Talk:Gush Shalom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gush Shalom is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Israel Portal
Gush Shalom is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Gush Shalom is a radical leftist movement, and its classification as a peace movement is highly disputed. Uri Avneri, the Gush Shalom leader and a former journalist, was among the first to meet and nagotiate with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Although Gush Shalom earned itself respect in Europe, it is regarded by most Israelis as a pro-Palestinian movement who supports violence and terrorism against Israelis. The movement itself hasn't been involved in direct terrorism but did publish several articles praising Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

This is a set of pretty serious charges that require some kind of external references, preferably primary sources. The last sentence, especially, includes a serious charge that requires a primary source. If it can't be backed up, it should be deleted.

List of articles, with links, was added. MathKnight 14:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is no evidence presented to back up these rather grave allegations unless it is contained in the Hebrew links. If something credible and capable of being read by English-speakers isn't available the allegations should be deleted.194.165.173.5 03:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since Avneri operates in Hebrew-speaking society, it is natural he will write many articles in Hebrew. MathKnight 21:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


elpincha 27 Oct 2004: I just removed this:

The movement itself hasn't been involved in direct terrorism but did publish several articles praising Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians.

Until somebody brings evidence to the contrary, the removed statement is false. (BTW: I did read the Hebrew articles, and did not find such praise. I understand that some people can interpret those as praise for terrorist attacks, but it just ain't written there.)

Contents

[edit] Curious about the source for this line

"it is regarded by most Israelis as a pro-Palestinian movement who supports violence and terrorism against Israelis."

is this based on a poll or something?

[edit] settlements - PC?

Guy, why do you insist on bringing the argument about how these communities should be called into this article about Gush-Shalom? "Settlements" is shorter, it is a well-known phrase to describe this controversial phenomenon, their legal status even in Israel is not settled, and it is by no means derogatory, as you can see in these communities' web-pages where they describe themselves as "settlements". Furthermore, none of them are "large towns", Ariel is less than 20,000, and most of them are a few houndred families each, at most. So could you please explain to me why you insist on reverting the concise description "settlements" to your phrase, in this article which is hardly the place for such arguments? And while you're at it, why don't you change the title of the original Israeli settlement article, if it's so important? --Doron 10:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


It is a work in progress. I am working on a simple fact that these communities have existed their for over 35 years. At some point they have to cease being "settlements" and become established communities. At the same time, the term settlement has become a pejorative, right after the Oslo Accords and Rabin's assassination. As for Ariel, it is still a town, the Gush Etzion Block is well populated and so is Ma'aleh Adumim. If they are not towns, then they are communities. Massachussets was a settlement when it had a couple of mules and huts, some times later it became a town, small, but a town or a community. Would you refer to San Francisco a settlement? I dont think so, at some point after time passed it became a town and later a city. I am attempting to wipe the term settlement out of present vocabulary as it relates to most communities in Judea and Samaria. Those which are legitimate current settlements are those with a couple of trailers and wooden huts.

Guy Montag 21:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I wish you all the luck with your crusade, but this article is hardly the place. "Settlement" is the term that is widely used (and in wikipedia in particular) and requires no explanation. Once you establish your alternative politically-correct term, it is only logical that all other articles should be changed accordingly, but you should start with the Israeli settlement article. Until then, leave this article as it is. Wikipedia allows you to have a link label different from the title of the article it links to, for the purpose of easy embedding in the text, not for the purpose of inventing new names. If the label is "communities and outposts", the title of the article ought to be "communities and outposts in the Israeli-Palestinian disputed territories" or something of the sort, so first establish your alternative to the concise "settlements". In a general discussion on "settlements", calling them cummunities is fine once it is established that the "settlements" are the subject, but this is the only place where "settlements" are mentioned, so the familiar term should be used. I'm changing it back, and we can have a thorough discussion on this in the Israeli settlement discussion page.--Doron 07:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They can cease being "settlements" and become established communities when the IDF is no longer required to protect the settlements from the population displaced to build them.

[edit] My edits...

I removed the "left wing" attribute to Gush Shalom, since the term has little to do with their activities and reads like a possible non-neutral perjorative term. I also added the relavant UN resolutions and mentioned the Fouth Geneva Convention, so that it is understood from what established foundation Gush Shalom make's it's appeals. Note that there should no controversy over the legal status of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, as a member of the UN, Israel is in ongoing violation of international law under Resolution 242.

The previous version was NPOV. Gush Shalom's interpretation of which UN resolutions are relevant and apply are just that, interpretations, not the final word. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gush Shalom article fails to be encyclopaedic

Reading this article for the first time, it comes across as "propagandised" and poor, the first two paragraphs in particular. Gush-Shalom is a well-established anti-government organisation, started by a well-informed source, and does not deserve to be treated in this fashion. The current version screams "POV". PalestineRemembered 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing

Tagged this as dubious. It is unsourced and I doubt whether a group independent of any political party and with a declared aim of peace would align itself in this way. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the lead. I see several other references to GS being "left-wing" pop up in Google, but most are the typocal advocacy sites. The JP has also twice described it as one of "thirteen left-wing organisations." In fact, the only place it appears with that qualifier is the JP.
The more encyclopaedic discussion would be an analysis of GS' membership, and what proportion are Labor, and what proportion are Meretz, and whether they wish to distinguish themselves from those parties' drifts to the centre. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Rather than left-wing, (which is a tag), I think it could be more interesting to give their different pov's concerning the I/P conflict.
As far as I know, the are for 1 state and not 2 ones but I am not sure. This is not in the article.
Hmmm. It seems not. This is strange. Would have they modified their mind ?
... Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
GS / Avnery have always been strongly for 2 state. In the 60s-early 70s, the PLO even called the 2-state solution "Avneryism".John Z (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. But Avneri has only recently joined Gush Shalom. Before, I am quite sure they were for 1-state and I think there are still members who argue for that solution.
(but all this is what I remember - we should need external sources).
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I am wrong bec. at least since 2001 they militate for 2 states : [1]. Ceedjee (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)