Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 18 May 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Zeq, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  John Z 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Son of Welcome!

Hi Zeq!:

Good to see a knowledgeable person writing about these issues - the barrier. But I thought you might want to take a look at some wikipedia policies from the links above. We often have to present both sides of contentious issues, so it is appropriate to use terminology then which would not be appropriate when we are simply trying to present undisputed facts. Thanks for the link to the new wall decision; hadn't bothered to dig it up myself. I confess I don't precisely understand what you mean about sections 67 and 116 so much in particular. By the way, what you say in discussion is hardly OR: that the wall was originally opposed by Sharon etc because it would limit territorial ambitions; had been meaning to add it to the article myself.John Z 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Zeq, I noticed your comments about Ramallite and vandalism. As you're new here, I thought it might help to let you know that Ramallite is a great editor, very highly regarded, and about as far from a vandal as you can get, so I hope you'll try to work with him. You'll find that he's very reasonable and always prepared to look for compromises. I know these topics can be frustrating and feelings often run high. Welcome to the madhouse. ;-) SlimVirgin 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Zeq, please listen to SlimVirgin, who understands Misplaced Pages policy very very well. (Out of many, many thousands of editors, Slim and Jay are two of the very most hardworking, famous, respected and responsible.) You should assume good-faith and realize that others are certainly now assuming good faith of you - you seem to have hit a time when nobody is particularly grouchy or watchful, a couple months ago there probably would have been a half-dozen people reverting you just like that. For something to be vandalism, it must make its 'bad-faith nature inarguably explicit." Ramallite is not a vandal; he is a very respected editor. Why not take a look at his talk page? - you might start to see why.

It is always best when starting out on such a topic to be a little slow and careful. The general rule at Misplaced Pages is "Be bold." but the Arab-Israeli conflict (and a few others, like abortion) are the exception - "be timid!". At the very least, this helps others understand your changes. If you make major changes and move things around it can be a lot of work just figuring out what to do, especially disentangling just what happened after the inevitable disagreements ensue. So you should realize there is a natural conservative prejudice to stick with a version that has often been the result of a great deal of discussion. It is good that you bring knowledge which others might not have to the issues; however, you might find that others who have edited the article like Ramallite, Slim, Jayjg, Aladdin, and last and least me, might know some amusing things too. It's a lot easier if you make changes one at a time and see if they are understood and accepted, and make bigger changes a little later; everybody takes time to properly understand Misplaced Pages policies, which are the result of a lot of hard thought from many, many people.

Here are some problems with your edits - you refer to the recent high court ruling twice - in History and Purpose, and now in the new section. This does not make too much sense. Next, the quote in the History section is far too long - it is not Misplaced Pages's aim to repeat knowledge and statements which can be found elsewhere, but to summarize and point to it. Not much more than "the Israeli court/government claims that the purpose of the wall is to prevent terrorism" is necessary. Frankly, what is there now would just have the effect of putting people to sleep. Not many people like to read long quotes from judicial decisions.

All in all, there is too much on the recent decision. The new section is not acceptable at all as it stands, not even the title. Words like "principled", "praiseworthy courage and fairness" "the court compares conflicting opinions and decides according to its own best judgment after determening the actual facts" are all unacceptable editorializing. That the Israeli or American or the German supreme court says something does not make it true. If there is dispute about something important among reputable sources, Misplaced Pages needs to represent it, not decide who is right.

Claims by the Israeli court are stated as facts:

"although both courts rule according to the same Int'l law" - of course the ICJ used only international law, while the Israeli court can use Israeli law too. The ICJ unanimously agreed that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure to these territories - this is a major legal, not factual difference between it and the Israeli court. The Israeli court may say different, but practically all international legal experts disagree with it here.

"The main difference between the two judgments stems primarily from the difference in the factual basis upon which each court made its decision." is again a claim by the Israeli court, not something which is universally held to be the case. Much opinion, e.g. some of even Ami Isseroff's on the site you link to, about the ICJ ruling disagrees. Although this is part of a quote, it is so confusingly presented it took me a long time to realize that.

"The Hague, which determined that the entire fence violates international law " is just plain wrong.

"For the first-time, the dismantling of a section of the separation barrier" seems wrong, the first Israel barrier decision did that too, IIRC, though maybe I'm wrong.

The bolding makes the text nearly unreadable - it is not in the original, and is not acceptable.

In general, just relax a little; everyone here knows personally that the first time someone reverts or modifies changes which you have worked hard for, it is only human to get upset. But you should realize that there is usually a reason and that the other guy, who has been here longer than you, often knows the rules better than you and knows what is and isn't acceptable. You should realize that this constant change is what Misplaced Pages is all about, and you should just aim that the other guy not change all of your edits. There is a lot to say about the barrier, and I think you should realize that a lot of what you have written will be cut or summarized - it should be proportionate to the amount of space devoted to other topics. You should think hard about exactly what you want to say, Ramallite and Jayjg are a bit puzzled too. Maybe broach the matters in discussion first, and above all, don't make what could be understood as personal attacks on well-respected editors. The best thing would be to take the criticism of others like Ramallite and me and try to work them into "your" version.John Z 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

John has given you excellent advice, Zeq. And he's right that we're normally a lot grouchier, though I should speak only for myself, I suppose. ;-D It might help you to read our main content policies. These are Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Also important is to write in a dry, disinterested tone, so that no one reading the page can tell whether the authors were for or against the subject. This means we can't include words that appear to praise or condemn any particular issue (e.g In a discouraging ruling, the Court stated that ...). If we want to include words like "discouraging," we would have to attribute the view to someone (e.g. In what The Guardian called a "discouraging ruling," the Court stated that ..."), linking after the quote to the Guardian article if it's online, and giving a brief citation if it isn't (The Guardian, October 4, 2005), with a full citation in the References section ("Barrier ruling stuns supporters", by John Smith, The Guardian, October 4, 2005). Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your confusion about what I wrote there Zeq, this is a fine point. I'm in the process of writing something for this for another article that I have to go dig up the cites for. Hope I can find them again. The Israeli position in this decision seems at least roughly the same as it has been since the late 70's - the Elon Moreh decision, I believe. Read it very carefully. The ICJ, etc position is that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure, in its entirety - that when Israel signed it, it agreed that it would be bound to it in precisely the situation it finds itself in in the occupied territories. However, the Israeli position is that the convention does not (necessarily) apply to the West Bank and Gaza because they claim that article 2 of the convention itself exempts this situation from the application of the body of the convention. On the other hand, Israel claims to apply the humanitarian portions of the convention in the territories, while not specifying which these are. Many, perhaps most, experts say that the whole convention is humanitarian. In particular, the court has never applied article 49(6), which if understood the way everybody else ( The UN SC, the UNGA, the USA, the ICJ) understands it, would make the settlements quite illegal. (The courts have held since the 70's (or maybe 80's) that the vaguer 1907 Hague conventions do apply, and as customary international law are automatically part of Israeli law.) So they may be quoting from the same law, but the interpretation and the finding that it is not automatically applicable is quite different from the rest of the world, and is a genuine legal, not factual difference.John Z 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have added some information earlier about the three-revert rule (3RR). This states that if we revert to a previous version of a page (in whole or in part, which can mean as little as one word in some circumstances), we may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions

Thank you for your greetings and also forgive me for not wishing you a שנה טובה earlier. The comments you saw on my talk page from another editor regarding the wall are comments directed at me during my first two days on Misplaced Pages, when I was still not familiar with the rules, and just like you are going through now, it takes a little bit of time to really familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy and realizing what it *is* and what it *isn't*. These comments are not relevant to me now, so using them against me now is out of context since I am much more familiar with Misplaced Pages than I was my first day here. As for your personal opinions of the barrier, you are of course entitled to them, but I do not need to know them, it doesn't matter to me. All that matters to me is that what is presented on Misplaced Pages is neutral and balanced. Most of the people who work on these articles in WP are very much pro-Israeli, but if the material is presented neutrally from both sides, then there is usually no hard conflict. I do not fully understand your objection to using NAD as a source, because even if they are propaganda, they are representing statistics and studies done by others (including the UN and B'tselem) to argue against the barrier. Almost all Palestinians believe that the barrier is an inhumane thing, and I have seen many friends and relatives cry as they describe what they have to go through because of the wall around Ramallah, and the NAD tries to represent the Palestinian perspective of why the wall is bad. I don't agree with everything they say (or the way they present it), but I don't think they are wrong just because they are part of the official Palestinian apparatus (although not "foreign office" as you claim). You have not shown anything that refutes what the NAD is saying. For me, the Israeli Supreme Court is just as POV as the NAD is to you, because it is an official body of the State of Israel, and most sources internationally do not consider it a neutral body.

My own experiences with the wall are not important, so I do not want to answer your question about whether it has affected me personally because I don't want you to use anything I say out of context as you did here. But let me assure you that I do not know any Palestinian living in Palestine who has not been directly affected negatively by the wall, and leave it at that. I appreciate that you are new here and that you are still familiarizing yourself with WP (like I did when I first started contributing), but I again am offering to help you write without lengthy POV quotations (and half-quoted sourced) by pasting on the discussion page what you want the article to contain, and we can work together on the discussion page how to word it, then we can place that into the article.

The article right now is unacceptable to me, and we both need to agree on it otherwise there will be endless reverting. I don't really care about the ICJ ruling or the Israeli court ruling, because rulings have no impact on the actual lives of people under occupation. But I want them both to be written in an encyclopedic fashion. If you want to quote the UN sources, you have to quote them completely or not at all. And as far as the checkpoint outside Qalqilya, I haven't been there since the Intifada started, but I am only going by your sources. Your sources claim 1- It was there in 2003, 2- The Israelis removed it in 2004, 3- The UN said it was not manned in March 2005, 4- The UN said it was there in August 2005. 5- An Israeli youth group visited it and took pictures with soldiers there in the summer of 2005 (my source). Also, Al-Quds frequently has stories and pictures of the checkpoint with soldiers. So it is clear that my text that the road to Qalqilya is frequently manned by a checkpoint is accurate based on these sources. You cannot collect sources and make a new claim because that would be OR, but you can use the sources to just state what they are saying, which is what I am doing in this case. Ramallite 15:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know - I am going to have to try and significantly shorten the section about the effects on Palestinians because it has just become too long. I will try to keep all important points, but this "back and forth" editing like a basketball game has just made it unnecessarily large. I also also add some more examples other than Qalqilya. Ramallite 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove the references to terrorism, I just removed the endless quotations listing unnecessary things that are already in the article. As for your statement that "You may think that 5k"m detour must be terrible but to mention a "human guided bomb" must be POV......", again I must ask you not to assume you know my POV. A human-guided bomb is terror, as is an F-16-guided bomb that kills civilians. But the vast majority of people who are affected by the wall (and 5km is very short compared to what people in Ramallah have to go through) are not terrorists, but are human beings. If I were to ask Palestinians about the "quiet" I doubt many of them would be happy that they have a wall/fence built around them, they would say they are being treated "like animals". And that, unfortunately, brings more hatred and violence. If you were to ask a Palestinian about the wall being "beneficial", she would tell you that it is as beneficial as somebody imprisoning you in your house, and then telling you a few months later that you are now free to go into your garden, and that's a "benefit"! These are all things I've heard. As for my own opinions, I am not going to state them, they do not matter. Ramallite 21:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your username

Just wanted to let you know I liked your username :) Qaz 11:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Hi Zeq, I've been on the periphery vaguely watching the battle going on in this article. You have some good input, and I think you'll be more successful if you'll listen to what several editors have suggested: 1) edit in smaller chunks, 2) present proposed edits on the discussion page before making them (this will also help with spelling and grammar errors), 3) remember that "facts" and "truth" are subject to interpretation, so clearly identify who holds particular viewpoints, and 4) when you source statements, be careful to accurately represent what those sources are actually saying, otherwise it can still be "original research" if you are presenting quotes in a novel way not intended by the sources of the quotes. I know I'm only basically repeating what others have said, but seriously, if you modify the way you are currently proceeding there, you'll get a lot further since it will be less divisive and won't get everyone so worn out. I hope to get more involved on the article myself, but except for brief periods on Wednesday, I won't be able to edit until next week. --MPerel 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Is there any text in the West Bank article, from which I added, that is different from what you wrote? I clarified that it is not just the settler roads that are restricted, traditional roads between cities are also restricted because you also said it in your edit. Why do you just blindly revert everything I do without reading it? Even the West Bank barrier article is full of mistakes because you just keep reverting. You are going to do the same here now? Can you please ask another editor to look at it if you don't care to read my edits first? I'm really discouraged by your attitude. Ramallite 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I hope you had a peaceful Yom Kippur. I don't recall ever saying that most Israelis don't like Palestinians, but I know there is huge misunderstanding on your side. I have noticed that most Israelis actually believe what the your government tells them. Somehow, you have the idea that if you lift a checkpoint here and there, we should be very happy!! You were describing how Palestinians can move through Qalandia checkpoint south of Ramallah, but you seem to fail to understand that there should be no checkpoint there to begin with.

When I want to go visit friends or family in another town in Palestine, I don't want a soldier from a foreign country who speaks a foreign language deciding for me if I can pass or not. As long as the soldier is there, you cannot expect me to be happy that the checkpoint is open. There should be no checkpoint. There should be no soldier.

You may argue that this is all in response to terror, and yes many idiots on our side have given people from your side reason to behave like they do. But to think that such things as building walls around as and then placing checkpoints (and then expecting a party when you remove a couple of them) should bring peace is hugely mistaken, because it is the fact that you can place checkpoints and build walls around us that makes us very skeptical of your true intentions. (You as in your people and government, not you personally).

Most checkpoints were there long before there were Palestinian suicide bombers. When I was coming from a visit to Jordan when I was a little kid, it took me 12 hours just to cross the Allenby bridge border area, and I was stripsearched! Your soldiers made little kids take off their clothes to make sure there were no papers or bombs or whatever, and that was in the early 80s, long before the Intifada. Now you are saying that Palestinians have freedom of movement, no we don't. As long as our freedom of movement depends on the permission of your government, there is no freedom of movement. Lastly, about Arafat, I don't think he was against peace, I think he was corrupt and had no real vision. I think Abbas is a much better person, but to say he is 'weak' is not fair, because everything he does, if he goes to Gaza, if he returns to Ramallah, or if he wants to visit the US, is all with Israeli permission. Israel holds all the keys of the Palestinian Authority, they can open and close the gates as they please, and until this changes, there can be no peace, and you cannot call him weak, because you control everything. Real peace is one thing: Not to make us accept things that you would not accept for yourself. If you wouldn't accept something, don't make us accept it, and then call us "weak" when we don't. That's just my opinion, which I'd be happy to discuss on our talk pages, but not on article talk pages.

Lastly, if you want to know what I think about, read the "Falafel in Nablus" on my talk page, written by an editor who will make Aliyah to Israel very soon. I don't think the Israeli government is different, except this editor is honest enough to admit it. The government is not. Ramallite 20:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting short article here from Haaretz, which pertains to what we were talking about. Ramallite 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I left this article (above) for you a few days ago, I guess you didn't see it. And it's not nice to make accusations, it's not easier or harder to talk to you compared to Irgun supporters. I just don't know what to say to you except answer your statements directly:

• A unilateral wall around my city is nothing I can defend. It may have bought calm as you say, but it a price that will be much heavier in the future. Nobody likes to be stuck behind a wall built by a foreign army.
• I think the wall will have many many unintended consequences for both sides. For the Israeli side, read this article (which I included in my edits on Israeli West Bank barrier but you deleted, in fact, that article is still really messy and a lot of my edits were removed for no reason and I am still disappointed about that because you didn't try to work with me like you are doing now in Israeli Arab). Also read the following from Thomas Friedman (who I rarely agree with, but sometimes I love his quotes) here. It was written in 2003, but don't tell me that the checkpoints have been removed according to the UN, they can come and go, and right now, after what happened with the settlers in Gush Etzion, they are back.
• You are comparing settlers with general Palestinians. Most Palestinians that I know also agree to a two-state solution, but there are two things that you don't seem understand about this. First, Israelis can talk from a position of power, whereas Palestinians have to talk from a position of humiliation (not weakness - humiliation). It is easy for Israelis to declare things (like Sharon declaring support for the road map and then building settlements anyway) because they are in a position of power, but Palestinians are not only in a position of weakness, but of humiliation, השפיל, and what Israelis have to understand is that it is almost impossible for Palestinians to do or say what the Israelis want while they are still humiliated daily. Second, again read the Friedman article above, because it is the Israeli government's policies over the last 20 years that are making the two state solution impossible. More and more Palestinians no longer think that a state on a sliver of disconnected lands is feasible, and what Friedman writes makes more sense to more and more people (including Michael Tarazi).
• You remind me of Haj Amin - let me tell you something about Haj Amin - I never heard of him until I started reading foreign books and web pages a few years ago. We weren't allowed to study Palestinian history in schools, and I think most people now don't know much about him. From what I understand, he was influential - 80 years ago- within those people who followed him, but not all Palestinians. In fact, there were large rivalries between the Husseini and Nashashibi and other clans in the country. So telling me about Haj Amin is like me telling you about Ovadia Yosef, who has many followers, but is hardly somebody to represent Palestinians in general.
• More importantly, bringing up Haj Amin or Arafat or anybody else is pointless, because the Palestinian child growing up now doesn't care about somebody who lived 100 years ago, he cares what his life is like now. When he is born with Israeli soldiers with guns standing in the street, that is all that matters. Talking about the past is useless because young people don't care what happened before, they care about their lives now. And they also react to their lives now, in many different ways. You said "and there are 14 years old kids who go to checkpoints with bomb belt this give an excuse to the Israeli government to keep these checkpoints." Many Palestinians will tell you that if the checkpoints were not there, there would be no angry boys with bombs going to them, they would be studying to become doctors instead.
• Palestinians don't blame Israel for all their problems, although in the past they have put some blame on Israel when they should have looked at themselves as well. But these days most Palestinians realize that they need to clean up their own house also. But most Palestinians also believe that it is not in Israel's interest to see a strong Palestinian leadership, Israel needs the Palestinians to remain weak and scattered.
• You said "Do you know Palestinians who understand that dividing the land also means giving up this so-called "Right" to return into Israel? Why can't your Abu Mazen, if he is so strong say that out loud ?" He is not "my" Abu Mazen, (I didn't vote for him), but he is the elected head of the PA. The right of return seems to be perceived very differently between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. To use the words of "Rashid Khalidi", a professor at Columbia university: "The refugee problem is a deep wound in the Palestinian collective psyche, and there needs to be an acknowledgment of responsibility from the people who caused it (i.e. didn't allow the refugees to return) before any healing can begin". In other words, nobody seriously expects Palestinians to return to Israel, but an acknowledgment of the "right", followed by the necessary compensations that Israeli itself has agreed to, should be enough. And you said that Palestinians are strong but the leadership is weak. Let me tell you, Palestinians have fought 2 intifadas against a much stronger power - Israel - and you don't think they can remove a weak leadership? Palestinians know that the major problem is not with the leadership, it's with the occupation. Just look at Arafat, so many went to the funeral and then the very next day, everybody forgot about him. I don't know what it's going to be like next month during the anniversary of his death (and I will be abroad anyway), but don't make the mistake of believing the Israeli government about the "weakness" of Abbas (read the Haaretz article above). It was Saeb Erekat who said: "I'm afraid that if we get Mother Teresa to be the president, Thomas Jefferson to be the speaker of our parliament and if we get Mahatma Ghandi to take my job and be the chief negotiator, and Nelson Mandela to be the prime minister of the Palestinians -- if the Israeli government is not ready for peace, they will link them to terrorism," . If the Israeli government, which is in position of power, is not ready for peace, they will find all excuses (like calling him weak or an unfit partner) to prevent it.

Ramallite 16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So you have called me a liar ("I am glad you say tarazi is now against the 2-state solution because you have lied when you used his older articles to claim he is"), a propagandist ("You are mixing between different things (like any good propaganda person)"), and repeated nonsense statements from the Israeli government (like writing in English vs Arabic), and then you ask why I don't respond to you.

• Again, don't argue with a Norwegian about Oslo, and don't argue with a Palestinian about Ramallah. You cannot understand if the wall is a "monster" or not unless you come and live behind it. I'm not going to use Misplaced Pages to list the reasons why Palestinians are against the wall, but let me just tell you that you clearly have no idea what it is like. Stop pretending like you know. It is not just the farmers, it is everybody. Either come and live with Amira Hass for a while, or just stop your constant accusations, because you are like an Argentinean who is arguing with an Italian about Venice.
• It is useless to say this old Bibi Netanyahu rubbish that "Palestinians say one thing to their people in Arabic, and another thing to foreigners in English". Most Palestinians understand English, it is required in all schools from grade 1 to 12, so Palestinians do not need something to be said in Arabic to be understood. We are not idiots and we are also not robots that can only be "programmed" in Arabic. Also, you don't know who I am, and you have no idea if I've written against Hamas or anything like that.
• You accuse me of "lying" because I told you Michael Tarazi is for a two-state solution. I only wrote you once about Tarazi, and about an article he wrote entitled "Two Peoples, One State". Read this title: where did you understand that I told he is for two states? He is clearly for one state, and I did not tell you he supports two states. I told you that his article says that Israel has made two states impossible. Where is the lie? And by the way, have you read no personal attacks?
• You are saying I want to "play the victim"? What do you mean? That I am actually the aggressor? I really don't understand how you can say you are for peace when you have no idea at all what is going on except what your government tells you. As for what happened after World War II, yes everybody knows that the Jewish people achieved miraculous feats in a short time after gaining independence. But they were independent, we are not, and it's not honest to compare Jews in 1951 to Palestinians in 2005. Also, don't forget that after 1967 your state had billions of dollars support from the US, and most analysts agree that Israel could not have flourished without this money.
• You said "So you want to get there by having more Palestinians babies and Hamas wants to get there by killing more jews. What is the difference ?" So having Palestinian babies is the same as killing Jews??? This again shows how I cannot find your statements about wanting peace honest, because you are referring to Palestinians and their babies as if they are a "disease" and a "problem". As long as you think Palestinians are a "disease" and a "problem" and having more babies is a bigger "problem", this shows why people like you and your government really built the wall. It is nothing to do with security, it is taking as much of Eretz Yisrael as you can while keeping these "diseased" people away.
• Lastly, I would pay close attention to those articles I referred you to, especially what Friedman is saying. Let me try to put it simply: There is a barrier, and there are Palestinians on both sides, and Israeli Jews on both sides. Because there are Palestinians on both sides, this is a major problem because Palestinians are cut off from each other (and vital services) because their cities are surrounded by the barrier OR checkpoints (like Ramallah, half encircled by the barrier, and half by checkpoints, what's the difference?). This is bad enough. BUT, as long as there are Jews on both sides, Palestinians will also suffer because of checkpoints and army raids and all of that in the name of "protecting the settlers". On the other hand, the more you try to keep all the Jews on one side, the less and less land the Palestinians have, and they will suffer because of being separated in little islands and have to cross tunnels and "Jews only" highways to travel. What Friedman is saying, and what Tarazi may be saying (I don't remember), is that both these situations cannot last, and they will cause another explosion of anger. In other words, the barrier, in Friedman's words, will be "the mother of all unintended consequences", and the unintended consequences are 1- making a Palestinian state impossible, 2- so this makes a 2-state solution impossible, and 3- that leaves only two more options: either a one-state solution, or expulsion of the Palestinians. A significant percentage of Palestinians believe that Israel will ultimately expel us, and this fear only breeds more hatred. In either case, whether there is a one-state solution or expulsion of the Palestinians, Israel will cease to be the respected and modern country it has tried to be since 1948. Your leaders, through their policies, are putting your state in great danger. So yadidi, you still think it is our leaders who have failed us?
• Ramallite 22:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Ramallite. I think your leaders have failed. You are (well I would not write it because it might be a personal attck) ..... if you think the only source of my info is the israeli govrement.

You are proving again and agian that you are a good propegandist that does not want a two state solution. The wall is creating a border and Israel already shown it can remove settlers so I suggest start thinking about how life would be in the west bank when israel will leave it like it left gaza. Instead you dream about this one state solution in which palestinians will be a mjority. I have said nothing on babaies as you accuse me (So you are also engage in personal attacks) what I said is that palestinians have this dream about becoming a majority in a one state. It was Arafat who said that the womb of the palestinian mother will win this war. So did it helped you win in Gaza ? How would you develop gaza with it's 1.5 million people now ? Zeq 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"The wall is creating a border" Ahh, finally something true, because the Israeli government refuses to admit this, but I'm glad you do. Look, clearly you are disappointed that I don't agree with you, but you also seem to be misunderstanding everything I'm saying. I support a 2-state solution, but I think that Israel is making that impossible. The wall is not designed to make it safe for Israel to leave, it is designed to make it safe for Israel to stay in the West Bank, so there can be no 2-state solution. Just because I have my opinions doesn't make me a propagandist, and you have a very wrong opinion about Palestinians. You did say something negative about babies, you said that Palestinians having babies is the same as killing Jews, and I reject that.

• you shoud reject it because I did not saythat. Why do you twist what I say ? Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, I admire that you have worked for peace, but I hope you understand that you cannot support both peace and the occupation, and you cannot support peace and the wall together.

• Of course I don't support the occupation. ::::I support creating a clear border between tow states. That is the opposite of the occupation. You have never bothered to explain why you think the wall prevent a palestinian state. Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is my opinion, and instead of calling me names and accusing me of wanting to "take over your country", just accept that my opinions are different than yours. You will never be able to understand what it's like to live behind the wall and checkpoints, so please stop arguing with me, it is impossible for you to know. You are Israeli, you have a blue ID card, you just will never know what it's like.

• You are wrong. I travel in the west bank and I stand in the line for Palestinians just to know how it is.

You also do not know how many times when a suicide bomber alert is in effect there are checkpoints inside Israel. I have stood many times for hours in such checkpoints stop again you think you are the only victim of the situation. (Situation that is caused by Palestinians who are unable to work for peace by giving up demands such the ":right of return") Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

For you it's just a peace border. For me it is a prison. One of us is right, and one day we will know! Ramallite 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Even your young people who should be in schools and universities are building caravans next to settlements, and "it's only the beginning" as she said. Amazing. Did you write the first reader response at the bottom of the article (kol hakavod?) I'm just kidding. Anyway, I fail to see what your point is, are you saying that I'm like the settlers because I'm against the wall? Actually, I would support a wall, as long as 1- it is built on the West Bank border (because right now a lot of Palestinian-owned land is confiscated, if it was built on the border then no land would have to be confiscated), 2- both sides agree to it, and 3- it not only protects Israelis from Palestinians, it also protects Palestinians from the the settlers and the IDF. That is a real wall. A unilateral border with the IDF on both sides will not bring peace. You keep asking why I personally object to it, as if I have to defend something so obviously monstrous. If you were really pro-peace and anti-occupation, why are you not in Bil'in with other pro-peace Israelis? Instead you are on Misplaced Pages arguing with me and removing sources about the barrier from the UN, Amnesty, and Haaretz. How has the barrier affected me? Right now I will give you one big reason (there are many more): I cannot go to Jerusalem anymore because I'm not Jewish. Before I could sneak in, now there is no way. But that is one major reason out of so many more. Ramallite 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Zeq 18:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem disappointed? Anyway, you may not understand why I am not as optimistic as you... here is another example why:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=639246&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

Do you still believe a two state solution is easy? Ramallite 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Work for you...

Work awaits you; see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And again, more work: see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Enough is enough: message for Zeq:

I wonder if you read any of our messages for you? I have asked you PLEASE to help "clean-up" all that information -much of it contradictory- you copied into this article. This you have not done. Istead you leave this job to your co-editors (mainly Palmiro and me). If you were not on WP; well, then it could have been understandable. But you are here, editing. And not only editing: you are inserting edits in a very contested manner, indeed, I will not hesitate to call it pure POV-pushing. And this, while the article is mostly a complete mess with all the information you copied into it. I do not know how many hours I have spend on this article, trying to get it readable by:

• deviding it into categories,
• finding and moving info. into their correct category,
• removing information when exactly the same was/is beeing said three or four times,
• pointing out to you in which cases you had given contradictary information,
• adding links and correcting spelling

And what do you do?? I had at least expected you to find out what is correct when you have given contradictary inf. given: eg.: is the Arab/(Muslim?) population estimated to become between 21% to 24% of Israel's population in 2020, OR is it estimated to become 24-26%?? Now, both are "true", courtesy of you. Is the birth rate 3.4%, or 3.6%? Again, now, both are also "true", courtesy of you. The only section which is reasonabe readable now is the "Location"-section, and that is totally thanks to Palmiro and me. (You can thank Palmiro for managing to interpret your wrongly spelled names of cities (e.g.: Ramalah ->Ramleh). Organizing, editing and wikifying text is rarely a very exciting thing to do. I can quite understand that it is much more interesting to insert inf. which suits ones view. I would like to spend my time here doing the same, but quite simply: I´m not selfish enough. And I would like to see WP become fine encyclopedia. Now: this is what I´m going to do: I will revert the "intro section" to the Revision as of 15:53, 16 October 2005. This was the edit before all these edit-wars over this section started. I believe it is reasonbly neutral version (i.e. nobody is perfectly happy with it.....). And: if you edit the least bit of this intro: well, then I´m out of this article. You can clean up your mess, all by yourself (If you don´t get Palmiro ..or others to help you.) But you can rest assured: if you as much as move/remove a single letter of the " Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs"-section, or the "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry law" or "See also" and "External links": then expect it to be reverted. I will not sit by and idly watch you destroy perfectly wellwritten/wellsourced information. And if nothing more is done on this article: well; it will be as if you had not brought the info here at all: it is so confused and contradictory that people will ignore it. (And then go directly to the part that is crystal clear: the "Discrimination"-part. If that is the way you want it; well, so be it. I have better things to do on Misplaced Pages than fighting such &%$#*@$% as this. Think about it. Huldra 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (And now I see that you have reinserted all the double inf. I removed from the "Population"-section!! LOL! Why don´t you reinsert all the double inf. we took out from the "Location"-section, too?? Come to think of it: I think I´ll do it myself....- Nobody, and I mean nobody will read these first section the mess they are in now. And that is perfectly ok with me.......they will go straight to the "Discrimination"-section.....Anyway: I will do what I have told you, then it is up to you if you will edit these first sections alone, or not.)

Question

I saw your entries on the RfA page. I want to ask you something honest (and I'm not trying to be strange): We have communicated extensively over the past few weeks over articles, and you have formed an opinion of me. Let us forgot about the RfA, I'm just really curious about something: What do you think is my POV? If somebody asked you "What is Ramallite's POV?" What would you say? Truthfully? Ramallite 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see. First of all, you are the one who keeps saying that I support the "right of return", I never said that I want all refugees to return to Israel. Second, I don't see how I personally claimed to be a victim in the barrier article (which is still a big mess), can you please show me? Third, whatever aspects you brought up in that article, I tried to include them, including Um-Al Fahm residents being happier and Jenin being calmer, but you reverted them (with no real explanation other that I support a one state solution which has nothing to do with the article or my beliefs). There is no official Palestinian source (whether NGO or PLO) that supports the wall, and that is what we have to represent in Misplaced Pages. Of course Jenin residents are calmer because there are no more incursions, but that doesn't mean life is heaven now, because now they are stuck behind a wall, and your Jerusalem Post article says this. The only thing I have told you is that the outcome of the conflict is in Israel's hands, and Israel is making it impossible to have two peaceful states. I support the people of Israel, I don't support the government policies of Israel, and the wall is one of those policies that is making the two-state solution impossible because of obvious reasons (it is part of a network of controls, which includes the wall, the checkpoints, the major checkpoints, and the IDF presence on both sides of the wall, as well as the settler presence of both sides). I'm afraid you are just intent on misunderstanding me, and misinterpreting my positions. I am very sorry for this, you seem like a nice guy, but you have taken an adverse position towards me because I don't love Ariel Sharon (I know you don't either, but you think I should!). Ramallite 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My answers to you are not the same as my editing of articles. I asked you to show me how "my victimhood" as apparent in actual articles. If you cannot do that, I cannot take you seriously. Again, all Palestinian official sources (NGO or PNA) do not support the wall. If I want to claim that Palestinians support the wall, that would be my own original research. Lastly, if we are not victims, what are we? Are we the victors? Do Palestinian tanks patrol the streets of Tel Aviv? Did Palestinians build a fence around Tel Aviv to protect the people of Nablus from your soldiers and your tanks? Do we control all exit and entry of Israelis into the country? What on earth are you talking about? You are just not serious. Sorry. If you can't demonstrate how I portray personal "victimhood" in articles, instead of stating Palestinian sources (and not just your Israeli or UN maps), then you are being very discriminatory against me, and I reject such humiliation. If I don't show the Palestinian POV in articles, that I am not abiding by the NPOV policy. I am here to make sure that all POVs are properly represented. You only want the ones you like, while I want all, even the ones I don't like. This is why I tried to also edit the section about "effect of the wall on Israelis" but you reverted it without reading it. Your accusations against me are just disingenuous, and I'm terribly disappointed in that. Ramallite 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - you have cast your vote, so thank you for that. Now please stop harassing me on my own talk page. Ramallite 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello - I noticed your posts on the request for adminship page in which you reported problems with User:SlimVirgin in response to a post I made asking her not to make bad faith sockpuppet allegations without proof. It also appears you were attacked by her in this same discussion as a "difficult editor" - something that arguably violates WP:NPA. I am currently in a contentious arbitration case against this user at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. Unfortunately, the persons on the other side of this case are all admins and have widespread influence on wikipedia. Nonetheless, I believe I have documented evidence of multiple major policy violations by the parties in this case & I'm open to input from any editor who has had a similar experience with one or more of them. Please take a moment to review this case and, if you desire, share any input from your own experiences

RfA

Zeq, you've posted enough to Ramallite's RfA, and your posts are starting to look disruptive and gratuitous. By all means continue posting comments to the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's looking gratutious because you've made your substantive point several times, yet you're continuing to post to the project page rather than on the talk page. By all means carry on there if you have more that you want to say, but as things stand, my guess is that you're upsetting Ramallite for no reason, and making yourself look bad into the bargain, so the wisest thing might be to cool down. I hope you'll consider doing that. SlimVirgin 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried the discussion page but could not edit for some unknown reason so i am doing what you and others have done and editing the project page. Thanks, for you note. Zeq 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't edit on the talk page. Make an edit, save it, and wait for it to show up (it may take a few minutes). There is no one else doing what you've done. A few people have commented more than once, but no one to the extent you have, and it's not often done in RfAs. Please use the talk page. SlimVirgin 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, what you're doing now is getting very close to trolling. I'm asking you again to stop it, and I hope you'll take seriously that you're giving people a poor impression of you, so it's in your own interests to stop. By all means continue the discussion on the talk page which is what it's there for. SlimVirgin 08:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you continue like this, you're likely to be blocked for disruption. You've voted, you've asked questions, you've made comments, you've spammed Ramallite's talk page, and I suspect you've been given as many answers from him as you're likely to get. It's enough. We're here to write an encyclopedia. SlimVirgin 08:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

You have stated that " there's nothing wrong with what SlimVirgin is doing." while she clearly threaten to block someone with who she was in conflict with (me). Such block is against Misplaced Pages policy. This means that you have made an edit that you should know is misleading. If this was by mistake please correct it on the relevent talk page. Thank You. Zeq 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please provide me with a link to where she threatened to block you, and a link to the policy you feel is being violated. Thanks, – Quadell 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

She said that "you're likely to be blocked for disruption." This is true; you are. She didn't threaten to block you herself. – Quadell 21:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite

I find the comment on Ramalite's user talk page that you find it strange that he's a molecular biologist who also knows Hebrew to be mighty weird. Am I missing something? Figured you should know I replied on his talk page - if you want you can reply there. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see. If it's more about the ability to be an admin, that's fine. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I had a look on the talk page and my position regarding his nomination for adminship remains unchanged. Itamar 21:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA page

Leave the page alone. You keep making a mess of it. SlimVirgin 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq you asked me to vote on Ramallite's nomination. The problem is that SlimVirgin nominated Ramallite. Considering my current dispute, I think it is inappropriate to vote. Sorry. If you just want my opinion, it seems from the few tussles you and Ramallite have had, you often edit POV bits into the articles, but at the same time Ramallite is incapable of respecting the NPOV facts that you do add or are contained within your edits to the point where his actions are just as bad. An example would be your addition about the number of wells cut off by the barrier (I can't find it now and only recall it somewhat). While some of your addition I remember as strongly POV, there were important facts contained within it such as that the Israel government says that no wells have been cut off. If I remember correctly, Ramallite simply reverted which is not appropriate. Another example I see is part of your recent edit. Some of it I think is POV such as implying all Israelis agree in the first statement, whether you meant "Israel the government" or "Israel the citizens" is unclear. One thing that irked me was Ramallite's reversion of the following addition: "The Israeli government states that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, and that any hardship imposed on Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism." This I believe is completely true and you are attributing it so it should be easy to verify--not to mention that Ramallite apparently agrees that it is fine as it is still on the page. The current version (at the time): "Although the Israeli government has said that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent attacks and that any hardship to Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism, the barrier's opponents say the barrier is the de facto future border of the State of Israel." is argumentative and implies the first statement is false and last statement is true. This isa result of using the conditional "Although" which implies contradiction. This is unquestionably POV. Considering that he says he will continue to work on the articles where you have the dispute I would be inclined to oppose the nomination based on this alone. Additionally he seems condescending towards you, and I'm sure it is difficult to ignore that considering his edits and stay civil (though staying civil would probably help the dispute). I sympathize but will not vote.... Now that I think about, I will oppose based on that statement alone even if you did not discuss it with him. Whether or not he understands, that sentence shows he cannot check his bias. Heh. You are lucky I found it I guess. Ben 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdrew my opposition because apparently it was you yourself that reverted to that POV version! Voting has closed now anyway, and now SlimVirgin is probably going to yell at me too :/ --Ben 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bedouins

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Bedouins consider themselves an ethnicity that isn't affiliated with a single religion. While I did find out that most Israeli Bedouins are Muslim, not all of them are.

But for instance, here's an interview with a Ramallite Christian Bedouin.

-- Ynhockey || Talk 16:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Israeli Arab for proof. Also, stop preaching about Misplaced Pages policy please. You are neither an admin nor a veteran member (in fact, I see you're very new), and it is rude. -- Ynhockey || Talk 17:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your "no hate" article

"Since Gaza is being turned over to the Palestinian Authority, like the other 99% of the middle east where arabs have sovereignty, Jews cannot live there"

Implies racism - "Jews" can live there, settlers cannot because of Israeli orders.

"Now that they are gone, the towns they left behind have been destroyed, their synagogues firebombed and Gaza is now in anarchy."

Israel destroyed "the towns", 4 synagogues were slightly damaged from the reports I read, so again, this exaggeration implies hatred.

"Indeed when a Jihadi blows himself up in Netanya, you can be sure he came from Tulkarm"

Speculation on the writer's part, implies deep prejudice. Like saying: "If a terrorist killed the Prime Minister, you can be sure he came from Bar Ilan University".

"Leftists call this an "apartheid wall" while they remain silent on the slave trade and genocide of blacks in Sudan by arabs."

Arabs in Sudan???? What about trading girls for prostitution in Eastern Europe? Don't the Palestinians also have a role in that also?

" If someone were to do this to a Palestinian policeman he would get seriously beaten."

Prejudice and hate against Palestinians; how many Palestinians have been beaten by Israeli soldiers and how many by Palestinian police?

"Not surprisingly a van carrying powdered milk for UNRWA also had Hamas's latest booklet on the Gaza evacuation "victory"."

Not surprisingly?

"Yousef is this kid that hang's out at our checkpoint. Like in other societies where "different" kids get picked on, Yousef isn't isn't too popular amongst his peers because of his weight.. Unlike other Arab children who are sometimes brainwashed into thinking that by blowing themselves up and killing people they can redeem their honor, Yousef simply hangs around our checkpoint since bored soldiers are always looking for people to talk to."

No hate in this? So other Arab children are "brainwashed"? And the "reservist" is making up stories about why the kid hangs out at the checkpoint? Again, this is racist prejudice.

"The Arab states goal of finishing the Holocaust didn't go too well."

Yet another example of hate-mongering...

And what does ANY of this have to do with the barrier? The writer says "Our assignment is to patrol an area around Tulkarm and also to man a checkpoint." Nothing about the barrier. The barrier is in the distance according to the writer.

I have failed to reason with you in the past, but please, don't tell me you are "against the occupation" and "hoping for peace" when you use hate sources such as these (I'm not saying this because I care about your political opinions, I just don't like repeatedly being told something that is so obviously incorrect). While the NAD website is nothing like this hate-filled blog, using sources such as these makes your objection to sites such as the NAD laughable. Ramallite 03:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't see why this article is full of hate, well, now I understand you even better. Anyway, don't worry about it. If you want, you can even add this and this. They are on the internet, so they must be facts, right? Ramallite 06:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't care to analyze this hate piece, I don't care where the foreign Arab-hater was standing, I have better things to do with my time, thank you. The assume good faith policy is for WP edits, not your own political opinions. Your own opinions belong to you, I don't really have a desire to know them, especially as they seem to contradict everything else you say. Ramallite 06:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sup

Howdy,

Honestly, it's very important to keep your nose clean at wikipedia, and pigfighting with popular muslim/palestinian/leftist editors isn't the way to do it. Unfortunatly wikipedia often settles down to a BBC-line version of world events. So any changes you make have to be incremental and subtle in nature. Having cited sources also helps. Ramalite is just another palestinian partisan. Even if it is frustrating and annoying you have to accept that, especially because he is now built in to the wikipedia system.

I suggest relaxing for a bit, and try working on something else for a while. BTW look at the first quote on my userpage. You hould never take anything on the internet too seriously.

Klonimus 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

West Bank barrier

Why don't you work on "effects on Israeli security", since most of that section is about the Gaza strip and should be about the West Bank. I'm sure you know a lot about that more than anybody else. Ramallite 16:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Syrian expeditions

While I always like a trip down the country, I think going to the places in Syria where they come from to find out more would be original research... however, feel free to let me know where these alleged places are, and I'll bear it in mind next time I'm feeling footloose! Palmiro | Talk 15:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have now made 4 reverts in 24 hours on Israeli Arabs. May I suggest that you self-revert? Also, you incorrectly accused me of doing the same in the edit summary. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

each section was reverted 3 times not 4. You on the other hand reverted 4 times in population section. Zeq 20:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The three revert rule reads "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours." Palmiro | Talk 20:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think commenting something out can be considered a revert. Also, it was part of a very substantive edit. I commented it out and raised it on the talk page. If commenting new material out constitutes a revert, then it looks like I am guilty as charged, though. Palmiro | Talk 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That, too, was a violation of the 3RR.Palmiro | Talk 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about article quality

Zeq, if you really are concerned about article quality, I suggest you take a look at this recent edit to History of the Jews in Iraq. Jayjg 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

wikithanks

thanks for your conciliatory reply on Talk:2005 civil unrest in France. dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

interesting; yes, by all means do a dugri article. It appears to mean "straight" or "sincere", with overtones of rugged manliness or so. The concept certainly exists outside Israel, and I do prefer it over oblique innuendo to be sure, but it shouldn't be used to gloss over simplifications or strawmen. In fact, I have adapted the style of my reply to your dugriness, so imho if you talk dugri, you have to expect that people talk dugri back at you :) dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A strawman argument is one that is beside the point and easily knocked down, but distracting from the direction of the discourse. For example, if you argue "you don't have to be ashamed of being a Muslim", while the point at issue was not whether people should be ashamed of their religion, but whether religion was even a factor in the French riots. It is like saying "people do not have to be ashamed of their sex, nationality or music taste" and because of this insist that "predominantly male French citizens with a predilection for Hip hop music" is given as a description of the rioters. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Why I supported Rammalite

I had had over 10 pages of corresspondance with him (just check his and my discussion page), and I found him to be an intelligent open minded individual with a strong position on the Arab Israeli conflict. Just like you or me. He supports his positions with sources, and engages in lively discussion with other editors. Finally, it has been nothing but a pleasure to cooperate with him on contentious subjects. He reminds me in someways of me and my style of editing. In any case, I'd rather have someone on the opposing side I can have friendly discussion with than an intrasingent pov pushing propagandist.

Regards, Guy Montag 04:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

Hi Zeq, first of all, the example of mine you used was an external link, and although these do need to have relevance, they can't be compared to an intro, which ideally should contain the most pressing or most interesting things about that subject. If you want to add a paragraph about the Jewish exodus, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from the Jewish one. Even then, you'd have to argue your case to have it included, unless you can show that it's the consensus among Israeli historians, for example, that the first could not be examined without examining the second. Misplaced Pages:No original research takes priority over Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view in that we're not allowed to insert our own POVs in the name of NPOV: we may only insert other majority or significant-minority (but not tiny-minority) published POVs. SlimVirgin 21:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As you requested I reviewed this article and looked at your suggested contribution. I find it suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, but not in this article which tries to tackle a different problem. Fred Bauder 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Seeking advice and help

Hello, Zeq. I apologize for my delayed response. I'm afraid that I'm not able to take any cases right now: I simply don't have the time available to assist with mediation, and if I were to try I would be doing everybody involved an enormous disservice. I can, however, direct you to people who will be very happy to help you: leave a request with the Mediation_Committee on the requests for mediation page. If you need somebody immediately, make sure that's part of your request. Redwolf24 is doing an excellent job organizing the committee, and he and the rest of the MC will do everything in their power to help settle this dispute. Good luck! – ClockworkSoul 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. But by the way, you have a very interesting user page :) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Difficult relations

Zeq, we really seem to have a problem. I know you seem to think that I an determined to push a particular point of view (even on pages I have hardly at all edited), but please think about what I am going to say.

I have been involved with you in the article on Israeli Arabs and I've seen your contributions to Palestinian exodus and Israeli West Bank barrier. All three seem to have been difficult experiences. There are a couple of things that I'm going to quite presumptuously be daring enough to suggest that you could do to improve your Misplaced Pages experience for you as much as for everyone else.

• Don't assume other people are editing in bad faith, and don't make wild allegations about "Russian propaganda", pro-Palestinian conspiracies, people thinking they own pages, etc. Try to assume good faith, you might even be right.

• Think carefully about new material you wish to put into articles, read it through carefully to make sure that it makes sense and is cited to proper sources, and that the way you fit it into the article makes for an article that reads well with a logical narrative.

• Don't add in lumps of stuff off websites - this is potentially a copyright violation and in any event rarely adds much to the value of Misplaced Pages.

• Where you have problems with other people's additions, identify exactly what those problems are, without using language that will annoy the other person to the point where they are disinclined to cooperate with you in addressing those problems. (For example, if it hadn't been for your accusations of commmunist propaganda, I would have been in much more of a mood to listen to your remarks about the material I added to the article on Israeli Arabs).

• I see you've been asking other editors such as Slim Virgin and Fred Bauder about things you have a problem with. This is an excellent idea.

• Just generally try and be rigorously logical and clear-minded in your approach to editing articles.

Sorry for the lecture, but I hope we can find a way of collaborating in future. None of us are benefitting from the current situation. Palmiro | Talk 16:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that remark. I don't doubt that you edit in good faith too. It's just that your approach to editing results in difficulties, and, let's be blunt, sometimes in chaos. After all, on Israeli Arab you have at least once condemned one of your own edits as POV on the talk page, on the West Bank barrier page you have reverted away from a version of your own, and lots of people seem to have difficulty coming to consensus with you on talk pages. I'm just asking you to be much more rigorous in your approach to adding material on to articles, as well as a little more sparing with the accusations... Regards, Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You are somewhat correct as the WP:Vandalism page does not make this clear, but many editors (and administrators) consider deletion of sourced material without explanation as vandalism. You can see examples of such opinions (in articles not related to the middle east even) include here and here (there are a ton of others). I changed my comment on Aldo's talk page accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out. Ramallite 16:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Rafah (and more)

Rafah was only closed for 3 months, before that the Israelis manned it. Now the Israelis have cameras there to monitor from a distance (like a science fiction horror film). The problem most Palestinians have is that we are "squeezed" out of every normal thing that people of other nations take for granted (like freedom of travel), and then we are supposed to rejoice when one small aspect is relaxed a little bit. I guess Rafah is not a "small" aspect, but consider what it is, an opening to Egypt! I think it is a mistake for Palestine to be too much associated with other Arab countries, especially as they are mostly dictatorships and usually full of crap. Palestine and Lebanon are the only two places where there is some semblance of a democracy (or emerging democracy, since I believe freedom has to come before democracy, whereas Israel wants democracy to come before freedom, or maybe doesn't want democracy to come at all, then they won't have to give freedom). So I am happy that the people of Gaza can breathe a little bit easier, but I am not hopeful because of what lies on the other side of Rafah, a regime like Egypt (I have nothing against the people, only the regimes).

As for me personally, Rafah has no impact, since I am not allowed to go to Gaza anyway. As I've told you before, I have to go through the Allenby bridge to Jordan first, which is very bad for two reasons: First, I have to spend money on hotels and an extra day in Amman until my flight, and second, I have to go to a place like Jordan, which is probably even worse than Egypt and not much better than Syria. Before I could use Ben Gurion, and although it was a very humiliating experience (if you have a 'darcon falastini' you are taken to a separate room and even your underwear is searched), it was consistent - you knew exactly what to expect. You could tell that the soldiers at the airport are usually just following orders and they don't always like to do what they are doing, the ones on the Allenby bridge like to terrorize people and are very mean. But I don't think Ben Gurion will ever be open to Palestinians again, usually when Israelis close a door, they never reopen it. Al-Ram checkpoint will never disappear either.

By the way, on a personal note, I am having a very hard time believing your user page. Although you have every right to have your own opinions, your attitude on WP and your comments to others (and the sources you always use) are very right-wing and nothing like Rabin. I can understand your feelings about Iraq, and I hope if the Americans succeed that a new Iraqi government will compensate your family's loss or even offer your property back. But you seem to have a deep mistrust of anything said by Palestinians and you reject any legitimate complaints by Palestinians. I know a lot of right-wingers who think these things, but you claim you are not a right winger? I strongly urge you to read this article if you haven't already. I'm not asking you to agree with Yoram Sadeh, but to realize that for true peace to occur, both sides must be open to each other, not "disengaged" from each other, otherwise it won't work. For example, you took out a lot of Palmiro's addition to Israeli Arab, but when you added something, you decided to add a section about how Israeli-Arabs have been involved in terror. Why do you have to focus on a negative aspect? It reminds me of the Nablus article, it was re-written to include a lot of history and culture and things like that, and then somebody from a right-wing background decided to add this section based on an Israeli propaganda website. Of course they had every right to do it, and we tried to make it as NPOV as possible, but why scar an article with trying to smear the other side? I hope you understand my surprise at your user page. This has absolutely nothing to do with your edits to other articles, we have separate disagreements about those, but I'm trying to understand why you claim to be for Palestinian independence and are yet really negative about Palestinians. Ramallite 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my talk page:

1. I hope you realize that the Palestinian refugee problem is more on our minds than other stories because it is still ongoing, these refugees are still refugees. Part of their tragedy is that they lost their belongings, and the other part is that they didn't end up in Europe of America, they ended up among the most corrupt and retarded regimes on earth (non Palestinian Arab countries).
2. I also hope you realize that we are trying hard to "Focus on building a society instead of trying to take revenge in Israel". But you don't seem to know how impossible it is. If Israel didn't even let Christmas trees donated from Norway to come to Bethlehem, or to allow new telephone equipment to be released from the Ashdod port in order to expand Jawwal, and it built a wall and checkpoints to choke the economy, how do you think we can get anything done? Then when Hamas started terrorising Israel, the first thing Barak (then Sharon) did was bomb the PA police, not Hamas. And now they want the PA police to be responsible for security of Israelis, when they can't even be responsible for security of their own shampoo. But I fear you do not comprehend the real problems we have. In fact, in my conversations with Israelis, very few of you guys really know.
3. Don't worry too much about ROR, you guys are making too much of it, because polls show that most Pals would not want to return to Israel anyway. I think the main issue is 'recognition' of the right, not actual return of the people. (Not that I expect you to be convinced of this after you have been convinced otherwise by successive governments).
4. I have edited some biology articles, and am even preparing some figures to upload, but I normally come to WP to get away from science. What do you think I'm writing when I'm not on Misplaced Pages? I have 3 science articles to write this month for my work (big ones, not short WP ones). Why are you so concerned?
5. The problem with our conflict is not really Israeli-Palestinian (well it is, but there is another dimension), it's also within Israel itself. As I say on my talk page, Israelis still have not faced reality: In order for there to be proper peace, there will have to be full integration of the two peoples (not 'disengagement', which has been your mentality because you think the word 'ערבי' is a bad word). This logic of 'disengagement' will not lead to peace, the two communities have to be supportive and 'wanting' to be full partners in order to succeed (if nothing else, economically). This is the problem that every Israeli knows, but nobody admits: Full peace = full engagement, not 'disengagement'. But full engagement will create the scenario of the two states becoming more like a single state 'de facto'. Even though there will be two states, in order to survive fully in peace, they will have to be so symbiotic that it will become a de facto single state. And this is what Israel is terrified of, which is why they prefer keeping 'ערבים' behind a wall. But the wall won't work (I know you think it will, but I think it won't, and one of us is right). So Israel has to really ask the question of what kind of state it wants to be. Will Israelis be more open to 'engagement' even at the risk of losing some of its 'uniquness'? Or will it transfer all the Palestinians to Iran (which we all fear even more than you fear the 'right of return', but I'm sure you don't know about that). Then imagine if there are no Palestinians anymore - the world is changing, and there was talk recently of Israel becoming a member of the EU in the future. This means that any EU citizen (including French Muslims) would be able to live and work legally in Israel. What then? How long can Israel keep up this fear of 'ערבים'? And if not the EU, who knows what will come up? What kind of country do Israelis want Israel to be? (A very good Israeli friend of mine once said that if the Palestinian 'problem' disappears, Israel would probably self-implode. I don't know if I agree, but it's interesting).
6. I took that test a while ago, I saw it on Ian Pitchford's page. I came out strongly "Post-Modernist" :)
7. As for the Kadura Faris interview you just heard, as they say in Northern China: יש תקווה

Ramallite 06:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put that link into the Hebron article, somebody keeps trying to remove it and I just reinserted it. Also, thanks for the Shlomo Avineri article. I fail to see how Germans being kicked out of a foreign country to go back to Germany is the same as Palestinians being kicked out of Palestine and have nowhere to go except a foreign country. The Kuwait argument isn't as important either, because Palestinians are foreigners in Kuwait, it isn't their country anyway. People being kicked out of their own homeland is not the same as people being kicked out of a foreign country, don't you agree? Anyway, I'll send a fax to the refugees in Lebanon telling them at if they drop their ROR, Shlomo Avineri says that they may one day become foreign ministers of Germany! Ramallite 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I missed the point, because I don't see one. The Germans (if it was their country why were they still called 'Germans')? got kicked out, but they still now have full rights back in Germany. Palestinians don't have full rights (or even citizenship) in most places where they live. Is this Israel's fault that Syria or Lebanon don't give equal rights to Palestinians? No. But as long as people don't have a home, they will yearn for the only home they ever had. There needs to be some responsibility from all sides: acknowledgment by those who refused to let the refugees regain their property, and acknowledgment by those governments who treated refugees badly under ridiculous pretexts. The refugee problem is a deep wound for Palestinians - anybody who is not Palestinian would probably not understand the humiliation of becoming a refugee only because we are of the 'wrong' religion PLUS being denied basic human rights (or even citizenship) given to must other refugee populations around the world. Lastly, and on a slightly different matter, who in their right mind would want to become a citizen of a place like Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I sure wouldn't, and being forced to become one is incredibly offensive, but unfortunately for many, the only choice they have. If the Palestinian exodus had been to the UK or the US, while there would still need to be an acknowledgment by those responsible for denying their return, the refugee problem would have had an entirely different face. Ramallite 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

No, there is no 24-hour period in which I had more than 3 reverts.--Doron 12:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You have no email address

I cannot email you my phone number, as you do not have an email address registered in Misplaced Pages. Go to "my preferences" and enter an email address, or you can post it here, or you can post your phone number here and I'll call you.--Doron 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Either that or you have unchecked "Enable email from other users" in the preferences. In any case, it is usefull to contact people by email sometimes, instead of posting stuff on their talk page. --Heptor 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "I wonder: How come Misplaced Pages mechanism seem to fail when it comes to the Israeli-palestinina conflict? and why no one seems to care?" I'd like to respond with some thoughts that I am not ready to share publicly. Can I have your email address? If so, please email it to me using the e-mail link on my user page. If you'd rather not give out the one you use, why not create one for purposes such as this? Kriegman 20:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting

Why are you insisting that the writings of Hertzl are not relevant to the Palestinian exodus article because there is no proof of causation between this and the Nakba, but are insisting on including the words of the Mufti in the 1948 War article even though there is no proof that his words were related to the war? Could it be that Zeq is doing what he accuses everybody else of doing? Only writing his own POV and not writing something he doesn't like? :) I'm curious... Ramallite 14:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Zeq;Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who is making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the mufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC) An answer was posted to the article talk page and several more sources (15 main and they have other they refer too) are posted to the article itself Zeq 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected pages

The last edits on the two pages in question were 50 minutes and 90 minutes before protection respectively - that hardly qualifies as "revert and protect". If there is consensus among the editors of the page that the issues have been resolved, then the pages can be unprotected. Jayjg 18:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your statements about requests for mediation/intervention, I don't recall any on these specific articles. Mediation/intervention is time consuming, and I have already received a request for such invervention on another article involving some of the principals here. I am looking into it, but it will take some time to get up to speed. Jayjg 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could look into all of these issues, but I have to ration my time amongst many Misplaced Pages activities. Regarding "complex reverts", they are edits which restore the disputed text with small differences, and are used by editors to get around the 3 Revert Rule. Jayjg 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for participating on my RfA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tomer 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebron massacre

Shalom Zeq. Please take my edit in a good faith. FYI: I do believe that the massacre followed by what may be justifiably called ethnic cleansing in Hebron in 1929 were atrocious. But I do not think that EC (conducted by the British) belongs in a disambig page. For the future, if you provide an authoritative quote from a reputable source, your edits are more likely to stick. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

I'm willing to help with the dispute at 1948 Arab-Israeli War, yes. I can't guarantee success, but I will try. Please direct any queries you have to my talk page. Thanks.--Sean|Black 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the opinion of uncle Shlomo. The obvious parallel of this situation is, for example, Palestinians expelled from Kuwait or from Iraq or some other countries. Palestinians expelled from Palestine to foreign countries is not a parallel situation to Germans expelled from foreign countries - where they had made their roots - back to Germany. For Germans, the fact that they still have the ancestral homeland, Germany, is the key difference in the two situations. Keep in mind that many of those Germans in Poland and elsewhere still considered themselves of German ethnicity and most spoke German in addition to the native tongue. I think they also had German citizenship (or the right of citizenship). In my opinion, it was horribly insulting for the German minister to compare the two, and even more so for Shlomo to insist that the two are parallel. I can assure you that Palestinians who were expelled from Kuwait have no ambitions to a 'right of return' to Kuwait, even though they lost all their property and were rooted there, because it isn't their homeland. This is partly why Abu Mazen was able to go and make peace with Kuwait last year, because he did not ask for a right of return. You have to understand that for a Palestinian to leave Palestine and go to another Arab country (like Jordan) is a step down, not up. Also, I doubt Russian Jews want a right of return to Russia, or you want a right of return to Iraq, because you all have your ancestral homeland (Israel), even if it hurt deeply to have to leave the home your families have known for generations. Until the Palestinians have their ancestral homeland (even if it's only a part of it), where refugees can come and become good citizens, there is absolutely no use to try to compare the Palestinian and German refugee story. That is my opinion. Ramallite 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So to make it totally clear: Ramallite, you consider Palestinians to be a nationality of it own? What is in this case the relationship between the Palestinians and the Arabs? -- Heptor 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any dispute that Palestinians are a nationality of their own? Your first question confuses me because you make it sound like there is. Palestinians are a nationality while "Arab" is an ethnicity, maybe in the same way that Venezuelan is a nationality while Hispanic is an ethnicity. So we are 'Palestinian Arabs', but that definitely does not mean that we are the same nation as Iraqi Arabs or Saudi Arabs. What's the relationship? Because the past few centuries saw the 'Arabization' of the middle east (trade, immigration, Islamic conquests, etc), we have the same language and the same overall religion (although not exactly the same sects within Islam as Arabs elsewhere), but different cultures, foods, gene pool (how many red-headed Bahrainis have you seen? We have a few of those but not too many. A lot of Hebronites are green-eyed, you don't see that in Jordanian natives) etc. Two other relationship: one, Jordan has a large native Palestinian population (although contrary to widely believed reports, there is no proof that they are the majority - they may very well be, but it hasn't been documented), so a lot of Palestinians have relatives in Jordan and identify with people in that country (but definitely not the regime, which is descended from Saudi Arabs), and the other relationship is financial, the PLO used to ask a lot of those governments for money and as long as some of them are still willing to donate (for example, an Emir from the United Arab Emirates is donating money to found an industrial area in a former Gaza settlement, a Kuwaiti Emir donated the money to build the main library at Birzeit University in the 1980s, etc), there will continue to be some form of official political relationships. You probably got a much longer answer than you wanted, but lastly, remember that not everything said by Palestinians about nationality has to be a political statement. Even the notion the Palestinians are descended from tribes that lived in the holy land long before it was holy to anybody has somehow become a political statement; what other nation has to prove its ancestry to inhabitants of that same land 5000 years ago in order to 'deserve' some basic human rights? What a pity.... Ramallite 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, thank you for your answer. Somehow I did expect it to be lengthy. I am not claiming to be an ethnisity expert, so I am not to make any claims on my own, I am trying to undertand your viewpoint just as I try to understand anyone else's. But I do believe there actually is a dispute on whether Palestinians are a nation on its own or not.

At least early Zionists did not consider the population of the British Mandate of Palestine to be different from other Arabs: they thought they could painlessly create a Jewish majority in the mandate area by 1. Buying up land 2. Create job opportunities for Arabs (I do hope it is politically correct to call Palestinians that) 3. Denying them job opportunities within Palestine.

On the other hand, the region was indeed an area with considerable international mixing, which would explain the red hair and green eyes. Those are typical European characteristics, which probably came to the region during the Crusades...

As far as I recall, noone mentioned Palestinians as a nation before around 1948 war, it may have come even later. For example, the British White Paper of 1939 used the word "Palestinian" only a few times, and that to refer to all inhabitants of Paletine, both Jews and Arabs. Otherwise, the document uses "Arabs", or "Arab population of the country". Or do you know of any reference to the Arab population of the country as a nation on its own from before that time? Or do you believe that Palestinians of today are descendors of the biblical-times Filistines?

Again, I do not claim to be in posession of of final truth or something, I am just trying to understand how the situation is viewed by different sides of the conflict.

Looking forward to reading your answer

Heptor 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As for Zeq - as always you and I are not on the same page. Of course I believe that your father's hometown was Baghdad, but remember what your father told you about Israel. A Palestinian father would never tell his child that 'Yemen is your homeland', why on earth should he? Like Vietnam, Palestinians have no ties to Yemen. I told you before that the Palestinian refugee problem is two problems in one: the first tragedy is that they were expelled from their homeland (not being allowed to return after fleeing a war = expelled), and the second tragedy is that they ended up in places like Arab countries. It would be nice if both tragedies were corrected, but even one of these two would be a great help. Ramallite 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ZOG and Islamofascism

I'm not sure why it's up to me to "solve" this. Jayjg 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I get involved in the things I chose to get involved in; I don't understand why you think that makes this particular item my responsibility. Nor do I understand what you mean when you say "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". Jayjg 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, it's actually pretty arrogant to assume you can give advice on exactly how I should be participating in Misplaced Pages, or on which areas I should be focusing my attention, or on policy itself and what is "in" or "out" on Misplaced Pages. It's also rather bizarre; do you imagine this kind of behaviour wins people to your cause? Jayjg 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments on a talk page

This is yet another example of what I might term a problematic approach to collaborating with other editors in a civil and collegial manner. Why do you do this? These sort of condescending remarks (I'm referring in particular to your last sentence) will not help you in getting your point of view represented on Misplaced Pages and can only make other people angry. Yet again, I appeal to you to try and rethink your approach to editing and to collaborating with other editors. I am sure you mean well, so please try and think how you would feel if someone addressed comments like that to you. Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fisk

Hi, several editors disagree about the paragraph you wish to add (about a blog award that uses his name). Please help prevent an edit war by explaining on the talk page (Talk:Robert Fisk) why you think it necessary. Thanks. Rd232 23:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Further to your comments on the talk page indicating that you do not accept responsibility to cite credible sources I have asked the Arbitration Committee to make a ruling. --Ian Pitchford 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Torah

You can see from the edit summaries that I was trying to eliminate that claim made by an anon but the software or me made an error. Try to be more careful in future. --Zero 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

All the best wishes for 2006! -- Heptor _talk 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

War of 1948

Hello Zeq. I went on working on the article. Your comments are welcome :) Christophe Greffe 11:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon

HaKol beseder itchem? eich matsav ru'ach shelchem? Ramallite 05:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

I will protect. But. 2 things. First of all, the discussion ceased when we protected last time. So I have no idea if this will help or not. And #2, please don't put 2nd requests up. :) What I mean is that you can put them all under one heading. Gets too unwieldly otherwise. Thanks. --Woohookitty 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of it in those terms. For one thing, the page cannot be altered now. So they cannot add to what they already have there. For another, you still have a voice in this. I am giving them 3 days to start conversations on the talk page. If they do not, the page will be unprotected. If anything else, that might get them talking. I'd love to say I can revert the page for you back to your version, but we never choose sides when we protect. Sorry. --Woohookitty 12:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Zionist propaganda

The Iranian president's use of Zionist propaganda is very different from mine. I mean, for example, such thing as describing East Jerusalem as being annexed rather than occupied. I think he is intent on genocide. Fred Bauder 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

israeli arab... articles

Hello Zeq.

About the palestinian refugee. Why don't you proceed the way Ian says and instead of deleting what he writes. Why don't you develop the counter arguments ? I am sure you know Jewish Virtual Library. This is claimed not to be objective but whatever when it gives quote and arguments they can be used. I have just read their mind about refugee problems and they are many many arguments (and quoties) that could be interested to insert in the article. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#c

About ArbCom. I think you are right on some points and wrong on others. I think you should take care not upseting ArbCom people by the way you discuss because you risk to alienate you from everybody and that will not help you.

this is just my POV ;-)

Christophe Greffe 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeq. I read your note in "palestinian refugee" article. It is clear that Jewishvirtuallibrary is biaised but there are many references in this articles and in others that *** refer*** to non biaised documents and that could be used. The main interest with JVL is that it always give all docuemnts in favour of a thesis and that it is easy to use this as a starting point. Christophe Greffe 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

You always tell people to use the talk page. I have a new section there about your edits and the problems with it, but you don't want to take your own advice to others and use talk? Your entry is clearly POV pushing because you took one article from the BBC, 'cherrypicked' the parts of it that shows that the Palestinians are ruthless bastards (like all right-wingers do), and refused to respond to my comments in talk.

The BBC version is that "There has been plenty of lawlessness and competition after the Israeli withdrawal, the reasons for which may be related to years of occupation (including killings and house demolition) that has both radicalized and traumatized Gazans, and left the society broken. There have been militants taking over institutions and briefly kidnapping foreign hostages". "The editor of a Palestinian daily newspaper has lamented in his editorial that such displays of lawlessness and corruption are worse than occupation, which Palestinians should not blame for this problem as per habit". "All this has to be kept in context," says the BBC. "Much of the upheaval has been confined to the south, and to the town of Rafah in particular - and much of the turmoil has about it an element of show. There have been few casualties, and very little serious, sustained violence. Protesting gunmen who occupy government buildings often leave as soon as they have made their point."

Zeq's version is that "After the Israeli disengagement, Gaza has descended into "complete chaos" with kidnappings and takeovers of buildings, and "many" Palestinians say that the occupation is better. " Zeq also introduces his POV in his own edit summary where he states "This is what a Palestinian state will look like: Somalia".

Do you see the difference? This is very dishonest of you, and (as usual) very inconsistent with your desire for peace (your userpage) when all you have been doing on Misplaced Pages is doing your best to show the worst of the other side even by inaccurately summarizing articles. Please read my comments in the Gaza Strip discussion page which I posted early this morning. Ramallite 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you not seen the news lately, Ramallite? Is Gaza not in complete chaos? There are militants bulldozing the border, killing Egyptian soldiers, occupying government buildings, kidnapping foreigners, and demanding the release of known murderers (which the government of course caves to.)

On Zeq's edit, I do agree that if quoting the BBC, it should not be changed, and I would omit the part about many Palestinians preferring the occupation, since that cannot be substantiated. However, the fact that Gaza is in "complete chaos" is very evident.

Aiden 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have followed the news and yes there are severe problems in Gaza (but it's not like people are cowering indoors in fear, it's more like too many gangs are acting like degenerates every so often but extremely rarely are people getting hurt as in the corrupt PA officer assassinated or the two Egyptian soldiers killed). In any case, the dispute is not the existence of the problems, but the specific manner that Zeq chose to describe them - I was hoping I had made that distinction clear. Ramallite 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Chaos by defintion can not be "partial" it is complete loss of order in the area in which it occur. Maybe you need a math professor to explain you this in terms from termodynamics. I know just that person. Zeq 10:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is spelled "thermodynamics" and I was not referring to Chaos theory but anyway thanks for the scientific clarification. Maybe your friend can provide an equation that describes Gaza chaos! Ramallite 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that as a Misplaced Pages administrator you still employ condescending and contemptuous remarks, Ramallite. Perhaps you should find a subject you are less personally involved with to administrate. Can you honestly say you are not partial to one side or have a personal grievance against Zeq? Aiden 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Condescending and contemptuous eh? In fact, my response to what you may consider his very respectful comment above is one of the more jest-full replies I have made to Zeq of late. Before you accuse me of having a personal grievance against Zeq, you should look up the history of our contributions to see his past writings. I consider it somewhat weird that you would stumble upon comments made by me in response to someone else's (tactless) statements on their personal talk page (and not in an article discussion page) and start questioning my suitability to edit on Misplaced Pages in a manner that is clearly 'contemptuous' of me - for an unknown reason. I do not 'administrate' certain subjects, nobody here does, that responsibility lies on all editors here including yourself. The tools of an administrator are to take care of some housekeeping issues and are not a Merlin's wand. If you have any concerns about my actual editing, address them on my talk page please. Ramallite 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we don't continue this unhelpfull direction. Ramallite is in general a reasonable guy and I am sure he can actually descibe the Gaza situation himself. One day when he will understand why the Avinery article apply he will made a great step toward understnding how the conflict can be resolvd. Zeq 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Ramallite. I read that out of context. Aiden 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - forget about it! Ramallite 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

some material from Palestine Post

I have started reading Palestine Post from here : http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/palestineEn.html I think that is the best source to understand properly what Jews thought about what they lived in Palestine at that time. I am just at the beginning but it seems interesting.

and the Mufti

13 mars 1946 : discovery of the link between Mufti and Nazis

Following days : many references of this in articles.

Palestine Post, 27 mars 1946.

“Mr. Shertok (…) Countering the assertion that the leader had done nothing actively to further the Nazi victory, je recalled the Mufti’s Berlin broadcasts calling on the Arab world to carry out sabotage behidg the British lines and await the signal for a general rising, its organization of Palestina Arab prisoners of war for service in Germany Army units ; his propaganda tour of Moslem Bosnia ; and his part in instigation the extermination of the Jews.”

about israeli histirians point of view

Palestine Post, 13 May 1947.

“The Jewish nation (…) is eager to cooperate with its free Arab neighbours to promote the economic development, social progress and real independence for all the Semitic countries in the Middle East. The real, just and lasting solutioin of the problem before you is a Jewish State and a Jewish-Arab alliance.” Mr Ben-Gourion Concluded”

Best Regads. Christophe Greffe 12:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hames

Are you sure that Tim Hames is Arab? It doesn't sound like an Arabic name but maybe. Anyway, here is how I would respond:

1. Remember that Palestinian Arabs are separate from the rest of the Arabs. Palestinians are the ones under occupation, the Arab leaders of other countries have their own problems and they have a lot of work to do, but they blame Israel for everything. This is not our problem, this is their problem.
2. The Palestinians have recognized Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders, and have tried to negotiate a peace settlement to finalize borders. Palestinian intellectuals have also non-officially negotiated with Israeli intellectuals to produce an unofficial document called the Geneva Accord which had the borders modified. What other country in the region would have dared to produce such an accord? Arab countries are ruled by dictators, only in Palestine could there have been such a movement. Also note the Nusseibeh / Ayalon document.
3. Keep in mind Israel, to this date, has never recognized the legitimate right of Palestinians to their self-determination in the land.
4. The Arab countries will never have their own Sharon as long as they have dictators supported by the Western governments. When the Arab countries do have their own Sharon, he/she should not be dealing with Israel, but (hopefully) fixing all the internal problems in his/her country first.
5. Lastly, I don't know who this Tim Hames is, but he is very one sided. The majority of Palestinians support peace with Israel, and the 1967 borders. All Palestinians 'would like' the land of Palestine back, just like Jews 'would like' all of Eretz Yisrael, but we are willing to have our independence in only the West Bank and Gaza (22% of the land of Palestine). 22% is less than a quarter!! So it is very inappropriate for him to say that 'Palestinians should realize they will not get everything they want', we already know that - we have settled for only 22%. As for other Arab countries, who cares?? Ramallite 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is written by an Arab (Jordanian of Palestinian origin who now works in Beirut). Fareed's article funnily starts with the de Gaulle quote, just like Tim Hames, but it is a different article. Fareed Zakaria is strange, sometimes he says things that are decent, and then after 4 whiskeys he says something so crazy it's embarrassing. Calling Gaza a "failed state" is an example; Gaza is not a state. He is not Arab, he is born in India and now lives in the US. Ramallite 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

your mind

Hello Zeq. Do you agree with the following ?

I think that the hypothesis according to which Jews feared a genocide war is not stupid as shown by the quotes I gave you. But the fact that it is not stupid doesn't mean that it is real or even it deserves to be written in wiki.

From my side I don't agree to answer to the question if it is revelant or not for the 1948 war. I think that the matter is to determine if this is revelant or not for wikipedia.

If a historian or somebody with a worldwide notoriaty studied this because he considered this revelant then it is revelent for wiki. Whoever he is. We just have to report what he told and eventually remind who he is.

A question I have is therefore if there is somebody else than Rabbi Dalin who claims so (and eventually Pearlman I don't have his book).

I also think this is exactly the same concerning eg "master plan". Our matter is not to know if this is propaganda or not or even if this is true or not. Our matter is to report what historians or notorious people claim about this. We don't have to decide who deserves to see his pov reported a npov way in wikipedia. The reader will decide according to what he knows about him.

Now you can say : "what if Michael Jackson would comment that there was a genocide war in Belgium last 5 years ?"... I think this should be reported in Belgium article, wouldn't it ???

Do you agree ? disagree ? or maybe what I write is not clear (my English is far from being perfect, sorry for this) ?

Have a nice day. Christophe Greffe 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to 'democracy'

"But I understand that you can not admit this, maybe even to yourself." You do NOT understand. I see you have standard attitude of 'arrogance of power', what makes you believe you have superior intellect over me and can actually tell me what I can or cannot 'admit to myself' - do you think I live in some sort of swamp where I actually have to be told what to think and what I can 'admit' to myself? Why wouldn't I be able to admit anything I want or believe? Who will stop me (except the Shin-Bet at the borders)? How can you have so many Palestinian friends if almost no Palestinian is allowed into Israel in the first place? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and my very educated opinion is that democratization of Palestinians is despite Israel, not because of it. I probably have much much more Palestinian friends than you (and it also helps that I am one myself), and I can tell you that Israel is far from a "role model for democracy". Most Palestinians do believe that Israel is a strong democracy, but for Jews only, but if you're not Jewish, you are screwed. It is far from a "role model" when it comes to us. I am not saying there is no influence, but your assertion that there is direct causation between Israel and Palestinian democracy is flawed, and your claim that Israel is a "role model" for Palestinians is laughable. Sorry. Ramallite 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR block on Palestinian exodus

I have blocked you for 8 hours for breaking WP:3RR on Palestinian exodus. This is a somewhat shorter block since you haven't been blocked before, though you've been warned above about 3RR. You will be blocked for longer if you continue this behaviour. If you feel this block is invalid, or there are some extreme extenuating circumstances, please reply here: I'm watching. William M. Connolley 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Zeq contested this assserting that is not a revert. Since its explicitly labelled a revert, I don't find that convincing. Please be aware that reverts do *not* have to be exact word-for-word reversions. William M. Connolley 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Is No. This is not what Revert is (but you are making a common misconception) Here is quote: "This (rule) states that if we revert to a previous version of a page (in whole or in part, which can mean as little as one word in some circumstances), we may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC) " Zeq 09:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) at all familiar? William M. Connolley 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Israeli West Bank barrier and gaining economy

I knew you would jump on it, but you must not understand it. Please see my most recent entry at the bottom of the discussion page and see point #2. Also, if you are stating 'gain', then it is 'gain' compared to what year? Loss is compared to the years before the intifada and the wall. 'Gain' is compared to when? Sarit's wedding? Lastly, the CIA factbook does not say that "GDP growth in the West Bank declined annually by 7.5%, 35.0%, and 22.0%, respectively, in 2000, 2001, and 2002 before major construction of the barrier began". It says " GDP growth in the West Bank declined annually by 7.5%, 35.0%, and 22.0%, respectively, in 2000, 2001, and 2002". The CIA doesn't mention the barrier, please phrase your edits appropriately. Otherwise, you make it seem like the CIA is making a connection between the barrier and the economy (original research). It isn't. Ramallite 06:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you call your recent edits 'according to Ramallite's comments"????? In 1999 the GDP of the West Bank was 3.3 billion. The most it has been after that is 1.15 billion. How is that GAIN???? There has been no recovery in the economy to pre-intifada levels, so you can't label a section "loss and gain". You also completely messed up the problem that SeattliteTungsten and I had tried to solve by using the phrase "However, carefull examination of the facts revel". First of all, you are disputing an argument that WASN'T MADE. Second, I'm really surprised that you have been at WP this long and still choose to ignore NPOV when you want to push your POV. Don't you know that a phrase like "However, carefull examination of the facts revel....." is not neutral and POV pushing? fix it please. Ramallite 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you have agreed in the past that you cannot just cut and paste a whole section out of another article (which is also copyrighted) and add it into Misplaced Pages as fact. Not to mention that the paragraph is incoherent; this is an opinion piece in a magazine, not encyclopedic material. Most importantly (and as usual with your edits), it is blatantly POV: "Bizarre situation"?? "If the Palestinians come to their senses"?????? "current terrorism policy"?????? "precisely where the Palestinians want it"?????? "It's hardly inevitable"????? come on Zeq, you should know better by now. If you want to quote such opinions, do it in your own words, and quote if necessary. But an entire section that is cut and pasted from an opinion piece is just not encyclopedic. Ramallite 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you see this? Do you agree? Ramallite 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

No, trust me, I understand. Someone pointed the article out to me last night and I've been pretty careful about reading the history of the current problem. The reversion was mostly motivated by the provocative comment in the article text. That demonstrates some extremely bad faith. I don't have a POV to push here. I again encourage mediation. Tom Lillis 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Red text, bottom of the third text block. Tom Lillis 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be the material enclosed in the HTML comment-blocks that I am concerned with, yes. That was the core of my objection to the edit--it seems provocative for the pure sake of provocation. Which is not to say that I don't believe there's a greater issue here that needs addressing: this editorial conflict needs a resolution, and I doubt that resolution is as simple as merely including the material you want.

Incidentally, it's not irrelevant. Bad faith is bad faith, and is grounds for reversion. Cheers. Tom Lillis 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The section you identified is what I have a problem with. I understand it's not yours. It was, however, inappropriate and signified bad faith, which is a valid reason for reversion. I do not object to the rest of the edit, except for the fact that it is not a solution to the edit warring problem. Clearer? Tom Lillis 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab Israeli War

Zeq, You've summarised your last edit as "added ref" when in fact you have deleted a large number of references and footnotes. You have also added a great deal of dubious material that is not related to the War. Please stick to the subject of the article and cite appropriate sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor

Now Zeq, you know the protection policy. Anonymous_editor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did nothing wrong, and I would have protected it myself had you I not been asleep. Now, we're going to try this mediation again, okay?--Sean|Black 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How can I report vandalism

(copied from the help desk. DES 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)): such as this  ? Zeq 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has already reverted that. Follow the link on "revert" to learn how to do this yourself. if you feel unable to revert yourself, you can report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To make reverting easier, you can use a script called popups, created by User:Lupin. More details about how to install, use, and customize it are on that page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Injunction

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in your case. Until the conclusion of the case, you and Ian Pitchford are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Temporary_injunction. Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By Cooke or by Crooke

Shalom Aleichem!

Thanks for clarifying the issue with Alistair Crooke in the Hamas article: that really had me confused, because Alistair Cooke had renounced his British citizenship back during World War II. Justin Eiler 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Election - mazel tov

No I'm not too happy but definitely not surprised. The previous people in power were corrupt and were pissed on by the Israelis (the Israelis said that they are not a partner). Hamas is also pissed on by the Israelis (also not a partner, so no difference) but is not corrupt. There is nothing Hamas could do that would make our situation worse, but at least they are much cleaner domestically, so they just have much less crap attached to them. The one thing it makes 'clear' is that the Palestinian people have nothing more to lose, but since Hamas is much more organized and much less corrupt, many many moderates and even left-wingers voted for them. Israel was not going to give Fatah anything anyway, and people were fed up with this 'peace process' that was making peace further and further away. Hamas didn't lie about it, they say they will not engage the Israelis to 'pretend to make peace'. Also, Fateh were idiots because, back in 1994, they agreed to recognize that Israelis have a right to a Jewish state in return for what? In return for Israel 'recognizing that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' which is the only thing that metumtam Arafat wanted. Hamas is different, they will consider recognizing Israel only when they get an equal response, that Israel also recognizes that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, which makes much more sense than that BS of Arafat. I believe the Israelis are very very happy now, since their policies have ensured that there is 'no partner' on the other side and so can do whatever they want unilaterally, and they will not be held back by the US. This is a big 'matana' for 'kadima'. And don't worry, I really don't think Hamas will try to attack Israel now. Ramallite 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Can you e-mail me

Says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Aiden 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Get my email? —Aiden 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your request

I do not review motions. Perhaps you have confused me for an Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dhimmi

I also noticed that. At this point, we probably need to apply for formal mediation. Will you join?--Pecher 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arbitration case

I will spend some time today looking at your input to the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The two versions solution to contested articles has been proposed from time to time by other arbitrators, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Winter_Soldier_Investigation_protected_with_working_version. You will see that although I supported it, it met with little favor. Fred Bauder 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as recusing, there is no basis. I am only candid, not prejudiced. Fred Bauder 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Already I can see that the ArbCom did not temporaraly ban Zero who is as pasrt of the discussion as Ian or myself. Bias ? I sure think so. Zero is an articulate anti-israel voice and that is the reason he was not temporaraly banned. But in any case I don't think long term banning is the answer: The process is what need to be fixed. Zeq 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the edit history and see what is going on, but Zero is not a part of the arbitration case. To include him in the arbitration case he would have to be brought into the case. This is troublesome because being brought into the case will come as a surprise and seem quite unfair. It is not bias. We are just going on the people named in the case. He may be an articulate anti-Israeli voice, but the question goes beyond that to his style of editing. Let me take a look. Ok this edit , by Zero0000 (talk · contribs) he removes a quotation from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21741 on the grounds that it is "fake". So why does he say that? If it is fake, where is it coming from? Fred Bauder 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from Zero's statement: "Zeq and Heptor want to present it as a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends. To this end they found some alleged "quotations" of the Palestinian leader Amin al-Husayni during WWII (when he was a Nazi collaborator, which nobody denies). These quotes come from a book by a Haganah spokesman Pearlman and were repeated by a book by Revisionist Zionist and Arab-expulsion advocate Schectman. Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians, and I gave an example of a provable lie in Pearlman's book. No other sources are known even though Ian Pitchford and I have scoured the academic literature. Moreover, when I went to a contemporary report of the radio broadcast in question, I found a version that is quite different. None of this has any effect on Zeq or Heptor who want this "quotation" to appear and that's that." This seems to be the same quotation. What do you think of his contention? Do you think it should appear in the article and how should it be presented? Fred Bauder 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

יהיה טוב

I'm not that worried, like I told you before, it's hard to see how it can get much worse than it was in 2001-2002. Maybe it would be good for Netanyahu to win, because Netanyahu versus Hamas would be a fun show to watch. Better than Dudu Topaz. The riots in Hebron and elsewhere are by idiots - if they throw stones at Europeans just because of cartoons that the Europeans don't even know about, this is a big demonstration of stupidity. Al-Quds newspaper had an editorial today saying the same thing in a more diplomatic way. Maybe the Europeans shouldn't come back to Hebron so those idiots can get beaten up by the settlers every day, then we will see who they hate more. I'm actually enjoying these demonstrations, it just shows me how retarded the average person is. Same thing with Amona, it's just amazing how many stupid people live in the holy land. In fact, the vast majority is mentally retarded. The settlers will start to get more violent as the army starts to go against them. Remember that these religious settlers are the exact same as Islamic Jihad, except that the settlers don't do suicide bombings because the IDF does all the killing. But once the IDF decides to leave, the settlers will start to become a lot more interesting. It's just going to be so much fun. As for this garbage website about finding a synagogue in Ramallah (which would actually be nice), they are saying "See, Ramallah is Jewish and belongs to Israel because there was a synagogue there!!" In that case, Akko, Yafa, Jerusalem, Safed, Haifa, all belong to Saudi Arabia because they all have mosques there!!! Yippee!! How incredibly stupid. By the way, biblical "Rama" is not Ramallah, Rama is "Al-Ram" between Ramallah and Jerusalem (where the checkpoint is)... Ramallite 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Naqba

Thanks Zeq. Yeah, unfortunately WP is full of POV articles and I am totally swamped. I'm planning to reinstate some text at Hamas, gone due to anon activism. Could you please move your msg from Portal talk:Israel to WP:WNBI. The portal talk page should be used just for that: discussing the Portal. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aribtration System Broken

Zeq, I read your comments on this point at Charles' talk page. A similar problem has been going on at the Anselm Page, and may be unresolvable. I posted on that page my suggestion that editors be held bound to 2 Academic Principles that are used in the world of scholars, and that, if the Aministration of Misplaced Pages enforced that, this would resolves the problesm of edit wars and immature individuals who prefer their own opinions to the hard facts of the real world. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources

Opinion articles by Dore Gold and other nuts are not credible sources for THIS topic because THIS topic requires historians and not opinions. Everybody has opinions, but not everybody knows the true history. Al-Masri DOES mean 'Egyptian', but 'Yarden" or "Yardeni" also means Jordan or Jordanian. Are we saying that some Israeli Ashkenazis actually came from Jordan? Rise above this Zeq... The Masri family dates back centuries, long before the Zionists came to Palestine, and many Arabs came and went and many went and came back, so a person who traveled to Egypt and then came back was sometimes referred to as The Egyptian. We don't know the origin of the name, and we also know that the garbage that many Palestinians are Wahabis is pure hateful propaganda. Can you find a history book or reference (one that has not been discredited like From Time Immemorial)?? Ramallite 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to source that Masri means Egyptian. That is true and nobody disputes that. What you need to source is that the Masri family (and there are many Masri families) came from Egypt during the end of the Ottoman empire like you are trying to say. That paragraph is saying that Egyptians and Wahabis came to Palestine during the Zionist takover, and that Al-Masri is an example of those Egyptians. This is total BS. I don't know why the Masri family have the name "Masri", it may be because their ancestors came from Egypt or maybe because some of their ancestors went to Egypt and came back or maybe they married an Egyptian family or maybe it's because Egypt is next door to Palestine or maybe they just like to have sex with Egyptians - who knows? I don't, you don't, and Dore Gold doesn't know either. Maybe it's the same reason that some Israelis are called "Yardeni". What we DO know is that the Masri name was in Palestine long before 1880, so to give them as an example of Arabs who moved to Palestine because of the Zionist (which in itself is highly disputed) is just ridiculous. Ramallite 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there must be SOME people who can trace their origins to Wahabis, Turks, Afghanistan, and even Greece, this is the Middle East after all. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the attempt to say that most Palestinians are other Arabs who came to Palestine because the Zionists brought a good economy. I don't dispute this for nationalistic reasons, because I don't care where most Palestinians are from. Remember that many Belgians come from Holland and others from France; many Swiss come from France and others from Germany, but that doesn't mean they should be kicked out of their country, If most Palestinians are from China, I don't care.

But I do care about two things: accuracy, and POV pushing. It may be true that "even an immigrant that came to Nablus in the 1920s and 1930s has a right to live in Nablus. same go for Haifa", but the question is how many immigrants came from those places? And of those who came, when did they come and was it because of Zionists? A lot of people on WP take little snippets of facts, and assemble them together to make complete rubbish. Dore Gold is correct that Al-Masri means Egyptian. He is correct that there are some Arabs in Palestine who came from outside Palestine. But he doesn't prove that the Masri family came from Egypt. Rantisi does mean "from Rantis", but not all Rantisis are from Rantis. In fact, many Rantisis are Christians that have nothing in common with the Muslim Rantisi. Famous American singer Barry White is actually black, so last names can have significance associated with the word but not necessarily. Sometimes a name is just a name. All I know is that the information in that paragraph in Palestine is just made up because there are no credible sources that confirm anything in there. There are probably more Palestinians of Greek origin than Wahabi origin. In fact how many Palestinian families have Wahabi genes? maybe... ten?

The other things is that, due to the tribal nature of Palestinians, if any of them came from another Arab country, they wouldn't call themselves Palestinian necessarily. For example, one of my best friends (from Nablus, but not a Masri) has a grandmother who is Syrian. She was born in Palestine, but her parents came from Syria. But when he introduced her to me, he told me that she isn't Palestinian, she is Syrian! Tribal customs like that would make it easy to know who is Palestinian and who isn't. If the Masris were actually Egyptian, it is very hard to see how they could have grown into the prominence they now have unless they have lived here for much much longer than the 1800s.

Thank you for the Yemini article - he is not the first to say such things. There are many columnists (including some in Palestinian media) who have said similar things: Why do Muslims make such a fuss out of cartoons but never said a word about what Asad did in Hama or what the crazy Iraqis are doing in Iraq, like blowing up Islamic funerals. Muslim peoples in Arab countries have a huge sense of denial, and unfortunately, many Palestinians have learned this from them (one reason I hate the occupation so much is that it forced the Palestinians to mingle and get ideas from the rotten neighbors which makes me sick). So although I don't like Yemini's one-sided analysis because he forgets the rotten situation that most Arabs are in (corrupt dictatorships incapable of self-criticism), it's hard to disagree with him. I told you how I think this whole cartoon affair is incredibly fun to watch because there is nothing more fun to me than people worked up over religion. Yemini says "תנו כבוד לדת", I say "אין כבוד בדת"!! Ramallite 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

/Workshop

You will be blocked if you continue to change headings on the /Workshop page of the arbitration case Fred Bauder 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

We have talked at some length in a number of forums. Unless there is something new, please accept /Proposed decision as my position. Fred Bauder 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on Nakba personally Fred Bauder 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any suggestions other than Jayjg Fred Bauder 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit is this area much, but Jayjg might have some suggestions, unless, of course, you would consider Ian Pitchford? Fred Bauder 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of...

Speaking of "not bothering to look at the evidence", you may wish to note that I have not yet voted in your case. I supported the temporary injunction to stop the edit warring for the duration of the case but have not voted on any further remedies. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place or if this is still time but I think this is a good start toward the right solution . I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. Christophe Greffe 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy them too

Hi Zeq - I am still going to write you a little longer response but I just wanted to say that I don't mean to neglect you, it's going to be a busy week for me. I know what you mean about the restrictions, Amira Hass also wrote about this in Haaretz yesterday. In any case, I really have not been following the Arb case very much (that's the truth), but I will try to do so. More later, Regards Ramallite 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are just too addicted, huh? Ramallite 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Meditation

Hi Zeq. I don't think I can mediate on the article itself while the case is still before the Arbitration Committee. I'd be happy to do so once the case has closed. Jayjg 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. As I said, I won't be able to look at mediating the article until the case is closed. Jayjg 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The case was opened after a vote by the arbitrators to open it. One need not go through formal mediation before a case can be opened, though in general one must show attempts to resolve the issue. In any event, the Committee members felt that a case should proceed, and it will now go to its conclusion before other steps are taken. Jayjg 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Zeq, I see that you're taking a wikibreak. This is a good place, but I know it can get frustrating at times. Your contributions here are valued, and I hope that you are refreshed by your break and return soon! Babajobu 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was aware that it was going on, but didn't really have a chance to follow it. Plenty of great editors have had scrapes with arbcom, though. Babajobu 16:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

delete

Zeq, I permitted to delete your last comments just after mine. Please have in mind your comments were really counter-productive ! Christophe Greffe 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In all conflicts both sides often "forget" some elements. I think this would deserve an article in wikipedia. I don't think this is different in wikipedia... What people forgets to see concerning the matter here is also due to what yourself forgets to see : that shouting everywhere and harashing people is counterproductive. It is up to you to see if you can react with pragmatism or not. Why don't you go away a few days from wiki to try to think about all this and the best way to deal with it... Christophe Greffe 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq. If someone considers himself unfairly treated it is useless to pray, to shout or to cry. He just has to act with pragmatism and wisdom. (This is not from me, this is from Alfred de Vigny... huh... Do you believe me or do you request a scholarly source :-(((

Please, keep cool and take a break to think about all this. You have been heared if not listened. I don't think there is anything to add. Christophe Greffe 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi vs German army

Technically more correct description is German army. Nazism was ideology, NSDAP was party (controling the army, among others), and Nazi is usually used for member of the party. Labeling everything with Nazi dillutes the term, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did Arabs leave the new State of Israel?

The vexing question of the "Palestinian Refugees" is one of the perennial open sores of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Tragically, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

There are now claims from Arab sources that millions of Palestinians were pushed off their land by the Zionists, then expelled by the new State of Israel in the War of Independence in 1948, followed by similar Israeli policies that continue today. What is the truth of these claims?

The Palestinian tragedy is primarily self-inflicted, a direct result of the vehement Palestinian Arab rejection of the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947 calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and the violent attempt by the Arab nations of the region to abort the Jewish state at birth. Palestinian Arabs have tried to rewrite the history of the 1948 war in a manner that stains Israel politically and morally. Their objective is to 1) extract from Israel a confession of the allegedly forcible dispossession of "native Palestinians" by "an act of expulsion," and then 2) to ensure the return of refugees to parts of the territory that is now Israel and/or to compensate the Palestinian Arabs monetarily for their sufferings.

But this cannot actually happen, however fervently Arabs may believe in it, because historical fact is not what they claim. Arabs left Israel in 1948 in large numbers, it is true, but not for the reasons that Palestinian Arabs put forth. Fortunately for history, during the past decade Israeli and other state archives have declassified millions of records, including invaluable contemporary Arab and Palestinian documents, relating to the 1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. These make it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Palestine.

A good example is events of the War of Independence period in the city of Haifa. When hostilities between Arabs and Jews broke out in 1947, there were 62,500 Arabs in Haifa; by May 1948, all but a few were gone, accounting for fully a tenth of the total Palestinian dispersion.

The first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of hostilities, and even before the UN’s November 29, 1947 partition resolution. On October 23, over a month earlier, a British intelligence brief was already noting that:

... leading Arab personalities are acting on the assumption that disturbances are near at hand, and have already evacuated their families to neighboring Arab countries. By November 21, as the General Assembly was getting ready to vote, not just "leading Arab personalities" but "many Arabs of Haifa" were reported to be removing their families. And as the violent Arab reaction to the UN resolution built up, eradicating any hope of its peaceful enforcement, this stream of refugees turned into a flood. Thus it was that, by mid-December 1947, some 15,000-20,000 people, almost a third of the city’s Arab population, had fled, creating severe economic adversity for those remaining who found essential services disrupted, causing both unemployment and shortages in basic necessities. As 1948 wore on, looting, infighting between rival Arab groups, and other disturbances made Haifa increasingly uninhabitable. The Arab leaders of Haifa dispatched an emergency delegation to Cairo in late January, warning that, if terrorist activity did not cease, the result would be the eventual disappearance of the entire Haifa community. Their warning had no effect.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out of Haifa, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay. During the fighting in the city in April 1948, The Hagana’s truce terms stipulated that Arabs were expected to "carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa." In its Arabic-language broadcasts and communications, the Hagana consistently articulated the same message. On April 22, at the height of the fighting, it distributed a circular noting its ongoing campaign to clear the town of all "criminal foreign bands" so as to allow the restoration of "peace and security and good neighborly relations among all of the town’s inhabitants." On April 29, even Farid Saad of the National Committee was saying that Jewish leaders had "organized a large propaganda campaign to persuade Arabs to return."

As the Jews were attempting to keep the Arabs in Haifa, an ad-hoc body, the Arab Emergency Committee, under orders from the Arab Higher Committee, was doing its best to get them out. Scaremongering was a major weapon in its arsenal. Some Arab residents received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death. Others were told they could expect no mercy from the Jews. Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Murad of the National Committee, who had headed the truce negotiating team, proved particularly effective at this latter tactic: on April 23, he warned a large group of escapees from the neighborhood of Wadi Nisnas, who were about to return to their homes, that if they did so they would all be killed, as the Jews spared not even women and children. On the other hand, he continued, the Arab Legion had 200 trucks ready to transfer the Haifa refugees to a safe haven, where they would be given free accommodation,clothes, and food. Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner for Palestine, wrote in an official communication to London:

British authorities in Haifa have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it. Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on April 22, 1948 on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected." The following day (April 23, 1948), however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous. The same day, Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."

Palestinian Arabs bemoan "the uprooting of the Palestinian people in one of the worst crimes of modern history." But were they uprooted, and if so by whom? In Haifa, one of the largest and most dramatic locales of the Palestinian exodus, not only had half the Arab community fled the city before the final battle was joined, but another 5,000-15,000 apparently left voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000-25,000 souls, were ordered or bullied into leaving against their wishes, almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee. The crime was exclusively of Arab making. There was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological "blitz." To the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay.

The well-documented efforts, indeed, reflected the wider Jewish attitude in Palestine. All deliberations of the Jewish leadership regarding the transition to statehood were based on the assumption that, in the Jewish state that would arise with the termination of the British Mandate, Palestine’s Arabs would remain as equal citizens. Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state:

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. In the country as a whole, just as in Haifa, the first Arabs to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends. All of those who left fully anticipated being able to return to their homes after an early Arab victory, as Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref explained in his history of the 1948 war:

The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy. The fabrication can probably most easily be seen in that at the time the alleged cruel expulsion of Arabs by Zionists was in progress, it passed unnoticed. Foreign newspapermen who covered the war of 1948 on both sides did, indeed, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that it was not voluntary. In the three months during which the major part of the flight took place -- April, May, and June 1948 -- the London Times, at that time openly hostile to Zionism, published eleven leading articles on the situation in Palestine in addition to extensive news reports and articles. In none was there even a hint of the charge that the Zionists were driving the Arabs from their homes.

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamal Husseini, the Palestine Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, made his long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later -- while the flight was still in progress -- the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Throughout the period that preceded the May 15 invasion of the Arab regular armies, large-scale military engagements, incessant sniping, robberies and bombings took place. In view of the thousands of casualties that resulted from the pre-invasion violence, it is not surprising that many Arabs would have fled out of fear for their lives. The second phase of the Arab flight began after the Jewish forces started to register military victories against Arab irregulars, as in the battles for Tiberias and Haifa. Arab leaders were alarmed by these developments:

On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: "The first of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle." Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages." John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war" (London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948). More than 200,000 Arabs had left the country by the time the provisional government declared the independence of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. When the invasion by Arab armies began the next day, most Arabs remaining in Palestine left for neighboring countries. The Palestinian Arabs chose to flee to the safety of the other Arab states, still confident of being able to return, rather than remaining in Israel to act as a strategically valuable "fifth­column" in the war. A leading Palestinian nationalist of the time, Musa Alami, revealed the attitude of the fleeing Arabs:

The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled. (Middle East Journal, October 1949) As the possibility of Arab defeat turned into reality, the flight of the Arabs increased, exacerbated further by the atrocity stories following the attack on Dir Yassin. More than 300,000 departed after May 15, leaving approximately 160,000 Arabs in the State of Israel. Although most of the Arabs had left by November 1948, there were still those who chose to leave even after hostilities ceased. One survey concluded that sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

The research done by Benny Morris in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is, despite occasional inaccuracies, more detailed and accurate than anything that preceded it. If we consider the facts Morris presents, it is reasonably clear that the flight of much of the Arab population from the territory that became Israel stemmed from battles between Arab and Jewish forces, and from the fears of Arab civilians of getting caught in the fighting. The Zionist leadership, Morris' research shows, correctly understood the danger that the Palestinian Arabs posed to the nascent Jewish state, and therefore did little to prevent their departure, at times encouraging or even precipitating it through political or military actions. In fact, Morris' own research does much to disprove the claims of his recent writings that what happened during the War of Independence was "ethnic cleansing."

The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down. The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country. In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return. Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948):

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile. One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:

The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in. Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down. And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue

Suspected sockpuppet

The sockpuppet you directed me too has a Norway ip. That one edit is the only edit from that internet provider. There are no edits by any registered user. Fred Bauder 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't solve all the problems which affect an entire area of editing through one arbitration case. The problem we were presented with was the problem raised by your behavior. We may not even have solved that problem but that is what we focused on. Fred Bauder 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Extensive research shows no use of sockpuppets by Zero0000. Fred Bauder 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical arrogance

This story earlier in the week about the words of Weissglas illustrated the type of arrogance of power I may have told you about in the past, and today a Haaretz writer had the same reaction. here. Ramallite 15:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the text you linked to, and I could see absolutely no arrogance or even any mention of using power whatsoever. But the entire article seems to be written wrong way, so I perfectly understand why you are agitated! -- Heptor _talk doesn't understand a word i Hebrew on 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Arbitration case

I see the relative severity of the behavioural issues differently than you do, and in my opinion your posts to my page are further examples of the issue. In order to edit successfully on Misplaced Pages, one must be able to interact in a civil way. It's actually policy. Jayjg 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're talking about being "banned"; the case does not include any remedies which would ban you from Misplaced Pages, merely from two specific articles. Jayjg 20:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish you could consider me your friend and supporter. I want you to edit here, just use better sources and let other viewpoints be fairly expressed. But you need to quit fussing and imagining everyone is biased against you, most of us are not. Fred Bauder 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting on the content of articles is not practical. You have to be intensely involved in editing an article to be able to judge it in that way. Fred Bauder 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

So the Jews started to enforce the decision on the ground is a 'clear lie', but then you replaced it with the Arabs started to attack Jews. Both are POV. You should either have a source for these kinds of statements, or remove them both. Please try to NPOV the section, historical evidence would be most welcome. Ramallite 16:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Per policy, you cannot use another Misplaced Pages page as a source for this Misplaced Pages page. Also, NPOV may mean providing different POV, but each POV has to be presented neutrally. So saying "Jews attacked Arabs and Arabs attacked Jews" include both POVs, but it is not presented neutrally. Ramallite 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Zeq, could you please discuss your reversion in talk page? You insist on reversing changes made in order to avoid redundancies. So why should'nt we revert you? Regards, Tazmaniacs 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I respond to all your posts in talk page; the same can't be said of you. Discussion is carried on overthere. There is no reason to revert to before today's changes, because all of these changes did not change the content, only created a subsection (you wisely did it) and placed other contents in appropriate subsections. You very well know that if you start speaking about things concerning the January elections, then you're bringing up everything concerning them, not only the statements which interest you. Tazmaniacs 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Talk:Amin al-Husayni

Mediation has started; please join us and have your say. --Cyde Weys 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Hi. Please read more closely. The passage reads: Hamas is best known throughout the world for its military wing, which has carried out suicide and other homicidal attacks against Israeli civilians and military targets. Thanks. El_C 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

I am trying to understand the proposed decision .

Is it acce[ptable or not to:

"It is unacceptable to remove relevant material from an article if its source is a scholarly work by an authority in the field."

If it is acceptable , under what conditions ?

In the normal course of editing other relevant material might be substituted, or the material might be removed in put in a more detailed subtopic, or the article might be reorganized in a way which makes the material no longer relevant. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is not acceptable, does it mean that ANY amount of such material should never be removed ?

Of course not, any number of reasons may arise. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How does this new rule in relation to NPOV ?

Not a new rule, it is an application of NPOV. Material which is needed to fairly represent a significant point of view should not be removed. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

These are all serious questions as I am trying to understand what are the "terms" of my probation and what excatly did I do wrong (in hope not to return it).

What you did wrong is twofold, removing well sourced information and adding information from propagandistic sources. Fred Bauder 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Article

Thanks for the link. Cheers, Pecher 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Just to let you know, your edit was reverted (again) by Zero on the basis that Arutz Sheva is not a respectable source. I am now arguing with him about it, please have a look. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: adminship

Thanks but I am not interested. Details on . Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The edits I saw showed large-scale changes, not just the small one you mentioned. Jayjg 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

תודה.

אולי הוא יהודי אבל אני לא חושב ישראלי... Ramallite 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Said

Thanks for the link. See also the link to which criticism of "Orientalism" is sourced on the article itself, especially the quote from Bernard Lewis. Pecher 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

email

I am afraid I can't send you an e-mail through Misplaced Pages at the moment. It says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Have you confirmed your email address in Misplaced Pages? I had to do just that only a few days ago to make it work again, so I thought maybe that's the problem? -- Karl Meier 20:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's working again. I have just send you an e-mail. -- Karl Meier 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, can you look at these votes for deletion:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Vedic studies
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Christianity scholars

Cheers, Pecher 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Queeran

Hi Zeq. We are in agreement here. I reverted because I also thought he made it worse. ←Humus sapiens 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for believing in me, but I don't feel like it right now. ←Humus sapiens 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Misquote?

Dear Zeq.

First I do not understand what you business is in reverting and deleting sources without participating in the talk. Please dont accuse me for not participating in talk and threaten me with ArbCom, when the talk page clearly displays that I try to reach a discussion about your constant reverts, and you have not replied one single time. US and EU have threatened to withdraw their aid to PNA if the new government does no accept the three conditions, EU has afterwards decided to fund the PNA anyway. I have not heard about Russian and UN agreeing on freezing the funds. If this is the case please provide a source before you re-enter it. Bertilvidet 09:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hi - questions for you here. Thanks. Ramallite 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said

How? If you read most of his writings, he always campaigned for Palestinian 'rights'. I don't see how it is POV to say that somebody was an advocate of Palestinian rights. It is POV to say that somebody MUST advocate for Palestinian rights, or something like that. But to simply describe what Said was, in his own words, I don't see how that is POV. Can you explain to me how? This is nothing political, it is simply describing the work and ideals of the man. Pecher (and maybe you?) seems to disagree that what Said called 'Palestinian rights' are not necessarily 'rights', but the definition of 'rights' is not what is important in the description of the man, that is for another category, I think. Ramallite 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Dear Zeq, I would like to point out that I have nominated the Hamas article fro Article Improvement Drive, as I believe the article can be much more clear and comprehensive if an effort is done. I assume that you, despite previous disagreements, will agree with me on the need for improving the article. So please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Article_Improvement_Drive#Hamas. Bertilvidet 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Video

Thanks. She is a great woman. Pecher 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I think you made a good point in Al-Husayni. ←Humus sapiens 10:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors etc.

Yes, that was the banned editor Alberuni. Thanks for letting me know. Regarding the other information you put on my talk page, did you want me to get involved in mediating on that page? If so, that was a confusing and rather aggressive way of doing so. Why don't you just politely ask (i.e. not demand) that I do so now? I'm sure that would work well. Jayjg 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFM

Please re-read the information on the RfM page: Any request that includes additional information, particularly commentary, will have the additional information removed. Parties should adhere to the format strictly. In most situations, improperly formatted requests are simply rejected and delisted; I was being lenient in simply removing the incorrectly formatted entries. Please familiarize yourself with the procedure for making requests before doing so; I don't appreciate being accused of incivility when it is you who failed to familiarize yourself with procedure and you who failed take notice of the repeated boldtype notices on the page clearly stating that improperly formatted text would be removed. Any further non-complaint requests will be rejected with prejudice. Essjay 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, mediation would certainly be better than another round of arbitration. I don't get this reject a mediation case with prejudice. Fred Bauder 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which article

Which article would you like me to help mediate, 1948 Arab-Israeli War or Nakba? Jayjg 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the issue, frankly, is that it is very difficult to work with you. Nevertheless, I'm going to try to help you out as best I can, because it seems to me that there is at least some merit in some of your complaints, and that people dismiss them entirely solely because of the way you interact with them. Jayjg 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

hello

Please try to email me again. I have enabled it now. Sorry for the late reply, I rarely log in into Misplaced Pages. Or I try to email you later. Regards, --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I got your email, but there was no text. If you want to write me something, please do so. You can also contact me on my talkpage. Just remember that I rarely log in into wikipedia, and it might take some while until I read your message. Regards, --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

69.40.27.200

Not sure it is him yet; will keep an eye open. Jayjg 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Why won't you just report Zero for 3RR violation? Pecher 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Opinion of checkpoints

Yes, that was my mistake, I meant it was irrelevant to the lead. It has now been clarified, thanks for pointing it out. -- Y Ynhockey Y 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch again

Why did you remove criticism from the intro in your latest edit? Pecher 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nakba" page

The response I have gotten indicates that you can edit the Talk: page, but that if you become disruptive there you can be banned from it, as per the ArbCom ruling. Jayjg 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

Fred, can you ask ArbCom to clarify if this book can or can not be used as source ? Thanks. Zeq 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, I think you should consider that it is a book published by a nation that is at war and can be expected to reflect that reality. That does not mean everything in it is false, just that it strongly represents a purposeful point of view. It should be cited with care. I would independently verify the information in it if I were you. By the way, as this book is quite inexpensive I have ordered it and will have it in a couple of weeks so that our conversation regarding it can be of a more particular nature. Fred Bauder 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good morning, Zeq, and Thank you ;-D

for: Regards, Huldra 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC) PS: (& hope it is not as "#&%$&# cold in Israel as it is up here ;-( ´cuse my language)

Shut up, shut up, SHUT UP!!! I suddenly felt like getting violent, hitting you on the head.... I hate you!!! (....and anybody else who is anywhere where the temperature is above freezing point...;-( Huldra 08:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(PS: I´m an old diver: diving in a wet-suite in Scandinavia ..in the winter ...has given me countless frostbites (I think that is the English word )...now my "nerve-ends" go numb (and hurt!) whenever it is cold: typical for all "old divers" up here. I sleep with woolen socks, even in Dahab in the summer...

Thanks, but after having spend $$$$ over the years (to no great help) I have (mostly!) learned to live with it (exept on some frosty March mornings..) The best advise is what they give on Raynaud's disease: "keep warm by wearing gloves and socks."

It is extremely common around here (among "old" divers); some have what we call "banana fingers" (fingers swell and become like bananas or cucumbers as soon as it gets a little cold)..I´m not so bothered by that (I always protected my fingers/hands reasonably well...but my feet....my feet/toes seemed so, well, unimportant back then... ) (Good Lord, what an idiot I was (in fact: we all were, but that knowledge doesn´t help)). I think that more (far more) than 50% of my old diving-buddies have similar problems. (We are "The Cold feet Club") Recently the doctors in charge of the Navys Diving here have starting working for greater awareness of the problem (10-20-30 years too late, but better late than never, etc..). I cannot count the number of 2.degree frostbite (thats what we called it) I have had. Now it has stabelized: but I can never dive in Scandinavia again. Dahab, however...;-) and Ras Mohammed ooohhhh...... Huldra 10:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) PS: ahem, BTW: isn´t KindHearts a Misplaced Pages:Copyrights violation?

Thanks, I´ll keep it in mind, (though my belief is slim, I`m afraid..) Also: feel free to remove any of my (frozen) comments above: ahem; I guess threatning to hit somebody could be seen as personal attack ;-D

...Anyway: on another note: I have looked quite carefully on all your additions to Israeli Arabs#Participation of Israeli Arabs in terror acts against Israeli citizens: do you know what? With the exception of the first (=the suicide bomber) my own father did equally "bad", and some far, far worse things that any of the events mentioned... people like him were called "terrorist", at least until May 1945, when they officially became "Resistance fighter" over night. Think about it. Regards, Huldra 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC), the daughter of a terrorist.

Good show

Like I said, it will be a good show. Of course, now there are many Palestinian criminals (rapists, murderers) who probably escaped from the Jericho prison because the army didn't care about them running away. And the overall effect is that the US and UK reputation is in the trash can, Olmert's poll numbers will go from 38 to 43%, Palestinians just have more rubble, destruction, and dead people (pretty standard), and the security of Israelis is enhanced by zero percent. Actually, I enjoyed reading this headline:פרץ בירך הממשלה על הפעולה; נתניהו רק את צה"ל Good old Bibi - who ordered the army? Anyway, all this for Ze'evi? You guys must really have liked him a lot!! In fact, just yesterday an article came out about how his dream of kicking Palestinians out is coming true: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=694026&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 Ramallite 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of getting this in English? -- Heptor _talk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Heptor: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/693728.html Ramallite 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

National pride huh? Did somebody win the Olympic gold medal for stupidity? It's not like they caught a fugitive - the guy woke up in UK custody, he wasn't hiding in a cave - so it's a day of national pride because Israel got a wanted man handed to them by the UK? Anyway, this kidnapping thing in Gaza is BS - unemployed young men acting like gangsters - they should all be castrated. But it's evidence of a broken society - economic condition is the key to everything. Horrible economy plus humiliation leads to things like this. What made me really angry is all those Palestinians being paraded in front of international cameras almost naked - typical Israeli army humiliation tactic and therefore a stupid move. So anyway, as far as rioting goes, hopefully these idiots will stop this stupidity - they even attacked the HSBC Bank branch in Ramallah because it is British-owned, even though all its employees are local Palestinians, even the director. At least when a foreigner gets kidnapped in Gaza, it's nothing more than a few hours inconvenience for the kidnapped person before they are let free, as opposed to getting kidnapped in Iraq, where it's an entirely different outcome. Ramallite 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if everything were just black or white.....

There is a very interesting debate about this: Norwegian heavy water sabotage#Aftermath: although the article here is not very clear on the issue (and the film is a falcification on this point): the point is: the sabotours knew that there would be civilians, ordinary passengers (not collaborators), on board, and that they would be killed, too (Even if they survived the blast: you simply don´t survive long in a mountain lake, that time of the year). (I think it was about 12 Norwegian civilians who were killed..it is some time since I read about it) So the question is: did they do the right thing planting the bomb there?? Were those people terrorist, or resistance fighters? (I can tell you my thoughts about that, later), I really would like to hear your thoughts about it. Regards, Huldra 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (I could of course also mention something about dropping a 1 ton bomb over Gaza, in order to kill one Hamas leader, killing, oh, what was it, 14(?) more, but I will let that rest for now..)

Oh, the Nazis weren´t hiding or using civilians as shield in this case: there was only one ferry they could take, and that ferry happen to be also a normal commercial ferry, carrying civilians. But from your reply I take it that the people who did it were not "terrorist"? (in your view, as their main objective was a military one). But then I have to ask: that one Israeli Arab suicide bomber: from what I have read (somewhere) he targeted soldiers? (I think) (I´m not 100% sure here)-but if he did: then that would be legitimate? Regards, Huldra

--Just a few final words: starting a heading (about an incident I do not know about) with the words: "Arab Lies" makes me think: what would you have said if somebody had started a heading with the words: "Jewish Lies"?

Also, about the link under "Why not?" Really, Zeq; if you want to spend your time reading garbage on the internet, well, you are of course free to do so. I try to spend my time differently.

--I´m always interested in discussing what -broadly- can be called moral philosophy. The things you call "simple" are simply not so simple in my mind. Take Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: I assume we both can agree that he would be a "valid" "military target". However, how many other (innocent) people can you morally justify killing in hunting him down? The way you put it, it sounds as if it is totally irrelevant as to how many innocents "bystanders" are killed, as long as the "target" is legitimate.(..and you "minimize casualities", whatever that means.). In its ultimate consequence: can you justify dropping an atombomb on a town where you know Zarqawi is hiding.....? -if there is no other way to destroy "the military target"? (I hope you will agree with me that that would be an "overkill", quite literally....) But I repeat: how many (innocent) people can you morally justify killing (or risk killing/hurting) in hunting dow a "valid" target? The words about "minimizing casualities" sounds very pretty, but really doesn´t tell me anything substantial.

--Lastly, just for the record, regarding WWII: it doesn´t really matter what you or I or the Geneva convention thinks about what terrorism is or not. What matter (or rather: what mattered back then) is what the "rulers" of that time defined as terrorism. And the nazi regime defined all non-military opposition/acts as "terrorist" or "criminal". And, btw, this opposition (almost) always targeted occupation (military) forces, one simple reason for this was that there were no civilians to target! (No immigration of German settelers..) The only exception that comes to mind were nazi informers: i.e. local civilians who collaborated with the occupation forces; often by joining a resistance group, and then informing on them to the nazi forces, often with devastating consequences. Now, would such an informer be a military or civilian target in your view?

--Anyway, I don´t know if I will spend much more time on this (It is much more fun to write articles...), however, I just wanted to point out that things that seem so clear-cut on paper isn´t always clear-cut to me. Regards, Huldra 12:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ps: I only use Zarqawi as an example; you might substitute him with any "military target" you like. And certainly: I agree with you about not using the nazi as a yard-stick; the point I try to make is that for the people in a given situation it doesn´t matter one bit what you or I think; the only thing that counts is what the people in charge thinks. Regards, Huldra 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish Times

Hi Zeq, you asked about this edit. I agree that the Irish Times point could be included, but it's inappropriate for the intro, unless you have a source showing that the special unit you mentioned exists and that it was created because of Machsom Watch. The second quote, from the Guardian, doesn't belong in the article at all because it isn't about Machsom Watch. Cheers, SlimVirgin 15:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NOR and V

Thanks for your note. If you want to question the policies, the places to do it are on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. I agree that the policies should be applied evenly throughout the encyclopedia, but if we find it being done badly in one place, it doesn't mean we do it badly in another in order to achieve consistency. ;-) If you find people evaluating mainstream published sources in other articles, refer them to the NOR and V policies, because they are not supposed to do it. SlimVirgin 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiqaqi Poll

Thanks for the link - I think it does indeed reflect the mood, because Hamas voters wanted two thing: no more corruption, and no more bullshit on peace. It's also what I call the 'Sharon Syndrome', Sharon inspired Palestinians to elect right wingers because they saw how popular a right winger (and in their eyes a terrorist) became for Israelis and also the world. So it looked like only strong right wingers can make peace. The majority who voted for Hamas want peace with Israel in my opinion and now also as this poll shows - but a strong peace not based on BS. But I don't think Hamas will follow the 'Road Map' as the article says (and why do you guys call it road MAPS? I thought there is only one map - or do you like to go in many directions?) The Road Map does not contain a basic requirement for Hamas: that Israel recognize the rights of the Palestinians to exist and for self-determination. That is also why Hamas will refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, because they feel that the recognition has to be mutual. The Oslo years was a result of Arafat and his gang recognizing Israel's right to exist in return for Israel recognizing the PLO as a negotiating partner - which is not the same as Palestinian rights to self-determination. Hamas wants to make the recognition mutual. Plus, I think they will be extremely stupid to do any more attacks of any kind. We'll see. In the meantime, I think there are a few more prisons the IDF hasn't destroyed yet (in Bethlehem and Hebron), so if you guys are in the mood to lift Olmert's numbers a bit higher, or just bored, there are a few prisons ready and waiting ;) Ramallite 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - that's what I meant - 'many roads' not 'many maps'. I don't recall the Israelis ever recognizing Palestinians' right to self determination - they recently talk about a state but that's not the same thing since you can take a piece of land, close all the borders and control the air space and decide to call that a 'state'. But there has never been an Israeli recognition of Palestinian rights (of course the Palestinians have not always behaved like they deserve such rights especially after the PLO was taking advice from stupid Arab leaders, but on the other hand self determination is a human right supposedly guaranteed to every human being). Do you remember when Israel made such a recognition?

That's exactly my point - they are pushing for a Palestinian state, but without recognition of Palestinian right to self-determination, what kind of state will it be? It is well known that they do not intend it to be a fully sovereign state, but the idea is to have some kind of limited entity, and afterwards they can call it a 'state' or a 'box' or whatever you want - at least that's what the thinking has been for some time (i.e. it doesn't matter what you call it as long as it suits Israel's demands). Calling for a 'state' is not the same as recognizing the right to sovereignty, especially with the ex-Likidniks' definition of a 'state'. Ramallite 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

Zeq, I haven't "dismissed myself" from this promise, I'm just not aware of any outstanding POV issues. Again, if you could describe specific sentences or paragraphs which you think are POV, and propose alternatives, that would be fine; however, you seem unable to do that. The chance of the article being deleted is nil, particularly as there is no proposed replacement ready. You can add it to WP:AFD if you wish. I did suggest that you write a new article and propose it, but I haven't seen any results yet on that front. Are you nearly finished? Jayjg 20:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts

I have received this and have been reading it. It is a powerful book. Fact based but with a very strong Israeli point of view. Fred Bauder 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding right to exist, nobody, whatever the excuse, has the right to take over a country that other people already live in. However, an established state, explicitly established by the United Nations in a League of Nations Mandate, recognized by most other states, has a clear right to exist. While that may seem contradictory I am quite comfortable with it. Once a mass movement began to settle Palestine, there was little choice but to proceed and make the best of it. Likewise we must move forward and make every effort to facilitate a mutually advantageous peace. Most of the movement has to come from the Muslim side and its going to be a very long process. When you see Jews living peacefully in Mecca, as they once did, we'll know peace is at hand. Fred Bauder 16:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Better Writing and Original Research

First of all let me say that I have not (yet?) personally reviewed the sources given in the paragraph, and simply relied on the more coherent piece. You must understand that, while WP:NOR is a very important policy, so are the guidelines on Misplaced Pages readability. It's better to have a properly written paragraph with 90% verifiable info and 10% original research (assuming it's logical and not ludicrous, which is the case now), than to have a completely verifiable and incoherent article.

Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle your arguments, because I agree with you about the sourcing, but much of what you write is not just poorly written, but completely impossible to understand for an English speaker. Don't forget that this is the English Misplaced Pages, it is not meant to accomodate users with poor English (maybe try the Simple English Wiki for that). If your new paragraph was even a little understandable (for a reader such as myself who did not read the source), I would've edited it for better English.

My current suggestion to you is say what you think should be in the article on the talk page, and then other editors can convert it to proper text in the article. I'll see to it that anti-Israel editors (won't name names...) don't vandalize what you insert (as long as it's properly sourced, etc.) However, I'm quite surprised you're not fluent in English if you work with/for the UN.

On a side note, you might want to archive old discussions on your talk page.

-- Y Ynhockey Y 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually even policies should always come hand in hand with common sense. The primary goal of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia - many encyclopedias may insert bits of loosely based data, but you will never see an encyclopedia that's practically impossible to understand. Taken from Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines:

Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ... A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions.

Basically this says that a policy is the same as a guideline only it must be enforced as opposed to less official guidelines (not set in stone). However, it clearly states that exceptions can be made in both cases. Common sense and public concensus are a good guide to decide that.

-- Y Ynhockey Y 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

He seems to have stopped editing 2 hours ago. Jayjg 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

I'm a bit myustified by your last edit summary. The only thing we can certainly say about the checkpoints is that they control movement of Palestinians. That may be for one reason or another, but it is their purpose and is manifestly precisely what they do and not a side-effect. Are the checkpoints within the West Bank really meant to stop "Palestinian terrorists" entering Israel? Palmiro | Talk 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Arab transference from Israel

Please take a look at Talk:Israeli Arab transference from Israel (and the article itself), basically Lokiloki, the article's author, asserts that Liberman's current political agenda is to forcibly transfer Israeli Arabs from Acre, Sakhnin, etc. to the Palestinian Authority. Now, we all know Liberman doesn't love Arabs, but with all fairness, he has abandoned that campaign for a more moderate approach a long time ago. The 5 or 6 sources used to support this claim are also questionable, as they are all opinion pieces, and there was even an article written by Uri Avneri (the archrival of Arutz 7, so to say). -- Y Ynhockey Y 10:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 4RRs

I believe you have made 4 reverts on Israeli Arabs: it is probably in your best interest to back off for a bit. Lokiloki 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

reading for anybody interested in events in 1948

I tried to edit Ben Dunkelman and was at once reverted by "our twins" Slim&Jay. I therefore copied the source into: User:Huldra\Newstuff. I don´t know if you are familiar with the quotes (or the book). I find the quotes quite interesting. I´m particularely touched by Rabin´s: "Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action". Ah, my heart bleeds. Regards, Huldra 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I haven´t had time to edit it into the articles yet; must log out now.

Lieberman

Please look at the subsequent version of the section I created, before you made your comment. I believe you will agree it is entirely factual. Jayjg 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Zeq, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

Hi Zeq, This is regarding the dhimmi, jizya and rules of war in islam articles. I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at Thanks --Aminz 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page. Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comment. I have replied to it on the mediation page. By the way, Thanks you for your help on the mediation page and on the articles.--Aminz 06:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Komemeiut

As far as I know "Komemeiut" means "erect" or "upright". Jayjg 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Link

Thanks for the link. I expected that something like that would be unearthed one day or another. Pecher 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The mediation

Hi Zeq, I agree that we can not say that the mediation has failed for sure, but I think my suggestion, assuming the committee is well chosen, is fair and does not stop anybody to edit the article at a deeper level. Can you please post your opinion on the mediation page. thx --Aminz 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamam

lo harbe - thanks for the link. These things happen a lot, there was a bunch of Palestinians stuck on the Libyan/Egyptian border for a while a few years ago (they might still be there, I don't know what happened to them after Qaddafi kicked them out). I hope this goes to show that, no matter what Israelis think, the Jordanians are not our 'brethren'. This is an example of why I can't stand it when people think of all 'Arabs' as one people. The unfortunate thing is that these people are trying to get into Jordan because they have nowhere else to go, but Jordan is probably a worse place than Iraq to live. Yesterday I heard that Syria has agreed to let them in, but that's just an announcement. I doubt if the government will actually carry out their promise, but we'll see. Ramallite 15:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to await other's comments. If I still hear complaints of POV, perhaps something can be done. I used words like "small" as you indicated in the FAC because I didn't want it to sound like one can step into any mosque and just hear condonements of bombings and terrorism, as that clearly is not true. joturner 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Zeq, I've reverted your edit because the information you put in is already n the article, twice, by my glancing quickly. Try not to lace articles about which you hold a atrong opinion with your own slant on things, or repeat the same sentiments over and over. It potentially violates WP:NPOV, even if I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. - CobaltBlueTony 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Zeq, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens 03:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Hello Zeq. Please, have a look at my comments on the talk's page of Palestinian exodus. I remember several times you wrote that "too much place was given to Morris theory". Please, have in mind absolutely NO PLACE is given to Morris theory in the palestinian exodus article. Just place for "some parts" of it ;-). Unfortunately I will not take the time to fight on the English wikipedia and only, step by step, correct the French one to introduce there the real NPOV wikipedia's policy. Alithien 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Zeq, you should know by now that blogs are not reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. If you are going to continue to edit you could consider working with another editor until your English reaches encyclopedic standard. Heptor's English has improved enormously since he has been working on the project and perhaps he could help. --Ian Pitchford 09:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you've re-written Nakba Day again in pidgin English with multiple misspellings. Nakba Day is 15 May, not Israel's independence day and it began in 1998, not 1988 as the sources verify, i.e., good sources published in English. Please reverse these changes. --Ian Pitchford 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be written in encyclopedic English and use good sources. If you don't understand the basic errors then ask someone for help, or at the very least use a spell-checker. At the moment it reads like pidgin English. Just complaining wont do. With regard to the facts: Nakba Day is on 15 May, Israeli independence day isn't (and as you've already pointed out this year it's on 3 May) and also independence was declared on 14 May not 15 May. Israel was never granted independence from the UK anyway. --Ian Pitchford 17:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the links you've added to this article: says that Nakba day is on 15 May, which is not Israel's Independence Day. says it marks "the formation of Israel on May 15, 1948. The Israeli government website points out that 14 May is independence day. Nakba Day isn't Israeli Independence Day. --Ian Pitchford 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that 14 May is 15 May just wont fly. --Ian Pitchford 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These sources you are adding confirm you are wrong in claiming that Nakba Day is on the same day as Israeli Independence Day. Haaretz says:

Every 19 years, the dates on the Jewish and Gregorian calendars line up. This year, as Israel celebrates 57 years since the founding of the state (three multiplied by 19), it happens again on Independence Day. The fifth of the Hebrew month of Iyar falls this year on May 14, the Jewish and Gregorian dates on which the State of Israel was declared, though ironically, Independence Day celebrations were brought forward to tomorrow because the holiday would otherwise fall on Shabbat. The following day, May 15, markes the official end of the British Mandate in Palestine and the date the Arab armies invaded. This is the day that the Palestinians and Arabs mark as Nakba Day, "The Catastrophe."

Bahrain news says: ""Every year in May, Palestinians commemorate their forced displacement And dispossession (al-Nakba, the catastrophe) resulting from the establishment of the state of Israel" (i.e., 15 May and not 14 May). --Ian Pitchford 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Fateh

Hi Zek! I am pleased to see that you finally interested yourself in this propaganda TV set up by Hamas. However, in all honesty, while understanding your legitimate concerns (which I share with you), I would also like you to think about another concern: do you really think making an article to deal for this TV is an efficient way to denounce this intolerable propaganda? You may be right, in which case I support you. But you may also be wrong: let me explain myself. You surely remember dada: before Andy Warhol (was it him? anyway), they used to say: "people that like dada speak about dada, people that don't like dada speak about dada, both ways everybody is talking about dada!". I'm sure you understand this concern of mine. Think that people who will have access to this article will probably be, like both of us (and despite eventual other political differences) opponents of Hamas - in which case I believe it is enough to state the existence of this TV (which I have done since February in the "Others" section of Hamas, if you remember) in the Hamas article; or they are admirers of Hamas, whatever their reasons, and this anti-propaganda will probably have, at best, no effects on them, at worse, counter-productive effects. I may be wrong, but I hope you do give a minute to think about this issue. Creating an article is giving it importance; do we really want to? Best regards, Tazmaniacs 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Zero0000 who usually object my edits have blocked me. In His reason he claim that I have delibertly posted details about his real-life identity. I have done no such thing. The accusation is rediculus as I did not delibertly done any such thing. Zeq 19:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, would you e-mail me please with the diffs where you allegedly posted personal details? Do not post the diffs or repeat any of the information here. Please e-mail them so I can evaluate the block. Cheers, SlimVirgin 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to block you indefinitely, and I've had no response from Zero, so I've unblocked you. I did find a reference to some recent activities that you posted, so perhaps that's what he was referring to. In future, please don't post any details about a user's personal life without his permission, as it's regarded as a blockable offense, and in some circumstances, users can be blocked indefinitely. Cheers, SlimVirgin 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed someone would unblock you and I won't reinstate it. However, if you violate my privacy again I will not only block you but start an arbitration case against you. --Zero 06:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

You asked me to e-mail you, but I do not know where to find your e-mail address. I have never sent or received e-mail from anyone on Misplaced Pages before. 6SJ7 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Nakba Day

Under your probation in the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, I'm banning you from editing Nakba Day, for tendentious editing, particularly removing well-sourced information from the article . --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban. Meanwhile I am rescinding it because you have raised several legitimate points that case doubt on my original decision. I'll remove the ban notice and place an update on all relevant notices. If you really need to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish

I called it rubbish, not trash, but now that you mention it trash would be a fine description too. Like most of your edits. --Zero 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on your user page

I notice that you have a colored box on your user page that says " This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox."

This is a personal attack on another Wikipedian, and an unacceptable use of your user page. Please remove that text. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who do see is being attacked by that user box ? Zeq 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde is being attacked. It's an expression of personal animosity by you towards Cyde, and would tend to promote animosity towards him on the part of others. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Cyde himself who put that userbox on the pages of people who supported him, as a joke? Sorry for butting in here, but it looks like wires are crossed. Palmiro | Talk 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was Cyde who put it. Zeq 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I made that userbox myself  :-P It was my RfA thanks. Over 130 people got it. And it's not really a "userbox" per se as it isn't templatized; it's just a bit of code on someone's userpage. Zeq, if you wish to restore it, of course you can. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've apologised to Zeq elsewhere and happily repeat that here. I completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of that userbox and this led me to the conclusion that in naming you he was attacking you. ---Tony Sidaway 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note on English usage

Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which put a seal on the so-called 3-month-Hudna announced on July 2003.

"ended" would be much more understandable in English than "put a seal" Fred Bauder 12:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nakba issues

Hi Zeq

As you can see, my talk page is very busy, and I'm involved in a huge number of other issues. I don't have a lot of time, so I'm trying to apportion it, and I do like to spend some of my time actually writing or adding to articles, rather than being involved in or mediating disputes. If I can I will take a look at the issue on Nakba. Jayjg 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem

-- Karl Meier 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad news. They have blanked the page, and mentioned copyvio as the reason. I am not an expert regarding copyright issues, and I have posted some questions re this on the Wikisource admins talk page here:

http://en.wikisource.org/User_talk:Shanel -- Karl Meier 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious Freedom in Saudia

We already have Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia and I encourage you to add information to it. It's not really appropriate to have an article sourced entirely from a document that reflects the POV of the United States government.

By the way, maybe you should archive your talk page... Gazpacho 06:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To merge an article, add the information to another article. You should not simply cut and paste the whole text; try to keep the other article readable and do not add information that is already there. When you are done, redirect the old article.

Australian Federation of Islamic Councils

Not a problem Zeq - pleasure to help Peripitus 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood 7000 - Robin Hood 1212

They certainly look similar, but CheckUser wouldn't help in this case. Jayjg 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regards

Just a note of appreciation for your calmness and patience this week. I know you got very angry at first and assumed I was deliberately abusing my powers. But you gave me the benefit of the doubt and worked to convince me that I had made a misjudgement. Thanks for that. It's great to meet a true Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The memorial

The newspaper link about separation of names on the memorial belongs in Haredi Judaism, but needs to be handled sensitively. That article currently contains no information about this internal Israeli problem, at least not as it is framed in the Haaretz article. Fred Bauder 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Zeq –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Hi, I posted a defense of the article True Torah Jews, I would like to ask you to be so kind and read it, and than rethink your position on deletion.

Bloger 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Thanks, I know it. Pecher 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to inquiry

Probably does not belong in the introduction. Additionally, there is no showing that Amin al-Husayni was involved in Nazi efforts to recruit Palestinian Arabs to attack Jews. Fred Bauder 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That he was an associate of the Nazis during World War II establishes him as an anti-semite. Fred Bauder 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)