Talk:Gush Shalom

(Untiled)

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)

(Untitled 2)

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.)

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?

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.

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)

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)

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)

you have now ynetnew and Jerusalem post as source as well as Islam on line.Oren.tal (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added now more source from the telegraph and other news website.Oren.tal (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

there are 16 reliable source for this liable far more than enough.Needless to mention that everyone that know little about Israeli politics know that they are far left.Oren.tal (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace group vs. "far left" group

Oren, even the sources you've piled up say that Gush Shalom is a peace group. Its primary focus is peace, not left-wing politics. Please stop trawling the internet for sites that use the words "left wing" and "Gush Shalom". The article already says that they're described as left-wing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with "left wing" in the lead of this article is that it adds nothing. In Israel, all peace groups are considered left wing. Can you name a right-wing Israeli peace group? I can't.

I suggest that if you want to use the words "left wing" in this article, you save them for Uri Avnery, who is indubitably left-wing, by his own definition. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current version which states at the end of the lead paragraph that "it has been described as left-wing", although I'd make a small change to "it has been described as left-wing and (even) extreme-left".[2][3] In Israel everyone knows that Gush Shalom is extreme-left (i.e. more left-wing than other left-wing groups like B'Tselem); this should be in the lead because it's a very basic and necessary description for this group, but should not get undue weight (i.e. more than a short sentence in the lead). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

well we can write that it is describe by itself as peace organization if we go that line.Anyway there are more than enough reliable sources that support the claim that it is left wing organization and it is.Oren.tal (talk)

peace group can be left wing group and I have 16 sources that say it is left wing group it is more than enough.Oren.tal (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well now it has gone from unsourced to 16 sources, including a report from a minor Australian source in 1998. I would be OK with "has been described as left-wing by the Jerusalem Post", plus two refs. Not in the lead, in the body of the article, and not mid-sentence. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not only the Jerusalem post but also the |British telegraph and it is left wing.Oren.tal (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren, why do you have such a problem respecting consensus? Everybody but you agrees that saying they are a left-wing organization in the first sentence isn't appropriate. Please stop reverting. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong and you know that.Many people mentioned them as left wing in the first line and you reverted them.The fact is that by looking history you can see that most people support them to be labeled as left wing and in any case there are reliable source about this.Nobody deny the reliable sources so there is nothing to debate about.Oren.tal (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No Oren. You are the only person who insists on putting "left wing" in the first sentence, and piling on the references. Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody. Please respect the consensus and stop reverting. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well lets see if I am the only person.

Until April 28, 2008 it was mentioned as left wing.Then it was removed for the lack of reliable source.But now we do have reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gush_Shalom&diff=208744883&oldid=208739296

There is nothing to debate about this issue.There are reliable sources and most people support "left wing" in the first line as you can see in the history.Oren.tal (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Caution

I would advise caution in quoting Uri Dan and Isi Liebler. Both are considered very right-wing columnists. If you want to quote them, you should mention this. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They are to the right, but not radical right. To me there is a problem with many WP articles about individuals, or groups, in Israel are considered political fringe there, but with little indication of that in their WP articles. Gush Shalom is such a group on the left. On the right, Moshe Levinger comes to mind. Uri Dan and Isi Liebler are on the political right, but certainly not regarded as fringe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

The article, as it now is, fails to convey the extent to which, within Israel, Gush Shalom is a fringe political group. Because of that, there is a serious problem with WP:NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd -- I thought this was the point of adding Dan and Liebler. How many different right-wing denunciations would it take to satisfy you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You answer underlines the problem: How many different right-wing denunciations would it take to satisfy you? Really? As though anyone who disagrees with Gush Shalom is by definition "right-wing". In fact Gush Shalom has virtually zero support in Israel from any group aside from the minuscule Maki, and Ratz. Once again, the article obscures the situation that Gush Slalom is a minuscule fringe political group. The majority of Israeli's tend to consider them as insane. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other sources from the Israeli mainstream to show this? From the mainstream left in particular or from Ha'aretz? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A search in Ha'aretz finds only two mentions of Gush Shalom. One has something to do with a European boycott of an Israeli water bottling plant; and the other laments that Israelis did not take the peace movement seriously, and only mentions the name of Gush Shalom without any discussion of the group. It is marginal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard, did you. A google news search here turns up two mentions of Gush Shalom in Ha'aretz just in the last month. Honestly... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The source I just added is a self testimony by Avneri on how they are rejected by left wing groups as overly leftist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

indeed the fact that it is self describe is more than enough.I don't see where is the POV unless every article about left wing organization is POV.Oren.tal (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Broke it into sections

I broke the article into sections and hope that everyone thinks it is an improvement. It makes it easier (for me at least) to see whether we are making the best use of all the sources we have, and to check that we are reflecting both the pro and anti viewpoints accurately. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the breaking.You should not, however, remove the "left wing".Oren.tal (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested to remove it after the self-description was added to the references. Let's move on to other areas where the article could be improved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove "left-wing", but put it later in the article, and I kept in Jaakobou's references. Rather than taking anything out, I'd like to see more added about the group's political views. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is enough important to be mention in the first line.Oren.tal (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oren tal, your restorations are problematic in purely stylistic terms. We should not be using headers in a footnote. Also, I don't think it is useful to include a quote in both Hebrew and English. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Each reference should be included in its own <ref></ref>, as I did. Do you mind if I revert? I'm guessing that English is not your first or best language and you will probably want people who speak it better than you to take the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind if you revert.First if you check it you will see that there are many sources in English.As for the Hebrew it is about Israeli organization.In any case the Hebrew source was not added by me.but the first "source" is actually including list of sources from the media al of them in English.Oren.tal (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Organize the source as much as you want as long as it is mention in the first line.Oren.tal (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will revert for the sake of the referencing style. What should be in the lede is a separate discussion. Don't forget: we don't usually need references in the lede because it summarises info that should be detailed in the article body. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If that the case then just remove the reference.In any case it should be in the lead as it is part of the description of the group just as it is peace activist.It is NOT more peace than left wing.Oren.tal (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source to say that it is more "left-wing" than "peace"? The lede should stick to the bare facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The Hebrew original of the translation should be given in the reference section per Wikipedia policy for verifiability purposes. Please fix it. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll fix it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I hope that if someone calls the quote undue or something like that, it will be supported that this was originally used to sort out a consensus and verify the left-wing status of the group and that the reference would not vanish.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether I will defend its retention it or not. I will read the arguments on both sides. I think there is more that we could say about the stance using sources like JP and Ha'aretz. (Letting the sources speak for themselves.) I've been uneasy from the start about applying the "left-wing" epithet, because I've seen in relation to CND and other parts of the UK peace movement how hotly the tag has been disputed. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

The article is not yet complete and certainly there are some neutrality issues but I'm not sure the POV tag is necessary at this point in time. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article because I thought there was nothing to convey that, within Israel, Gush Shalom is considered a fringe political group. Perhaps that is now corrected. I will trust your judgment, and will remove the tag. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly room to add some of their fringe activity (e.g. a eulogy for Arafat in Haaretz) and some more criticism against them, but the tag itself is not necessary since the article is not that bad that it demands a stamp of disapproval. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope we will remember that the encyclopedia must take a world view. My impression is that the reputation of Gush Shalom may be higher abroad than in Israel itself. That is notable and worth adding to the article if we can find appropriate sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have sources to that extent, I have no objection to it being noted as well. However, best I'm aware they do their activism mainly in Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-weasel terms

I'm not sure on where we're going to describe regular journalists as politically affiliated. I'd hate to compare the situation to one where I've had an argument with Tiamut about something far worse. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... you just did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include comments that are prima facie derogatory, you have to attribute them accurately. The fact is that you will never find Gush Shalom described as extremist in Haaretz. Uri Dan, as you probably know, was not always a journalist - he was an associate and for a time a spokesman for Sharon. Likewise, the Jerusalem Post has in the last 20 years supported policies associated with right-wing governments in Israel, both in its editorial policy and in its reporting.

My own feeling is that applying labels to organizations like you have done here, especially in the lead, is simply poor writing. Say what their positions are and let the reader draw his own conclusions. If the article has a "Criticisms" section, as this one does, it is perfectly appropriate to include epithets that have been used by the organization's opponents, as long as you make clear the political associations of those opponents. After all, someone has said something nasty about every political action group in Israel. Quoting those things doesn't make for very interesting or informative reading. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I reading the recent edit in correctly, or is the text really saying "The prestigious Haaretz newspaper"?[4] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz is described as "prestigious" not only by its fans, but also by its critics, and even by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Eg:

"Haaretz, the most prestigious Israeli newspaper" Aijaz Ahmad, Frontline, Vol 19, Issuee 4[5].

"Israel's most prestigious daily, Ha'aretz", Noam Chomsky, Al Ahram 2 November 2000[6].

"The wretched story began with the publication last December of a letter in Israel’s prestigious ‘Haaretz’ by a Dr.Israel Shahak", Immanuel Jakobovits, Tradition, Summer 1966[7]

" critic Michael Ohad of the prestigious daily Haaretz" Lili Eylon, Israel Magazine-on-web, December 1997[8]

" such prestigious papers as Ha’aretz, Globes, The Jerusalem Post, the Washington Times, and other journals and magazines", Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies 27 July 2001[9] RolandR 14:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Point accepted. I have removed the prestigious. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I provide half-a-dozen examples (and there are scores more) from different reliable sources to show that both supporters and opponents describe Haaretz as "prestigious", so you remove the term? Please explain. RolandR 16:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its fairly simple really and I'll put it in layman's terms: We don't hype the sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the sentence doesn't say that Haaretz is prestigious doesn't mean it isn't prestigious. It is just as prestigious, whether we say so or not. On the other hand, why piss people off needlessly?

Understood; I was just responding to Jaakobou's disingenuous incredulity at the use of the term. RolandR 17:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this series of edits has been an object lesson in the folly of the insidious smear. The attempt to paint Gush Shalom as a bunch of wild-eyed lunatics has been turned around - they now look like earnest seekers of peace. Alas, there is apparently no middle ground. There will never be a version of this article that everyone will be happy with.

On the other hand, I think we can all agree that your signature is charming. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Foul! If I can't say prestigious, you can't say mainstream. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International

I'm not seeing the stated support by Amnesty International in the source - a clarification or a better citation is needed please. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Words to avoid

I'm not liking the recent insertion of "some" instead of "mainstream".[10] The Ynet source is not a "column" and it is the biggest newspaper in Israel. Both Haaretz and Ynet are mainstream media - do I need to add more Israeli mainstream media or is there something else I'm missing? Please note that I already written it in a conservative manner, using the words "on occasion" in the right context of controversial events such as the Gaza "freedom" boats. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It was you who said we don't hype the sources. If you can say mainstream, I can say prestigious.

You have to say some. "A few" would probably be even more accurate. After all, there are many more columnists who have not called Gush Shalom extreme than have. Just writing "columnists" suggests that "extreme" is a kind of knee-jerk adjective that writers always add every time they refer to Gush Shalom - kind of like the way foreign reporters always add the word "prestigious" before Haaretz.

And no you don't need to add more Israeli mainstream media and yes, there is something else you are missing. It is time to end this pretty ridiculous skirmish over how good or bad Gush Shalom is. Many people consider Gush Shalom to be a bunch of wild-eyed looneys. Many other people consider Gush Shalom to be champions of peace. So let's stop loading up the lead of this article with unnecessary quotes and examples, and simply say that Gush Shalom is controversial. Because for every quote you add showing how far out they are, I will add a quote showing how sane and good-intentioned they are. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read your sources more carefully. Liebler does not suggest that Gush Shalom created Women in Black or Mothers against the War. He only associates Gush Shalom with the tactic of using emotional appeals like that. In fact, Gush Shalom did not create either of those organizations. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that there's no comparison between the two descriptives -- i.e. "prestigious" (honorary term) and "mainstream" (clarification term) -- and that the latter is preferable here to "some". More so when considering that Yediot Ahronoth and Haaretz (and others) published it.

p.s. just to clarify, we're not trying to bulk up the lead, but I wouldn't mind using better sources than the one you've picked out for the praise. In that respect, your source is not Israeli and one should be added if that text is to stay on the page.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead by implementing the fix in this issue. Also, we can't say "On the other hand, Israeli and international human rights groups have lauded the organization." without proper secondary sources. I've no general objection to this addition if we have some proper sourcing to it. I wouldn't want the text to be overarching in comparison to the actual groups involved in the praise.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable

Your edits are opinionated and not acceptable. Out of dozens if not hundreds of references to Gush Shalom in the Israeli press over the last few years, you have selected four that show a clear point of view - two by columnists whose extreme right-wing views are well-known, one of whom also served as a spokesman for the right-wing government of Ariel Sharon. Yet you refuse to allow the political affiliations of this spokesman to be mentioned. You have ignored the dozens of references where Gush Shalom is not referred to as extremist, and you have deleted from the lead mention of the fact that numerous international human rights organizations - not only AFSC - have singled out Gush Shalom and its leader, Uri Avnery, for praise.

You have also cited in the lead one action by Gush Shalom, ignoring many others, without providing any reference to this action in the body of the article, and writing it in the lead in an imflammatory manner.

It is precisely this kind of writing that has given Wikipedia such a bad name in its coverage of Middle East issues. I should point out that I am personally not a supporter of Gush Shalom, in fact, disagree with many of their positions. But this attempt on your part to paint them as a band of looneys is unacceptable. You should be aware that a sizable portion of the Israeli population is in agreement with the overall position of Gush Shalom, including at least two political parties and the liberal wings of at least two others, which comprise more than 10 percent of the Knesset seats. So, while these views may not be mainstream, they are certainly not outside the wider range of legitimate Israeli political views.

Since you insist on including slanted quotes in the lead, I suggest we rewrite the lead as follows:

Gush Shalom (Hebrew: גוש שלום, lit. The Peace Bloc [Coalition]) is an Israeli peace activism group founded and led by former Irgun and Knesset Member and journalist, Uri Avnery, in 1993. In dozens of references to the organization in the Israeli press, it has been referred to as "an Israeli peace organization" <!ref> "Peace group: Ban of foreign aid to NGOs will harm hospitals, universities" Haaretz, 4/8/2009</ref>, and "Leftist"; or without any descriptive term<!ref> Haaretz Aug. 4, 2009, Jerusalem Post Sep 13, 2009, NRG, 23/3/2009, Haaretz, April 4, 1995, and many others</ref> . One report called it "radical" and another called it "extreme"<!ref>[11]. Haaretz, 2006.
Translation: Large organized bodies of Arabs in Israel - among them Hadash and Balad - arrive in masses from the Galilee to the protest in Tal-Aviv in the middle of a war, also that the occasion was joined by the left wing of the Zionist left - such as pastime Meretz chairman Shulamit Aloni and Galia Golan. This, alongside the radical left of Gush Shalom, the refusal movement Yesh Gvul, the anarchists, women's coalition for peace, Ta'ayosh and more. - Original:גופים מאורגנים גדולים של הערבים בישראל - בהם חד"ש ובל"ד - מגיעים בהמוניהם מן הגליל להפגנה בתל אביב בעיצומה של מלחמה, אלא שלמעמד חבר האגף השמאלי של השמאל הציוני - כמו יו"ר מרצ בעבר, שולמית אלוני וגליה גולן. זאת, לצד השמאל הרדיקלי של גוש שלום, תנועת הסרבנות "יש גבול", האנרכיסטים, קואליציית נשים לשלום, תעאיוש ועוד. </ref><!ref>[12], Yediot Ahronoth, 21.11.2009.
Translation: The extreme left wing movement Gush Shalom - Original: תנועת השמאל הקיצוני גוש שלום </ref>. At least three international organizations (Amnesty, AFSC, Right Livelihood) have singled out Gush Shalom for its work promoting peace and human rights. The United Nations has called on its members to give expert testimony to panels <!ref>UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE, September 2004</ref>.

Alternatively, we can, as I earlier suggested, take out all the inflammatory quotes and details from the lead, and simply note that the organization is controversial.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Ravpapa,

I'l try and explain why your suggestion doesn't work for me. I hope we can work this issue out though in a manner acceptable to us both without a need for external third opinions. In general, the first line already mentions that they are "an Israeli peace organization" and there is no need to repeat that in the second one. Also, it really doesn't strike me as encyclopedic to put down "without any descriptive term" or "One report called it" in the lead of any wikipedia article. I tried explaining that the "radical" terminology (and sometimes harsher words) are coming from the biggest newspapers in Israel, and not only in opinion columns. On that same note, I agree that it is sometimes lauded as a mainstream peace movement (though not so much in recent years) and that several sources probably gave them good props. I have no objection to a conservative mention of this issue as well. I thought I've shown that when I hadn't objected to a lead mention of the American source. You have to understand that the lead does need to mention in that they have been mentioned as a fringe group in several extreme contexts. Even left wing Meretz, for example, supported Israeli entrance to Gaza in the wake of Hamas declaring war on the Israeli south and the vast majority of left wing Israeli groups are against anything that is meant to help Hamas as long as Gilad Shalit is held hostage by them. I'm not nitpicking at sources at all and your objection, while reasonable, seems to be coming out of a preconception that Gush Shalom is not a marginal group in the Israeli left. I ask you to give a look to Avnery's own quote on where they stance politically (per ""Shalom Achshav" is afraid of "Gush Shalom" and the Arab parties."). That said, I'm open to hear suggestions and to consider them as respectfully as possible. I think that, at this point, we're missing a few references on groups that support Gush Shalom.

p.s. I'm assuming all the prelude is in my honor and I'm thinking that we can do without personal attacks and allegations. Certainly, anything I've written was indeed backup up by references and you got caught up in your own words saying I haven't provided any references.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Side note - please review the text. I really don't think its as bad or smearing as you see it to be.

The left-wing organization has been involved in several Israeli controversies, such as sending a “Relief Convoy to Gaza” while it is under Hamas administration, and has elicited the mainstream Israeli media to describe it, on occasion, as "radical" and "extreme."[1][2] The American Friends Service Committee has described the group as "one of Israel’s most influential peace organizations."

The article also starts by clearly describing them as:

is an Israeli peace activism group

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading your response makes me think that perhaps the problem is one of insensitivity to the nuances of the English language. The words "fringe group", "extreme" and "extremist" are derogatory terms. Gush Shalom's opponents would call it a fringe group or extremist, but Gush Shalom or its supporters would never use those words. It is not the place of the Wikipedia to apply epithets to organizations, even when those epithets have appeared in sources we consider reliable.

I am not suggesting that the lead ignore the fact - acknowledged and even publicized by Gush Shalom itself - that the organization advocates positions that are often more radical than those of other peace groups. I am simply insisting that we make that statement in a way that does not reveal our own personal opinions of Gush Shalom and its place in the Israeli political landscape. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For interest Jaakobou, when I see a group or a person being described as 'left wing' I wonder what it means and what it's referring to specifically. It's not very informative by itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Ravpapa and Sean,

You both make reasonable points, I agree. I'm thinking that I've made some effort into addressing the point Sean raised by adding a mention of the Gaza/Hamas boat issue - which gives some measure to how far they are willing to go to the "left". I also think that there might be a way around the "on occasion called radical/extremist" phrasing but I don't yet have a good way of presenting their sometimes marginal positions. Ravpapa, I'd be happy to hear more suggestions and I'll try to think about it further and possibly make one or two of my own. I'm guessing there is a more encyclopedic way of dealing with their marginalization and I'll keep an open mind to good suggestions.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gush Shalom (Hebrew: גוש שלום, lit. The Peace Bloc [Coalition]) is an Israeli peace group. Founded and led by Uri Avnery, a former Knesset member and journalist known for his left-wing views, the organization is one of the most militant of the Israeli peace organizations, adopting positions unpopular in Israel and often criticizing other left-wing organizations for being too moderate. As a result, Gush Shalom has been frequently villified by moderate and conservative columnists in Israel, and praised by some local and international organizations that oppose Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza.

--Ravpapa (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that an anonymous editor has reverted Jaakobou's edits to the lead. While I agree with this editor, I think it is a bad idea to make changes when the topic is still under discussion. So, Jaakobou, if you revert him back, I won't object.

Of course, I would prefer that you look at my alternate lead, and express an opinion. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Ravpapa,

I don't know... "the most militant of the Israeli peace organizations" seems harsher than the 'described on occasion, in the context of controversial occurrences as 'radical' '. I also don't like that its repeated in the second sentence with the same words (i.e. 'most militant'). The word 'villified'[sic] has no place in the lead either. It takes a stance that they were misrepresented when, best I'm aware, they weren't. I apologize for not coming up with anything myself yet, but real life has been keeping me a little busy. I'm still thinking about an alternative to my initial phrasing. Would you be interested in inviting an external English professional so we can get something with English on a higher level than yours or mine?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: "The Haaretz newspaper subsidizes..."

In the sentence "The Haaretz newspaper subsidizes a weekly editorial statement by Gush Shalom in its weekend edition.", change "subsidizes" to "publishes", or some such language that makes some sort of sense in this context. (There's no source for this, so it's not at all clear if the choice of words is seeking to tsk-tsk at Haaretz for merely carrying such opinion pieces, or if it's commenting on payment for, well, content.) 84.203.42.206 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gush Shalom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205005351/http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf to http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Gush Shalom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100408145832/http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/3586 to http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/3586
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110520154259/http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html to http://gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100408145832/http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/3586 to http://www.afsc.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/3586
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021021435/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25976683_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25976683_ITM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614104911/http://web.israelinsider.com:80/Views/1714.htm to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/1714.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gush Shalom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117083604/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/gush_shalom.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/gush_shalom.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Website gush-shalom.org was offline temporarily – issue completed

Is anybody able to comment on the status of that website? Is there a replacement? For how long has is been like that? --johayek (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no trouble opening the link. Perhaps it was just a temporary blip? RolandR (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right, was only a temporary blip. Sorry for the noise. I am happy to get this section removed at any time. --johayek (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)