Israel should never have been created.

---

It is hard to discern a rational purpose behind the first Intifada, as the Palestinians had no realistic hope of defeating the Israelis, and peace was available if the Palestinians had been willing to accept a limited Palestinian State. Prior conflicts in the Arab-Israeli conflict had the purpose destroying Israel entirely, but the first Intifada lacked this clear focus. It is also hard to discern any benefit that has accrued to the Palestinian people from the first Intifada, as the Oslo accords were enabled only when the PLO expressed more willingness to recognize Israels' right to exist. And, of course, the Oslo accords have accomplished virtually nothing. However, the general level of Palestinian militancy was probably increased and inspired by the first Intifada, which some Palestinians regard as a positive result.

What is this? BL 03:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It seems relatively true, but slightly misworded. The only untrue part was the Oslo accords: it brought some silence and peace, something never achieved before, at least without a one-side decision.

Not NPOV

The article is not neutral, and supports the intifada throughout. For example, in the conclusion "Some say it was the Intifada that caused the repeated rise of the Israeli peace movement (see Peace Now), and Yitzhak Rabin's eventual re-election in 1992. " It does not mention that others believe it is responsible for an increase in the militant movement.

Furthermore, while the causes of intifada and the harms against Palestinians by Israelis is discussed:

"On October 1, 1987 Israeli military ambushed and killed seven men from Gaza believed to be members of the Jihad. Several days later an Israeli settler shot a Palestinian schoolgirl in the back."

"However, the general underlying cause of the intifada can be seen in the many years of military control that the Palestinians suffered under the Israelis.

Arabs maintain that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, indiscriminate torture, deportations, and so on. "

I cannot find any assessment whatsoever of the violence against Israelis that occured during the Intifada.

"The mere presence of stories, reinforced by the real incidents above, caused wild panic and street fights against Israeli policemen and soldiers"

is the only statement on the other side, but it doesn't talk about how soldiers were killed, and the Israeli civilians are never mentioned.

Basically, the article discusses the negative effects on one side (the Palestinians) without discussing how the other (the Israelis) was hurt.

Another disturbing factor is that the only criticism of the Intifada is that it didn't go far enough: "Others point out that Palestinians felt abandoned by their Arab allies, the PLO had failed to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state in its stead as promised. "

The article failed to point out another very common point of view - that it hurt Israel and was too violent a reaction. Additionally, the goal of "destroy[ing] Israel and establishing a Palestinian state in its stead" is not thought of as a positive goal by most groups.

one addition to not NPOV argument

The timeframe description "The first Intifada was the intifada that took place from 1987 to 1991 (end of massive Israeli violence)" is definitely non-neutral. It implies that the violence was one-sided, and "massive" is an unecessarily weighted word.

I suggest using the description from the Intifada article "The first Intifada began in 1987, with a decrease in violence in 1991 and a more complete end with the signing of the Oslo accords (August 1993) and the creation of the Palestinian Authority. "

Seems to have been edited to address some points

I agree that the article could do with some casualty figures to put the conflict into some sort of perspective, maybe with a time line showing escalation/decline of violence. However it currently reads neutral to me, it is difficult when you have passionate feelings on a subject to not interpret neutrality as an endorsement of a viewpoint other then your own, but as I said this looks okay.