambiguity: no more than for West Bank, on the basis of the entries here.
As for the 1947 partition plan, perhaps I should have been clearer. What I meant was that it doesn't have any bearing on whether EJ is occupied or not. You could certainly argue that it means the Palestinian 'right' to it (and incidentally that would also mean to Bethlehem) is less clearly established than in the case of the remainder of the territories, but that isn;t in my view an adequate reason for rejecting the use of the term Palestinian territories, which can be justified in three separate ways (1) the last state they were recognised as belonging to was the British mandate of Palestine (2) they lie within the historic region of Palestine (3) they are inhabited primarily by Palestinians (4) most importantly it's widely used and understood. But I really don't want to get into a row about terminology.
Would you accept as a compromise turning the existing West Bank and Gaza Strip article into a redirect to Palestinian territories and linking that in the text? As far as I can see that would cover your objections (subject to noone objecting on that article's talk page).Palmiro 19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Just because a page exists in Wikipedia doesn't mean linking to it isn't expressing a POV, much less introducing excess verbiage and ambiguity. As for your other suggestion, it would no doubt soon be changed to "Palestinian territories" in order to avoid re-directs. I've added a link to Palestinian territories in the "See also" section to address your issues. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. My objections to your edit stand. However, while I don't think this is a satisfactory approach, I'm not going to pursue the issue especially given the inadequate nature of the current PT article.Palmiro 19:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The DFLP did purposely commit terrorist attacks on israeli civilians during the second intifada. Even before the second intifada, the DFLP committed terrorist attacks on israeli civilians.-Dendoi
[edit] DFLP carried out terrorist attacks
I don't understand you people... The DFLP carried out the Ma'alot massacre, they took explicit responsibility for it! So why can't it be stated clearly in the introductory paragraph, that the DFLP carried out terrorist attacks? It's a fact that can't be disputed. Please read the article and you'll agree that it should be there. The terrorist attacks are also mentioned in the article itself, and were never denied. I don't understand why you keep deleting the sentence "...and military organization, which carried out numerous terrorist attacks". Please explain it to me clearly; I think it must be there. Thanks. --Gabi S. 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please have a look at Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism and WP:NPOV. Please note that no state or international organization (AFAIK) share your view, so stating it as a fact would not add to the Wikipedia's reliability. Furthermore, from a mathematical point of view it can be argued that one incident does not constitute numerous. Bertilvidet 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC), Please, Gabi S. is right. The DFLP has committed terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. What you say would not add to wikipedia's reliability. The maalot massacre was just the first one.
[edit] what the ten point program really calls for
I see this article claiming that the ten point program calls for the two state solution. Hah. The progam calls for first a Palesitnian state in the West bank and Gaza and then the Palestinian state to expand to replace Israel. Read the plan yourself. It also says that the PLO will strugle against any Palesitnian entity at the price of peace or recognition.-Dendoi December 19, 2006 Teusday 10:28 PM
[edit] DfLP goal is the destruction of Israel
The DFLPs goal is to replace Israel with a Communist Palestinian state. If you look at the map of palestine on their website, you would see that israel is not even on that map. That map does not show the border that distinguishes the West Bank from Israel and does not show the border that distinguishes Gaza from the Jewish state.-Dendoi
