Talk:Yom Kippur War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move

• Background: This move has been done and reverted several times in recent days. It seems appropriate to use the Wikipedia:Requested moves mechanism to gather broader feedback rather than have a move war. I have therefore created this request as a third party; I'm not the requester. -- Curps 06:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional brief explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~. This poll is to last roughly one week.

• Strongly oppose. The current name is the most common (and thus is the one proscribed by our name policy); the proposed one is not. The current name is neutral, the proposed one is not (for reasons below). As anyone who is aware of Gracenote's editing knows, this proposal is a clear example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point (he didn't like how Palestinian territories is/was named so he picked a fight here, on what was a very, very quiet article). Oh, and based on his actions under his old name on the clitoris article, I fully expect Grace Note to completely ignore the outcome of this poll. →Raul654 06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  Typical ad hominem spite from you, Mark. Why does the policy on most commonly used name not apply to Occupied Territories (Israeli)?Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most common name. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose But NOT because "Yom Kippur War" is a good name for this article, and NOT as a means of settling this question. We are still actively discussing this very issue in a civil manner and with good faith, so a poll is completely out of place at this time. Further, our naming policy mentioned by Raul654 cannot override the founding principle of NPOV, no matter how popular the name "Yom Kippur War" is, if consensus is that "Yom Kippur War" expresses any significant POV. Unfocused 09:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I strongly agree with the view, that has been well argued by mav, that page titles can never really be NPOV, and that we thus must use the most common name, rather than the most neutral one. - SimonP 13:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  Do you agree then that our article on the Occupied Territories should be called Occupied Territories (Israeli)? Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Opppose. As User:Unfocused said: "We are still actively discussing this very issue in a civil manner and with good faith, so a poll is completely out of place at this time.". Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Polls are evil. There are important issues at stake, and a POV pusher like Mark should not be allowed his own way just because he is backed by three or four others who share his POV. Surely it's better to reach a consensual end? If Mark is right and his policy is substantiated, he can surely argue it successfully here?Grace Note 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  Well that takes the cake. As a third party, I filed a standard WP:RM request on your behalf because I regularly monitor the move log and I noticed this page being renamed four times by you and reverted each time, and I simply wanted the move war to stop. Now you have voted against the very page title you repeatedly unilaterally moved to? Please see WP:POINT. My only agenda was to end the move war, and if that is accomplished then my work here is done. -- Curps 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a horribly awkward proposed title. johnk 04:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for a reason. The very reason WHY the war started on October 6, 1973 was that this was Yom Kippur. The obvious reason for choosing the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur for staging a surprise attack on Israel was that on this specific day (unlike any other holiday) the country comes to a complete standstill. On Yom Kippur most Jews fast (don't even drink), abstain from any use of fire, electricity, engines, cars, communications, etc. Many soldiers leave military facilities for home during the holiday and Israel is most vulnerable. This choice of an attack date testifies about a steep development in the Arab states' military thought, their understanding of (and ability to exploit) Israel's weaknesses. Guybas 06:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yom Kippur War is the most well known name for the war and as Guybas explained the name is deeply significant. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The current name is the most common. Moreover, the war began when it did because it was Yom Kippur. I see no point in changing the name. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. See my comment below [1] for my reasoning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. I also agree with using the actual name for the event. The Yom Kippur War is what the war is overwhelmingly known as in the English-speaking world among those who support neither side, as the war was deliberately started on Yom Kippur. I strongly oppose making up a new name to make a political point. Ambi 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Making a point is not nice. I've also added some comments below. Andjam 01:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Yom Kippur war is by far the most common name.
• Oppose. I already left comments below. uri budnik 06:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: no question Yom Kippur War is most common name in English. Jonathunder 20:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I think this sets some kind of record for WP:RM... a requested move supported by absolutely no one, including the person who added the request to WP:RM and the person who actually performed the move in the past. I guess there's nothing to do but sit back and admire the unanimity (who said consensus is difficult to achieve?), leave it up for a couple of days so that those who participated can see the results, and then move to the bottom of the talk page or archive or delete. -- Curps 05:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

An event mentioned in this article is a May 31 selected anniversary

---

I'm planning to write a major article on the Yom Kippur War (like I did with the Six-Day War), but it may yet take a while to write it (lots of material, viewpoints). --Uriyan

Suprisingly, this article does not even state why it is called "Yom Kippur War", although it contains a lot of other interesting information. --user:FlorianMarquardt

Who the heck is this Esseily guy? Are you trying to re-write history with incorrect facts just to make the Egyptians look better or something? You're obviously not impartial enough to comment on this article. Name the war after the people who won? It's always been called the Yom Kippur War. That's the day the Arab nations attacked Israel again. Emphasis on the word "Attacked" and "Again". There's no rewards for aggressors in war. Egypt lost land from a previous war when they "Attacked" Israel. What do you want Israel to say, "Oh, we're sorry you attacked us and we had to defend ourselves and take some land. Here you go. You can have the land back if you promise not to "Attack" us anymore." Sorry pal, it doesn't work that way. And what's with calling the war an Egyptian victory? I'm pretty sure the Egyptian army was defeated and the Israeli tanks were only about 20Km outside Damascus before the U.S. implored them not to attack and to turn around and go back. If you want to call that a victory, o.k. I guess. Israel gave the land back after Camp David not because of any defeat during this war, but as a peace offering with assurance that Egypt recognizes the state of Israel and will not declare war on them anymore. Pretty nice gesture by Israel. Hey, Eiselly! Keep it real or go post on some Al Jazeera web site where you could commiserate with other haters. On second thought, why don't you stop breeding hate, and become the first great Arab leader and lead your people to peace and to friendly relationships with the great nation of Israel and its people, and then you can stand up and tell the other Arab nations to do the same thing and to stop killing innocent people living in their homes or on buses. Lead by example. Right now the Arab nations seemed to lost and the only thing they can agree on is to hate Israel. If it wasn't for Israel they would all be fighting with themselves. If only you could turn all that negative energy into something good. It only takes one Esseily. Be the leader of your people and start to bring peace to one corner of the world. --[Ted] Mar 3 2005 16:25

Actually the site does state why the war is caller "Yom Kippur War" it's because the attack was planned on that day of the Holy Jewish Event, but if it was up to me I'll call it as the people who won the war call it "The 6th. of October War" or "The Canal Crossing Battle"--Esseily 00:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This may be an English-to-Hebrew mistake (on my part) but I believe the name is Avraham "Bren" Adan (as opposed to Avraham "Bern" Eden). (from the book "On the Banks of the Suez ..." by the same). Additionally, I think it's important to note that this was considered one of the biggest Arab victories over Israel ever (despite the outcome) to the point that Eqypt currently still celebrates the date the war began. Likewise this war precipitated the resignation of Golda Meir as Prime Minister of Israel (among other notable Israeli politicians and military) and wwas considered one of the worst wars for Israel (by Israelis). Also in your copy, you stated that Egypt didn't plan on developing on their initial successes which is not entirely true. The Egyptian military headed by Abu-Iziz (if I remember the name correctly) plan (Badr) stated that all eastern bank crossings were to be consolidated *before* advancing further east. The actual objective was to capture the whole of the Sinai and Gaza. The actual reason why the Egyptian advance stalled was that they could not overrun the Bar-Lev line as completely as they had planned to. This was due in part to Israeli soldiers who fought extremely bravely, but more due to the fact that there was confusion, hesitation and ultimately failure at evacuating the strongpoints along the canal from the Southern Command (under Gonen at the time). - Baraq Baron Ben-Gideon Bacharach (baraq@dmech.org)

I didn't get the (despite the outcome part) coz as far as we're Egyptians concerned we did win that war, and we took back most of our land in battle and the rest through peace talks that started with the Camp David Agreement If I'm to say what I think of the outcome, the only thing Egyptians in general didn't like about the Camp David agreement was the restriction on the numbers of the Egyptian troops in Sinai, coz simply this is Egyptian land and only Egypt should have the power to decide how many of our troops should be there .. other than that the outcome was fine .. The October War is till today considered one of the biggest Tank Battles in the modern Military history and it was a well earned victory to retrieve the Egyptian land, of course with the help of all fellow arab countries that participated in the battle in a way the other .. and by the way the Barlev defence line was almost completely destroyed in those 6 hours of the first day of war and I beleive that was the main reason why behind the Israili resignations, coz Israelis before the war were told that the Barlev line in inpenetrable .. which proved wrong of course.

A very important fact that Baraq missed as well is that the fight stopped not because of the the bravery of the Israeli soldiers "maybe that is true" but mainly because of the very heavy American reinforcements, hundreds of the Israeli tanks that were destroyed in the battlefield were of course American plus they were brand new, they were brought by by an air bridge to the battle field and they managed to join the fight in very early stages ..

My last comment on the Article is that I don't beleive the casualties and dead figures are right at all, If I could get precise information I'll post it ASAP.. thanks all for ur time --Esseily 00:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about the Bomb? BL 22:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about it? This war didn't go nuclear at all. Berrik

There was the possibility of nuclear war during this war but no mention is made about it. From the DEFCON article:

DEFCON 3 refers to an increase in force readiness above normal. United States military commands (minus the Strategic Air Command, at heightened alert on DEFCON 2) went to this level in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All United States forces went on DEFCON 3 during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Soviet nuclear warheads were discovered moving toward Egypt. James Schlesinger sent U.S. forces to the Middle East without notifying NATO. The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks.

I am not familiar with this war but I think that the nuclear aspect should be mentioned since the word 'nuclear' isnt found in the article at all. --ShaunMacPherson 06:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to add blow-by-blow accounts of battles or heaps of statistics, I suggest that you break it out into a seperate article and link to it. I also suggest that you represent both sides equally. Putting in a figure for Israeli casualties for a single battle but not mentioning anything else (including possibly casualties on the other side?) is neither NPOV nor good practice. Nvinen 13:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Weaponry 2 Things to do 3 what is AMAN? 4 a reference to the rabinovich report is needed 5 ...Almost there 6 posible typo inside of quote 7 Results of my researches 8 when was the meeting between nixon and brezhnev? 9 territories vs palestinian territories: a "claim term" 10 Israeli Victory? 11 The aforementioned source? 12 Camp David 13 Question 14 Nose 15 Jordan halved? 16 Is this a wikipedia article or excerpts from Abraham Rabinovich's book?

Weaponry

I deleted cause it was not really true. Isreal got many weapons from Germany the USA and members in the common wealth.

the old mistaken surprise subject

listen there was no surprised attack what so ever. we know in Israel that the military and goverment high ministers knew and had all the signs that the war is going to break. to say that there was a surprise it is a bad point of view and a one major error. 212.179.81.67

Perhaps so, but either way, it's impertinent — historical claims and observations requiere references. El_C 10:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=2424 http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2773155,00.html#n http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/docs/doc_30.1/ Oraien

Thanks. I remember reading their (Yedioth Ahronoth, that is) print series on it with great interest and found it absolutely fascinating. Incidentally, you can sign your username by typing ~~~~ :) El_C 19:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

it is very interesting and also very outrageous to find that the chief of steff generals and the defense minister knew abot that the war is going to break but didn`t do anything.

Things to do

I am satisfied that the section about the lead up to the war is complete. The immediate aftermath is *almost* complete (it just needs a talk about the syrian front and UN peacekeeper intervention). The section on the war itself is wholly inadaquate, and the long term effects section is virtually empty. I'd like to address these, and then nominate this article on Wikipedia:featured article candidates. In the mean time, I'd appreciate it if anyone could track down some copyleft pics of the fighting to use in this article. →Raul654 03:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've just created the article on Operation Nickel Grass, the U.S. airlift of supplies to Israel (it's since been featured in Did You Know). I'll start looking for pics and see if I can't contribute here and there... -Lommer | ^talk 03:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, with the work I did today, I'm happy with the immediate aftermath section. Now it just needs a better description of the long term effects and of the fighting itself. →Raul654 21:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

what is AMAN?

it seems like it is a government agency but it is not explained in the article and its left as a link to an article yet to be written. a footnore, a parenthetical comment, or an article stub would help here. uri budnik 08:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AMAN (the name is the english acronym fo the Hebrew name) is one of Israel's (many) intelligence agencies. As I understand it, their job is to (among other things) digest the intelligence recieved by all the other agencies. Check this link. →Raul654 08:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Give me 15 minutes and I will write/translate a very bad article on it! El_C 05:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i first posed the question above because it was not clear to me when i first read the article what AMAN was/meant. i saw the link that raul654 provided and i considered maybe even using it as a basis for an article stub but i have not gotten around to it. i did want to change the article to make the AMAN acronym a little bit clearer. i did, and your subsequent modification is an improvement but maybe it still could be better.

question for you, would it be correct to say: The IDF's AMAN (a Hewbew acronym for Inteligence Branch or Military Intelligence), "the leader of Israel's intelligence community," was responsible...? in such a case maybe we can even get rid of "the leader of Israel's intelligence community." especially if there is a link to an article about AMAN. User:UriBudnik

It isn't an acronym, it's an abbreviation. Well, it took me much longer than 15 minutes. Naturally, I blame my cat for this. El_C 06:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nice article on AMAN (especially since you wipped it out so fast!) but i still think that opening scentence here is a bit awkard. for example, i did not realize that the phrase "the leader of Israel's intelligence community" was a direct quote from the rabinovich book. that is why i edited it. do you think that ('intelligence branch') still needs single-quote marks inside the parenthesis? to me it was confusing to to see that followed by a direct quotation. i'm not an expert on style but i don't think the single-quote marks serve a purpose inside the parenthesis. uri budnik 07:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! But actually not that fast. Feel free to remove the single quotes, I don't remember what purpose they were supposed to serve, if any – possibly I just copy & pasted it as such). Perhaps that it's just a literal translation(?). El_C 08:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a reference to the rabinovich report is needed

i am assuming that all the attributions marked "Rabinovich" are to a report by an author of that name. it would be usefull to at least create an article stub about this person and/or the report he authored about this war.uri budnik 08:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rabinovich refers to Abraham Rabinovich. I was using this book here to write most of this article. (The book is, from what I have seen, considered one of the best descriptions of the war you can get) →Raul654 08:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

But it does represent one particular current in the historiography. See: Critical book review. El_C 08:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the clarification. i had incorrectly assumed that the "Rabinovich" references were to a public report by the israeli government or a commission thereof (like the 9/11 report). this certainly needs to be fixed in the article. i am just not sure what the appropriate stylistic form for the reference is. i'll look it up somehow.

on the POV issue, i agree with EL_C, however, the article IS written in the spirit of NPOV (IMHO). i suspect it would take an arab speaker who has read on the subject from author(s) writing for "the other side" to make it unequivocally neutral. when i was in college i wrote a paper for a negotiations and conflict resolution class on the falklan island war (or the maldives war depending on whose side you were on.) for research i read books and articles from american, british and argentinian (and some other latin american) authors both in spanish and english. it really struck me then how massively different points of view and perspectives on the same event can be. i think this is a great article as it is, and that it would take someone that can come at it from a completely different perspective to be able to make it truly NPOV. so, perhaps someone who perceives this event from a different perspective will come along and take a stab at it. isn't that what the wikipedia is all about? i hope this happens as i would like to see this great article improved even further. i am curious what someone with a primarily arab perspective would add to this. (please take this in the positive spirit that it is meant) uri budnik 09:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the article, I haven't read it closely yet, my comment was on the book. El_C 10:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the article isn't POV (please cite any statement that is biased), it's just most of the discussion of command decisions centers on the Israeli side. Why? Because, as the Rabinovich book says pretty clearly, there's was no public report or memoirs available from anyone in the egyptian or syrian high command (most of them being dead by now). The information simply doesn't exist. →Raul654 16:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

i am not claiming that the article is not NPOV. and, i have not read the rabinovich book, i am not an expert on this subject, and i am too young to remember these events when they transpired. i was just commenting that most of the information comes from the perspective of one side even if it is not biased. i have now learned from you that this is by necessity since as you point out, "the information simply doesn't exist" for the other side. not a challenge to its veracity, just a comment. i think you would agree with me on this. there is just not as much perspective from the other side (and perhaps there is none to be had) i could see how totalitarian governments would not be as open to having their members publish memoirs or personal accounts of a war they started (or of their inner workings). i think saying this only makes the NPOV position of the article stronger.

by the way, i thought the article was very good. that is why i spent time adding some links and why i posted comments here. heck, i may even get the book...uri budnik

...Almost there

Ok, I'm satisfied that this article is complete, except for the description of the fighting on the Syrian front , the participation by other Arab states, and it still needs a references section. After that, I'll nominate it on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. →Raul654 16:37, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I *know* the Director of WP:FAC, let me know if you wish for me to pull some strings! ;p El_C 06:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

posible typo inside of quote

raul654,

i was looking at your latest changes and i think there are a couple of typos, but since you are quoting from a book, i did not want to change it without first checking (with you since i dont have this book to verify the quote).

in this revision [[2]] should it not be "most demoralizing" and "was a desperate option" ? uri budnik 02:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one is not a typo (it's perfectly correct english); the second one was and I have corrected it. →Raul654 03:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Results of my researches

Sadat's autobiography, which is pretty glaringly self-serving, does have a chapter on the October War. Sadat blames the war mainly on the United States because they refused to force Israel to negotiate. Reporting on the February 1973 meeting between Kissinger and Hafiz Ismail Sadat states that the drift of what Kissinger said to Ismail was that the United States regrettably could do nothing to help so long as we were the defeated party and Israel maintained her superiority. (pg. 238) Sadat thus claims that the war was only a needed enabler of the later peace accords.

One other factoids of note from Sadat's work is that Hosni Mubarak was the commander of the initial air attack and Sadat was greatly impressed by him. Sadat states that this was an important reason for later making him vice-president. This should probably be mentioned seeing the emphasis given to Arial Sharon's role on the opposing side.

Also I think that the statement in the introduction that "Egypt and Syria launched a surprise joint attack aimed at retaking territory—the Sinai and Golan Heights—captured by Israel during the Six-Day War six years earlier" needs to be changed. The scholarly consensus seems to be that Sadat was only trying to inflict a symbolic defeat on Israel and not to actually trying to retake the Sinai by force of arms. This was the opinion of all the sources I consulted. Assad, however, was trying to retake the Golan and felt betrayed when Sadat turned to the defensive in the Sinai. Maoz in Syria and Israel states that whereas Sadat went into a limited war in order to shatter the status quo and generate American pressure on Israel to give up the entire Sinai, Asad envisaged the capture of the entire Golan (and Sinai) and subsequent pressure on Israel to give up the occupied Palestinian territories. pg. 128. Moaz also gives some other reasons Assad was so interested in war besides retaking the Golan. Assad wanted to be the preeminent military power in the region, and was especially interested in competing with Iraq for regional prestige. He also felt that a military victory was the only way to win respect from Syria's Soviet allies.

Raphael Israeli's book on Sadat also states that the Egyptian offensive was to obtain a symbolic rather than a territorial victory. However he states the main motivation was Sadat's deep sense of shame over the 1967 defeat and the belief that until this national shame was reversed other areas of Egyptian life, such as the economy, could not be revived. David Hirst and Irene Beeson focus more on the domestic concerns and the need to build international prestige, but also felt that Sadat's goal was mainly a propaganda victory.

Israeli goes into considerable detail on why the other Arab powers did or did not join the offensive. He seems to disagree with Rabinovich over Jordan as Israeli states that the main reason Jordan stayed out was the Sadat was working closely with the PLO and promised Arafat the West Bank. Hussein had just attacked the PLO in Jordan and still saw the West Bank as their territory.

Both Israeli and Moaz have some good material on the Egyptian and Syrian deception prior to the war. I feel that that section should be rewritten and renamed as the surprise attack was just as much an Egyptian success as a Israeli failure.

Israel has some information on the domestic problems at the time, but not a great deal. He does state the student protests were important in convincing Sadat to launch the war. In a weird opposite to the anti-war protests in the United States at the time the Egyptian students were protesting demanding war with Israel and accusing Sadat of defeatism. The students pushed to have the government close all the universities and conscript the students into the military. - SimonP 23:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

when was the meeting between nixon and brezhnev?

the second paragraph in section 1.2 israeli intelligence failures, starts with "in the summer, in a metting between..." what year did this meeting take place? from the flow of the article it seems it was in 1973 (and i almost changed the article to say that) but its actually not completely clear. i think it a little bit sloppy to say in the summer and not mention the year when it is not self evident what year it was. if someone knows for sure that the year was 1973 please change accordingly.

The meeting took place on the night of June 23-24, 1973. I have fixed the article accordingly. →Raul654 07:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

territories vs palestinian territories: a "claim term"

i noticed that the term palestinian territories was recently changed to just territories under the justification that palestinian territories is a 'claim term.' i suspect that there may be some debate as to which is the proper term to use (which i don't feel informed enough on the subject to join), but no matter the consensus result, i suggest that a footnote is added with a sentence or two describing the dispute as to how to refer to these areas AND that the link to the palestinian territories article is preserved. this gives it beter context. uri budnik 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted Palestinian territories because it may be construed (justly) as a claim term. The term is itself ambigious; it could mean territories belonging to Palestinians or territories in geographical Mandate Palestine. Whether or not the term is used by Western media, Western media is not NPOV, wikipedia is theoretically supposed to be. I agree that perhaps plain territories are ambigious, but everyone knows what it means when referring to this conflict. If not, I think reinstating West Bank and Gaza would be fine. Palestinian territories is similiar to Yesha when used in Hebrew. For the sake of NPOV, we must use another term. Guy Montag 01:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a term used in the scholarship as impartial — unless you bring forth evidence from it or otherwise notable source that it is disputed in more-or-less the terms you listed above, my original change/merge of GZ and WB as the Palestinian territories stays, not vice versa. El_C 01:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not accussing anyone of POV Pushing. The term, if you clicked Palestinian territories cites this:

This term connotes much more than a definition, but a host of related propositions that amount to a preventive political argument about the disposition and status of the land:

• that these territories are under the military control of a nation that does not have sovereignty over them;

• that the nation in control of these territories, i.e., Israel, is thus obliged (as a matter of right as well as by international law) to return these territories to their rightful owners; and

• that these territories belong by right to the Palestinians, i.e., the stateless indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

As you can see, I am using the definition of that the article has given. Whether it is used as a neutral term is not what is relevent, what is relevent is how it may be construed. Guy Montag 02:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Negative, this is just wrt the status of (to use military-speak) The Territories themsleves, not so much the term. El_C 02:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reiterate?

Reiterate how, Anon? Guy's above passage deals with the controversial status of The Territories, not so much the term. I don't know if I can explain this any more clearly: there's no mention above wrtt term "Palestinian territories" as itself disputed. El_C 02:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry El C, that was me I just forgot to sign. The article says that the term amounts to a political argument. That is why I am against using it. Guy Montag 10:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh! My point is: I'm not sure that it does, in that sense. Which is why I'm asking for a reference indicating whether this is/isn't the case. El_C 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only reference I have is from the Palestinian territories article itself. If you read it, you will see that the term is loaded. Also, with a little common sense, I think you already know why it is loaded. Hint: Palestinian acts as a possessive modifying territories. :) Guy Montag 01:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, maybe it could be read that way, but what I'm getting at is that we need something more definitive, more scholarly-grounded. El_C 01:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there's no doubt that it is read that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps cf my criticism of necessarily "possessive" construal - actually of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" that's what's actually considered in the Palestinian territories article - in the talk for that article. US State department usage of the term is probably "geographic." A State department usage of it before 1988 or 1974 - see if I can dig up one - must be "geographic" , as at that point the US position was that some/all of the territory was to be returned to Jordan, not the Palestinians. Of course possessive construal by ordinary readers nowadays is natural enough though.--John Z 17:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All these objections against the position of Raul and myself have yet to be substantiated by anything concerete, but I have something. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Spokesman writes: (Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman) In the framework of Israeli Government policy to assist in carrying out free and democratic elections in the Palestinian territories, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Silvan Shalom has instructed the Foreign Ministry to set up an ad-hoc task force. If they do not object... El_C 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Israeli government is referring to the self governing Area B, where the PA has some authority. But what the Israeli government says, doesn't make a term neutral. For many people in Israel, the government is not truly Zionist. We should focus on how a common reader would interpert the passage, and it will be through the possessive, because the article he will click on will say so. Guy Montag 03:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you have a non-Wikipedia source that demonstartes it's problematic, by all means. I have provided one, now it's the opposition's turn. El_C 03:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That appears to be the same Ministry of Foreign Affairs that insists that the territories are "disputed", not "occupied": [3] Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand then. The wikipedia article on the Palestinian territories makes it a loaded political argument, and outside sources use it. Is wikipedia wrong and Israel is using the terminology of its adversaries, or is the article wrong? Guy Montag 01:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy, Jay, I'm going to have to see sources outside of Wikipedia articles regarding the use of Palestinian territories in this article. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? Guy Montag

Because it's subject to interpertation. I want to see a source which states outright the term is problematic. El_C 21:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. The palestinian territories article has already established the fact that the term is loaded. Lets use a term that would not be subject to interpertation instead. It's that simple.

Guy Montag 00:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. *YOU* say the article established it as a loaded term. I do not see it that way. I think the first sentence is far more telling -- The term "Palestinian territories" is used by mainstream Western journalists as a collective name for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And, as has already been established here, even the Israeli government (or at least one part of it) uses the term. So in essense, we have a term that the Israelis, the palastinian, and the western media all use. It sounds to me like your claim that it's a loaded term is wholly without merit. →Raul654 01:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guy, either you provide a reputable source, as I did, or there isn't really much left to speak about. Why? Because we'd be going in circles. El_C 05:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose my source from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs insisting that they should be referrred to as "disputed" didn't count for much. Regardless, in Israel they are referred to in a number of different ways; not surpisingly, the terms are all in Hebrew. "Yesha" is one term used by the right, which is an acronym for "Yehuda, Shomron, v'Aza". Here's an interesting article talking about the terms used to describe the territories, which actually argues that "occupied" is the most neutral:[4] In any event, I think it would be hard to deny that "the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is by far the least ambiguous term. Once you start talking about "Palestinian territories", then you have to parse that; does that mean the territories controlled by the P.A. (and which subset of those), or does it mean the West Bank and Gaza, or (as militants would have it), does it mean all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, really, what is wrong with "West Bank and Gaza" here? How could it offend anyone? It's four words, but short ones that add up to less than the two long ones. The problems are in the Palestinian territories article, which should be rewritten to reflect the discussion here.--John Z 15:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea; El C evidently objected to my use of them, and converted them:[5], and since then there has been a conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not object to them, I unified them for convinience. I had no idea that there would be objections to that. El_C 00:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one is blaming you. Those people that want it changed back to West Bank and Gaza are think it will solve a dubious NPOV problem.

Guy Montag 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would still like to hear of a source that objects to it beyond editors here, outside of Wikipedia. It is a notable enough term, so one would presume there would be little difficulties establishing this. I admit I am somewhat bothered with a reversion lacking this referencial basis. El_C 2 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Israeli Victory?

This is really a POV. The outcome was much more a draw. Though Egypt and Syria did not achieve their major war aims Israel and the United States failed to restore the status-quo ante as this was recognised in the immediate disengagement agreements that led to the eventual separate peace between Egypt and Israel signed at Camp David.

Israel was hours away from encircling and destroying the Egyptian third army, and days (maybe a week) away from doing the same to the second egyptian army (at which point, organized resistance on the sinai front would have ended). In the north, Syria et al were preparing a counterattack (which would almost certainly have failed, given the tactics used in previous battles). Israel was definitely winning, and the US held them back from delivering the crushing final blows. Or, to quote the article "Israel, in short, was to emerge quasi-victorious, not triumphant" So yes, the war ended in Israeli victory. →Raul654 18:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 217.158.116.150 above. This was not the opinion of many, especially Israelis - ordinary people, officials and generals at the time as well as outside observers at the time and many or most historians. Would Israel have been in that position without American aid? After all the Americans (with Soviet intervention in the background) did loudly say no and Israel accepted. It is really even secondguessing the Israeli command at the time to call it an Israeli victory. E.g. the very respected Zeev Schiff called it "a territorial draw" with Egypt, though a major victory against Syria. Sadat's later Foreign Minister, Ismail Fahmy called it a draw, though he commented the achievement was hardly worth going to war (that's his POV) Trevor Dupuy in Elusive Victory, a standard military history: "If war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab states - and in particular Egypt, won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory." (Israel's losses in the war were 30 times as great, relatively, than the USA's in World War 2, according to Dupuy) IMHO Dupuy hits the nail on the head, even thought Israel was of course "winning" at the end.

It is at the very least highly misleading to say "Ended by a United Nations cease-fire in Israeli victory" - it sounds like the UN made an official judgment - so I will cut it. Only the driest and most indisputable of facts belong in a table.--John Z 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it's described in detail later, I can live with the changes. Suffice it to say, had the war gone on much longer, Arab losses would have spiraled upwards very quickly (a fact which no one really disputes). →Raul654 23:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you say that Israel had not won this war then you can say that the Soviets didn't win the WWII, it's completely wrong. Israel had lost fewer troops than the Arabs and if the Soviets wouldn't stop them they would take Damascus. The Arabs says that they win this war because of the relative small loss that they have comparing to the last war.

The aforementioned source?

In the Lead up to the surprise attack section, the text says "Finally, Zvi Zamir personally went to Europe to meet the aforementioned source. . ." But what source is this referring to? The only previously mentioned source is King Hussein of Jordan, but I doubt that's what it means. Anyone have any insights?

Second, they learned from a high-ranking Egyptian informant (who to-this-day remains confidential, known only as "The Source") →Raul654 June 28, 2005 18:02 (UTC)

Camp David

This section needs to be expanded. Sadat's initiative was designed in part to block the Soviet call for the reconvening of the Middle East Peace Conference that met shortly after the October 1973 cease-fire. The co-sponsors of that conference were the USA & the USSR. The Americans were opposed to reconvening the conference and the Sadat administration believed it could get more out of direct talks -- though Sadat's initial proposal included the participation of Syria and the PLO. They both declined.

I strongly disagree. This section, if anything should be reduced. This is not an article about Camp David; most such material should go there. In any case, it should not include completely false statements like the Americans being opposed to the reconvention of the Geneva Conference. Carter and Vance worked very hard to get it reconvened, and it was if anything more an American than a Soviet initiative. I am removing the part about Iran assuming the mantle of leadership of the Arab world; no matter who said it, it is eccentric, to say the least. Iran is not an Arab country. The speculative connection of Camp David and the Iran-Iraq war is also rather farfetched, and in any case has little to do with the topic of the article.--John Z 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Well I disagree with that. I think there needs to be more research to clear this matter up amongst us here and that is why I have not made any amendments but merely flagged up a point for discussion. My understanding is that the Geneva Conference was largely seen in the Middle East as a Soviet initiative. Brezhnev later tabled his own plan commonly known as the Brezhnev Plan that was essentially a rehash of past UN resolutions. Kissinger and Nixon were opposed to the reconvening of the ME Peace Conference as they favoured continuing the "disengagement" strategy. I'm not sure what evidence there is for Carter and Vance working "very hard" to get the Geneva conference reconvened -- had that been so why didn't it happen as the Soviets were always demanding its recall.

I agree with the points about Iran though. Iran's foreign policy changed radically after the 1979 Islamic Revolution but their position was and is never in favour of Arab unity or Arab nationalism which the Iraqi government elevated to try to win support from the Arab minority who live in southern Iran -- the Islamic government called for Islamic solidarity exclusively.

There is no doubt and has never been any dispute - there is a great deal of documentation - that although it never happened, Carter and Vance wanted to reconvene the Geneva Conference quite strongly in 1977 - they issued a joint declaration with the Soviets in October. (cf any general book like Shlaim or Quandt) It was the centerpiece of their early Middle East diplomacy, following the recommendations of the Brookings Institute report by Brzezinski and others. They were more serious about it than Kissinger and Nixon were about the actual conference, called for by SC 338 and only meeting for a short time in 73-74. You're right that for this one the Soviets were more serious about than the Americans, who preferred behind the scenes, less open comprehensive multilateral/UN diplomacy then, and didn't really like it, except as a threat. The 2nd conference never reconvened in 77 because of Sadat's initiative before it was to probably reconvene, and which the US knew nothing whatsoever about. The Brezhnev plan is even later - 1982. An interesting source for Geneva Conference and reconvening matters (he even says himself that he might be providing excessive detail) is Ismail Fahmy's (Sadat's Foreign Minister, father of the present ambassador to the US) Negotiating for Peace in the Middle East.--John Z 3 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Question

Israel argued that Sadat felt the root of the problem was in the great shame over the Six-Day War, and before any reforms could be introduced he felt that shame had to be overcome - I think that is supposed to a reference to Raphael Israeli's (note the last name) biography of Sadat. Am I wrong? →Raul654 00:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, that typo led to a fairly major change in meaning. - SimonP 00:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes - very much so :) →Raul654 00:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

PS - I've gone ahead and made that sentence explicit in its reference to the biography (Isreali is, unfortunately, still a bit ambigious). However, I'd also prefer a page citation, if possible. →Raul654 00:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nose

I removed this sentence: "This Israeli salient was nicknamed "Golda's Nose" from its shape." If this is true, could someone provide a citation? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan halved?

How was Jordan halved in size in 1967? Jordan is 92,300 km², while the West Bank is only 5,860 km². According to Britannica the West Bank had about 47% of Jordan's total population in 1967, so the halving was by population, not by size. - SimonP 18:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I got the quote from here: "Hussein had been relucantly dragged into the Six Day War by Egypt and lost half his Kingdom - the West Bank - as a result" (Rabinovich, 45). On the other hand, your statistics don't lie. →Raul654 18:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rabinovich must have been being imprecise. While most would read that as referring to area, he seems to measure kingdom size by population. - SimonP 18:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a wikipedia article or excerpts from Abraham Rabinovich's book?

Ever other paragraph seems to be taken directly from Rabinovich's book that this might as well be called the official war history of israel. I'm not accusing of a bias, but implying the excessive quotations from a single israeli author might be seen by other readers as a POV way of presenting things. I believe that the arab world did not publish any official findings etc., but other views on the war must be incorporated, israeli victory notwithstanding. Right now despite a pretty good presentation of the war, it sounds like snippets cut from Rabinovich's research. Idleguy 05:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You said it yourself - the arab world conducted no official inquiries or studies into the war, and (excluding Ariel Sharon) the principle people involved on both sides are all dead. To complain of a lack of arab sources is patently unfair. →Raul654 22:25, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Very well, but also, to complain of a complain of a lack of MORE references, than just that of Rabinovich, is also unfair. If there are no Arab sources, then this is no justification of counting on LESS sources. In fact, it is a justification of the very opposite, that we need more and more sources from elsewhere. Rabinovich, is here, in this one-sided article, is almost God-provider-of-all-knowledge, incarnates! -- Thank you Maysara 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)