Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 23:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

edit
  • ... that the goal of "peace" may mean different things to Israelis and Palestinians?
  • Source: Sambaraju & McVittie 2018, p. 116: “There remains the question of what is to be, or indeed can be, done about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. One useful starting point would be to reconsider the use of talk of peace and violence in this context. If the term ‘peace’ is indeed nothing more than ‘an attractive but empty box’ (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010, p. 566), into which anyone can place and argue for what is to count as peace, then it can achieve little to retain this as the most desirable description of an outcome. Equally, where it becomes bound up with expectations (or lack of expectations) of international actors, then ‘peace’ potentially does little more than add layers of misunderstanding to existing complexities and to obscure what is at issue.”
Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 82 past nominations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC).

  • Comment @Onceinawhile, I'm not sure about the hook: it's probably passable, but I think something more specific, such as peace vs. justice or the resulting miscommunications might be better? FortunateSons (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, how about:
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I think those are better, with 1 being more factual and 2 being more interesting in my opinion. I’ll leave the full review to someone more experienced and less involved, but feel free to ping me if there is no timely review available. FortunateSons (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile ALT2 is more interesting, however I don't see 'security maintained through oppressive military control – has not proven sustainable' or similar explicitly stated in the article. Am I missing something? TarnishedPathtalk 05:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: the first part is in there: Supporters of Israel, particularly those on the right-wing, primarily advocate for a negative peace or oppressive peace, where peace means security for Israelis with continuing control over, oppression of, or subjugation of Palestinians. I have just added two more sources, with quotes, to support the sentence.
With respect to the "has not proven sustainable", sadly I don't think a source is needed to prove such a statement as we sit here in June 2025, per WP:SKYBLUE. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, it was specifically the "has not proven sustainable" bit that I was having trouble finding in the article. While that might be SKYBLUE to you and me I think someone might pick it up during the review process. TarnishedPathtalk 23:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: thanks for clarifying – I have added a source and a quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created 7 June and nominated the same day. Earwig comes up as 52.2%, however this is a consequence of usage of quotes in references. Both ALT1 and ALT2 are interesting and supported by sources. I have a preference for ALT2 which I think is more interesting but either of the ALTs are good. QPQ done. Good to go. TarnishedPathtalk 08:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Gatoclass pulled the hook yesterday from the queue with an edit summary of "hook issues, possible article issues". Pinging Onceinawhile and TarnishedPath. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
If the hook is the primary issue, there are two others which are also interesting which can be used. @Gatoclass: can we get some clarification please? TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The original hook above looks fine.
With regard to the article, it isn't irredeemable, but using words like "oppressive" in Wikipedia's voice is inappropriate and needs to be properly attributed. Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: "oppressive" is directly supported by scholarly sources in this context, as quoted in the article. This is a sensitive topic, so we must find the optimal language - not too strong and not too weak. The word “oppressive” is better than stronger words like apartheid, persecuting, dehumanizing, terrorizing, and better than doublespeak like governing or administering, that obscure the topic at hand. Its usage here is carefully thought through:
  • The word is factual: encapsulating the well-known Israeli restrictions on Palestinian movement, goods, basic utilities, speech, assembly, self-determination, residency, trade, and legal rights around matters like home demolitions and administrative detentions.
  • The word is carefully contextualized: While the word on its own can raise a question of justice/morality, its use here is clearly and consistently subordinated to the Israeli justification of peace and security. This ensures it is appropriately and neutrally contextualized in both the hook and the article.
The intention is to communicate the underlying debate on the topic of peace - Israelis primarily want security, Palestinians primarily want fundamental rights, and Israelis primarily aim for security at the expense of those Palestinian rights.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

How about:

  • ALT3: ... that Israelis frame peace as conditional on security, while Palestinians frame it as conditional on justice? Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: thanks. It doesn’t quite work because:
  • the nebulous terms “security” and “justice” communicate almost nothing on their own
  • The primary point of interest is why those two topics appear mutually exclusive in the Israeli-Palestinian context, since most of the world’s other neighboring adversaries are able to achieve an element of both
  • Palestinian future human “rights” are undoubtedly more important than the past historical “justice”
  • It needs a word like “commonly” or “often”, as neither are monoliths.
Two alternatives below:
  • ALT4: ... that Palestinians commonly frame peace as conditional on justice, while Israelis commonly frame it as conditional on security without justice?
  • ALT5: ... that Palestinians often frame peace as conditional on the re-establishment of their fundamental rights, while Israelis often frame it as conditional on their security at the expense of Palestinian rights?
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but both those hooks are violations of WP:DYKBLP in my view, which specifies that hooks must adopt "a neutral point of view." Since we can't seem to agree on a hook, I will take this to WT:DYK for wider input. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: What is your assessment of non-neutrality based on? If it is based on your instinct, you are not assessing it at all. Our neutrality policy says it "…means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant that have been on a topic." If you are unable to show that other viewpoints exist on this topic, then your gut instinct may well be wrong. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, firstly, I'm sure there used to be a DYK rule that said something along the lines of hooks relating to politically charged topics should not give the impression of favoring one side over another. There have been a lot of changes to the rules over the last few years and maybe somebody decided that NPOV was sufficient, I don't know. I might look into that when I can find the time.
Regardless, the hooks above imply that "peace without justice" or "peace at the expense of Palestinian rights" is the official, stated position of the Israeli state. I very much doubt that Israel has ever formally and publicly adopted such a position, because that would be very detrimental to their international image. Now, those positions may well be the effective position of the state, but that's not the same thing. So at the very least, the hooks would have to be modified to say something along the lines of " ... that reliable sources broadly agree that the effective position of the Israeli state is such-and-such", but then you are getting not only a very clunky hook, but also raising the problem of trying to demonstrate a rubbery opinion about what reliable sources broadly agree upon. To put it another way, facts on DYK have to be incontrovertible, not merely based on somebody's opinion of what reliable sources broadly have to say, because that is a can of worms that a project like DYK does not have the resources to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Is ALT1 from above not acceptable? Its wording could be tightened up but it seems unobjectionable. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not terribly keen on ALT1, but it does pass the neutrality test. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I have no objection to ALT1.
But, for the record, the implications of Gatoclass and Airship’s comments regarding ALT2, ALT4 and ALT5 so far appear to be based on incorrect pre-conceptions. Even if we move ahead with ALT1, Gatoclass and Airship will benefit from a deep read of the sources, as these statements are wholly factual, even if they may be uncomfortable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
For the record, it seems that Onceinawhile's comment appears to be based on the incorrect preconception that being "wholly factual" is the only criterion DYK must take into account. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • It seems like ALT1 is agreeable to all parties and I stated above when I did my initial review that it was interesting and sourced by sources. @Darth Stabro, AirshipJungleman29 and Gatoclass are there any other issues, or can we move on? If we can move on, would someone be willing to give this nomination a tick? TarnishedPathtalk 07:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I think ALT1 sucks and I'd prefer not to see it run, so I am still hoping to persuade the nominator to accept ALT3, but he seems to have disappeared ATM. If he won't accept it though, I guess it will have to be ALT1. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
ALT1 at least makes people think. ALT3 is unacceptable because it implies "security" as defensive (usual for most societies), whereas the Israeli approach to security is offensive and requires the permanent oppression of another people. A similar case can be made for Palestinians and the word "justice", where their need for fundamental rights is clear but their approach to historical redress can be outside of the achievable window (see South Africa – with peace they got their rights but still lots of historical injustice unaddressed). The difference being that the potential for a wide interpretation of "justice" is obvious to most people.
It can be argued that the inability to understand what "security" means to Israelis is the primary reason that the conflict is so divisive today. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In any case, having just tried to verify ALT1, it turns out that it misstates the source (which itself is remarkably badly written and obscure). So I think it's a strike.
Having said that, on reflection I can't see much wrong with ALT0, it's short, to the point, and I think sufficiently interesting, so I would consider that a viable alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I am fine with ALT0. I don’t see how ALT1 misstates the source – it literally quotes from it (see "layers of misunderstanding" in the quotation at the top of this thread).Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Well for one thing, the source says it "potentially" adds layers of misunderstanding, so the hook is inaccurate on that count. More importantly though, it isn't at all clear from the context that the writers are talking of layers of misunderstanding between Israelis and Palestinians specifically - they might mean it potentially adds layers of misunderstanding for the "international actors" it references. Additionally, it doesn't actually say the different concepts of peace are those advanced by either Israelis or Palestinians, it just talks about the concept of peace being like a box that "anyone" can fill as they please. So for my money the hook is an accuracy fail in multiple ways.
With regard to your comment above about ALT3 implying "security as defensive" and therefore somehow justified, that is a misreading of the hook, because it does not say the Israelis consider peace to be conditional on security, it says they frame it as conditional on security, which is a different thing altogether.
Regardless, since you still don't appear ready to accept ALT3, as I said I too am willing to accept ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I personally think you're being a tad bit semantic on ALT1, but if ALT0 is what we can agree on lets do it. There's no need to further debate the issue. TarnishedPathtalk 12:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
+1 to hook ALT0.VR (Please ping on reply) 13:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Approving ALT0.--Launchballer 13:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Peace_discourse_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1303427271"