Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Husseini & Riots

ZERO thinks maybe Haj Amin el Husseini did not lead the riots of the 20's and 30's. However, I can find articles on history like this one (with Bibliography and Notes) which say that he did?

http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/bh4145.php

"The Mufti instigated and organized Muslim riots against Palestinian Jews in 1920,1921,1929,and 1936,which resulted in hundreds of deaths."--from the article written by Carl K. Savich.

Savich is a graduate student in the History Department at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He received his BA from the University of Michigan. He has been a contributor to Ancient Serbia (Stara Srbija), The Voice of Ravanica, Liberty (Sloboda), The American Srbobran, The Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, The Macomb Daily, Foreign Policy, and The Oakland Post. He has a journalistic, academic, and legal background and is currently on the staffs of Liberty (Sloboda) and The Oakland Post newspapers, of which he is an editor. His areas of interest and expertise are history, political science, and law.

I never heard of Savich. I based my opinion (less black-and-white than summarised here) on the evidence given at the official enquiry after the 1929 riots, including the response made by the Jewish Agency to the enquiry report, all of which I have read. Evidently Savich has not. On the matter of incitement, the Mufti was blamed for contributing to the general atmosphere but the conclusion was that "no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement." As for the charge of leading the riots, the evidence is the opposite: "After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder." A better case can be made for the Mufti's leadership in the 1936-1939 revolt. --Zero 01:40, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Rather than declare "all of which I have read. Evidently Savich has not." perhaps you may with to read Savich's work and bring quotes from the British Enquiry. Already the British had sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment for his role in the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920. Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner and a Jew, dropped the charges against Amin al-Husayni and appointed him the grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, thereby positioning the Mufti to continue his previous activities. Zero0000, citations please. Others would like to read the source material you quote from as well. OneVoice 15:40, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I brought quotes from the enquiry report already. They are in italics above and were copied by me directly from the conclusions section of the report. Since you are wondering if this enquiry whitewashed the Arab role, here are some more extracts from the conclusions section: "The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established. The outbreak was not premeditated. [The disturbances] took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property. A general massacre of the Jewish community at Hebron was narrowly averted." --Zero 11:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Mufti and the disturbances in the 20s and 30s

My thoughts:

1. The 1929 riots, it seems, were rather spontaneous. Less an organized thing than a spontaneous spurt of violence, somewhat like the pogroms of the Middle Ages.

2. The 1936-39 riots, on the other hand, seem to have been a very organized and directed campaign. Chances are, the Mufti and the Arab High Committee were behind them, aided and abetted by the Germans. (No evidence on the German bit, but it seems likely.) In fact, I would go so far as to say the situation was stirred up by the Germans in the beginning, with the Mufti as a Nazi puppet. -Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Split this page

Wikipedia is giving me warnings about the size, calling it at least 64k. We should probably split the page into 3, archiving the first. -Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Article overall

IMHO, it looks decent.

Re van Crevald's book: It actually stops with the late 80s, not the late 90s.

-Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One Voice, who are you kidding? Do you know the history of the Notrim, HaShomer, and other self-defense organizations that emerged during Ottoman times? Danny 13:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Danny, I do know the names. Faisal was an established Arab authority. Would you characterize the actions taken prior as Arab policy (which authority) or as brigandtry by individuals and groups. How do we include both aspects in the historical overview. It currently is a black-and-white depiction of a multi-shaded history. OneVoice 13:53, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He was a foreigner from the Hejaz. The fact that he was appointed by the British to be king of Syria and then Iraq does not make him a legitimate spokesperson for the falahin who actually lived in Palestine, any more than the feudal landowners in Damascus and Beirut could legitimately sell their "tenants" land. Danny 14:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are at least two issues here. The easier one is ownership. Ownership is either established by force or in civilized societies by legal means. Ownership allows one to use, rent, or sell ones possession. The renters do not have to agree. It may not be fair, moral or preferable, but it is legal. The opinion, desires etc of the tenants does not have legal standing. If you are arguing for abrogation of the legal system, that would be a different matter.

The other issue is the status of Faisal as a leader vis a vis other Arabs. This is certainly a more difficult issue and one that plagues Arab states to this day...the lack of representative government that works for the population as is common in the West. A much more involved issue. OneVoice 15:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A very minor point. The article appears not to be grammatically correct in some respects, e.g., "Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war" -- Why isn't it "houses"? P0M

Don't complain here about trivia. Just go and fix them! --Zero 01:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arab POV

"Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war, as Israel intended to expand its territory beyond that mandated by the U.N" -- Let me see if I get this right:

1. Have or have not the Arabs reject the UN 1947 partition plan? Have or have not Israel accepted it?
2. So, the Arab nations knew the Israel's intention to expand. Naturally, their five armies preemptively invaded to prevent those nasty Zionists' expansion? Correct?
3. And despite of the above and their openly genocidal rhetoric, we prefer to call this a "defensive war" here? Whoever calls this NPOV has lost my respect, sorry. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

More on Arab POV

So, Zero claims my contributions are excessively propagandistic, and Dissident that they are pro-Israeli propaganda. Let us go through this point-by-point:

1. 1948 or 1948-1949: it is a simple, proven fact that the fighting lasted until January 1949. Try Google on that or visit your local library.
2. Arab-Israeli War or Israeli War of Independence: I do not consider this a major issue, but Wikipedia uses the term 'War of Independence' for many (all?) other wars which have led to a country’s independence. See List_of_wars. So why should Israel get a special treatment? Also, the page 1948_Arab-Israeli_War claims that the Arab term for it is 'al Nakba', but the Nakba page itself defines it as the outcome of the war, not the war itself. And, if Nakba were really the term for the war itself, the page should redirect to 1948_Arab-Israeli_War, as the Israeli_War_of_Independence does. The way it is now, Wikipedia is biased towards Arabs, since the same war is referred to by a 'neutral' and a pro-Arab term, but not by an Israeli one.
3. Began after the declaration or Began as a joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi attack: For all consecutive wars, Wikipedia described how it started. Why not for the first one? Just to favor the Arab POV?
4. According to Israel, the war resulted from Arab rejection or Arabs had rejected: It is not only 'according to Israel', it is a well-established fact that Arabs rejected the partition plan. Again, see a search engine or your local library.
5. in which Israel was formed out of part of Palestine or proposed establishment of an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine: The UN did not establish Israel any more than the Arab state. It actually did not have the power to establish any state, just to propose a solution.
6. Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war: They maybe claim that today. I have never seen such a claim being made at the time of the war. See also comment by Humus_sapiens above.
7. drive the Jews into the sea: Well documented quote, see standard literature, e.g.Collins & Lapierre: O, Jerusalem.
8. About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled and the Arabs expelled or killed all Jews: Does anyone challenge this? Two sentences further, a former edition claims that 600,000 Palestinians left. This is roughly 2/3 of the population, see UN survey. Concerning the Jews, please give me one Jewish settlement which survived under the Arab rule in Palestine.
9. but that changed after the Six-Day War: This is to put the prior statement into context. I agree that it could have been done better. I propose the following, new formulation: In few cases, (e.g. in Morocco) local Arab governments strongly encouraged Jews to stay, and some Jewish leaders (e.g. in Haifa) encouraged Arabs to stay. Is this OK?
10. The fighting ended…: As for all consecutive wars, it is interesting to know how it ended.
11. withdrawal or expulsion of the UN peacekeepers: The forces did not withdraw of their free will, but were ordered to do so by Nasser.
12. stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and public announcement by Nasser are well established facts, I have provided a link, and there are many more.
13. 1991 or 1987-1993: simple facts, easy to check. Also, the beginning and the end are no less relevant than for other wars.
14. IDF's response was widely criticized world-wide: this statement is so general that it can as well fit to any other war. Furthermore, it is irrelevant for the understanding of the uprising, unless the author wants to suggest that the criticism influenced the outcome of the uprising. In that case, the claim should be substantiated.
15. The Gulf War: I think I explained sufficiently why it counts as an Arab-Israeli war.
16. Most leaders or Some voices: If they are really leaders, and form a majority, how come that the terror still exists? True, there are public figures condemning terror, but they do not lead anyone. And, considering all public figures in the Palestinian society, they are definitely not a majority.
17. both counterproductive, and more importantly, wrong or some even consider it morally wrong. The former wording implies that everyone who rejects terrorism does it for moral reasons. I do not see this claim supported by evidence. Does anyone have any quotes?
18. renewed Israeli invasion or al-Aqsa Intifada: The former is excessively Arab POV, blaming squarely Israel. It implies that without the 'invasion' the support for terror would be lower, but avoids mentioning that the 'invasion' followed terrorism (so that actually terrorism produces support for terrorists). My wording is neutral, it gives the context but does not put blame on anyone.

-- 128.139.226.34 08:38, 21 May 2004

I am away from home and can only offer a brief comment. The edits made by anon represent the mainstream Israeli historiography and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Some highlights:

• The war started with the invasion of the Arab states. At this point of time the Israelis-to-be were already in control of a substantial fraction of the area allocated to the "Arab State", and nearly half of the refugee problem had been created already. Many events of key importance to the Arab perspective, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, had already happened. One reason the start of the war is dated to May 15 1948 is to remove the Palestinians from the story. It is an opinion and not a fact that the war started in May 1948.

• Israel accepted the UN resolution and the Arabs rejected it. Well, Israel said that it accepted the resolution; that much is plain fact. However, behind the scenes, Israel was making plans to take more territory than alloted, including all the areas where there was any Jewish settlement and all of Jerusalem. Israel was also discussing with Transjordan their mutual interest in preventing the formation of an Arab State and had a semi-agreement to that end. So it is an opinion and not a fact that Israel accepted the UN resolution.

• The UN "did not have the power to establish any state". Maybe so, there is still legal argument on that point. It is certainly not an accepted fact.

• drive the Jews into the sea I don't think these exact words were used in 1948, but anyway it is quite easy to quote Zionist leaders on the desirability of expelling the Palestinians. Such quotation competitions make bad history.

• please give me one Jewish settlement which survived under the Arab rule in Palestine. There were none, but why didn't you reveal that there were hardly any Jewish settlements that ended under Arab control? The Etzion bloc (where there was one massacre) and the Jewish part of the old city (where there wasn't) were almost everything. Did you mention the more than 400 Arab villages that were completely depopulated and the dozen plus massacres of Arabs? So your edit here tells just one side of a two-sided story where most of the misfortune was on the other side.

• Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war. I would not use that wording myself, but the image of fighting a defensive war was the one presented in 1948 as can be seen from reading newspapers at the time. The Arab states claimed to be intervening to protect the Palestinians from dispossession. Whether you accept the claim or not, that is what they claimed.

• The (UN) forces did not withdraw of their free will, but were ordered to do so by Nasser. This is misleading since the UN presence was always by Egyptian invitation. One can ask why the UN didn't just move to the other side of the border. To save you the trouble of answering: it was because Israel had always refused to allow UN forces on its territory. So we could alternatively describe the situation as Egypt adopting the stance that Israel already had. That would be a POV of course, but so is yours.

• Gulf War. Saddam Hussein attempted to make it part of the Israeli-Arab conflict but failed. I'm not totally opposed to it being listed here, but on balance I don't think it belongs.

• Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Your timing is way off; there were no substantial Jewish refugees from other coutries until some time later. Your choice of words is also POV. The attempt to establish an equivalence between Arab and Jewish refugees is pure POV that does not survive a critical analysis.

--Zero 13:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The comments by Zero represent Arab historiography, on occasions not even mainstream, but excessively revisionist, and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Point by point:

1. The war started with the invasion of the Arab states was not my wording. The wording before my edit -- and to which Zero reverted - was: 'Began after the declaration of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948'. I did not change the date; obviously it is Zero's intention to do so. I just added how the war started, since the information is provided for all consecutive wars. I do not deny that even before that date there were occasional fightings. Zero might know that Arab rioting started immediately after the adoption of the UN partition plan, and that Arab forces entered the Mandate territory even before the war. However, occasional fightings preceded almost any other war: 1956, 1967, 1982, as well as many modern wars around the world. Following Zero's logic, we couldn't pinpoint the beginning of any of these.
2. Israel was making plans to take more territory than allotted. I'm impressed by Zero's mind reading capabilities, especially since these minds are long dead, but this is the Arab narrative. Zero's insinuation that Israel just said to accept the partition, but in fact rejected it goes along the lines of Jews are liars. Israel was preparing for defense, that's for sure. If they would have attacked Arabs if the Arabs had accepted the resolution is pure, unsubstantiated speculation. Considering the balance of power and the losses Israel suffered, not very convincing. On the contrary, there are indications that Israel was not interested in territorial expansion. After the war, when the balance of power shifted towards Israel, Moshe Dayan, according to his own memoirs, wanted to exploit Jordan's non-compliance with the armistice agreement to start a war and conquer more territory. The idea was rejected by Ben Gurion on the grounds that Israel should concentrate on building the country, not on making wars.
3. The UN did not have the power to establish any state is not the wording I used in the article, so the discussion about it is off-topic. See the UN Charter. The crucial point is that the UN did not establish Israel any more than it established the Arab state.
4. drive the Jews into the sea is, up to translation ambiguities, the exact wording, I gave a reference. An arab page [1] says Throw Jews into the sea, which is essentially the same. You can also check Al-Jazeera. Possible quotes from Zionist leaders, calling for expulsion of Arabs certainly did not form the mainstream policy, considering that hundreds of thousands of Arabs remained in Jewish areas.
5. Did you mention the more than 400 Arab villages that were completely depopulated and the dozen plus massacres of Arabs? I did not mention specifically neither Jewish nor Arab settlements. I also did not discuss how many of the Arabs followed the calls of their leader to flee and fled without seeing a Jewish soldier, or how many were expelled in the course of fighting. Such details should be handled in the separate article about the 1948 War. My wording was: About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled and the Arabs expelled or killed all Jews. I can reword it to About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled and the Arabs expelled all Jews. OK?
6. the image of fighting a defensive war was the one presented in 1948 as can be seen from reading newspapers at the time. This is taken out of context. BTW, I do not know of any country ever admitting to fight a war of aggression, so the statement, even if correct, has zero information. But the full context is: Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war, as Israel intended to expand its territory beyond that mandated by the U.N. I would like to see evidence for the claim that Arabs just wanted to defend the territories allotted to them by the UN partition plan.
7. One can ask why the UN didn't just move to the other side of the border. The answer is: because there was no agreement on that. the UN presence was always by Egyptian invitation. No, it was by Egyptian consent, at best. It was established by a UN resolution, but ended by the Egyptian order. So the wording withdrawal is misleading.
8. Gulf War: if you are not completely opposed, than let it remain listed. I believe that launching missiles at another country amounts to a war.
9. Your timing is way off; there were no substantial Jewish refugees from other coutries until some time later. It is not my wording!!! You reverted my edit to this wording, which has existed before!!! So don't blame me for it! The attempt to establish an equivalence between Arab and Jewish refugees is pure POV. As far as I am concerned, the wording in the point 5 above is sufficient . We can also move the question of refugees to a separate article.

-- 128.139.226.34 07:38, 23 May 2004

Marxists, buddhists, AAs, and the sufferers of appendicitis

Let's not turn this conflict between 2 sides into a world war, other wise rename the article. Q: Why are the Marxists so important? A: because today they reflect mostly anti-Israel POV, therefore should be put into anti-Israel camp. Everything else about their beliefs is irrelevant. Following this stance, Marxists believe that Zionism is a form of colonialism -- who cares? What do the other groups in the title of this section beleive? The text about single state also doesn't belong to this article. Proposals for a Palestinian state perhaps. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I cut & pasted what was the entire Marxist views section into Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

"in most of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against"- says who?

"Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in most of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against." Prove it. Even offhand, I can add Mauritania, Somalia, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain to Morocco and Tunisia, if only because many of them have never had any to discriminate against. In any event, the burden of proof for such a statement is on the one making it. - Mustafaa 23:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa, I'm no expert in this field, but one could easily say that in Egypt and Saudi Arabia such persecution happens. In the countries such as Saudi Arabia, where non-muslim religions are not legal, discrimination against other religions could be assumed since they are outlawed.--Josiah 22:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i m egyptian, havent met an egyptian jew yet. i know there are synagogues here. they are under heavy guard to protect them from terrorist attacks coz as far as i know, there are six (6) jews in egypt, mostly in alexandria. and as citizens of egypt they and they property must be protected even to heavy costs by the state which is paid for by the other religions of egypt; Islam and Christianity.
please give proof. thanks
--Mohammed Arafa 10:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a Brazilian Jewish friend and her father is an Egyptian Jew, but he lives in Israel since 1984. Pedro Inecco 11:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of the Karaite Jews in Egypt fled because of the persecution they faced after the Lavon Affair (bank accounts seized, etc.), and now mostly live in either California, USA or Israel.--Josiah 14:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- I'm fairly sure that it is forbidden for Jews to buy, sell, or own property in Jordan and Jordan is largely considered on of the mroe moderate countries in the region. Iraq would be another example of another country you don't want to be a jew in, along with Syria, Iran, Libya, and Lebanon. I'm no expert, but these are the one's I can think of offhand - G

60% Palestinians in Jordan

'More than half' does not contradict '60%'. Fafo speaks of 44% refugees, I can imagine that not all Palestinians fall into this category. The last link is broken. The following links claim 60% or more: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

There are plenty of sources giving lower figures, and some giving higher figures. I think the problem is that there is no agreement on the definitions, especially of who is a Palestinian, also of whether to count Palestinians who are eligible for Jordanian citizenship but didn't officially take it up, and importantly because the Jordanian government regards the issue as sensitive enough to suppress the necessary details from the Jordanian censuses. So people employ various guessing methods. My suggestion is that we quote an academic source on this question. In "The Palestinian-Transjordanian Rift: Economic Might and Political Power in Jordan" by Yitzhak Reiter, The Middle East Journal. Vol. 58, 2004; pg. 72-92:
"The rate of the Palestinian population in Jordan is a controversial and debatable issue in Jordan since figures broken out by ethnic denomination have never officially been published. The estimates vary between 38-83% according to the estimator's extraction. Most scholars in the field estimate the Palestinians as constituting between 50-60% of the Jordanian population."
Can we agree on that? --Zero 15:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me. - Mustafaa 18:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Plenty" and "some": can you give any figures? Ditto for "most scholars". As the evidence now stands, I believe that 60% is justified. It is inside Reiter's estimate (the mean of 38% and 83% is 60.5%), as well as Islamic Relief's and Jordan Times'.

You need an actual objection. None of those numbers are Reiter's estimate; they are his report of what other people have estimated. Since he is an expert in the subject far more qualified than you or I to make such a summary, we could do worse than accept his opinion. If you want to know who "most scholars" are, you can write to him. I'll give you one, Asher Susser: The Palestinians in Jordan: Demographic Majority, Political Minority (reprinted in Minorities and the State in the Arab World, Ofra Bengio and Gabriel Ben-Dor (eds.), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1999):
"After the annexation of the West Bank the Palestinians had a two-thirds majority in the kingdom. Palestinians constantly migrated from the West Bank to the East Bank (the administrative and economic center), and in the wake of the 1967 war another 300,000 Palestinians left the West Bank and Gaza for the East Bank. In the East Bank alone the Palestinians totalled approximately half of the population. Since the return to Jordan of another 230,000 to 300,000 Palestinians from the Gulf in 1990–1991, they are now definitely a majority of just over half."
Canned bio of Asher Susser: senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, a former head of the center, and associate professor in the Department of Middle Eastern and African History at Tel Aviv University. He specializes in the history and politics of Jordan and the Palestinians and religion and state in the Middle East. He is author of Between Jordan and Palestine: A Political Biography of Wasfi al-Tall (1983, in Hebrew), The PLO After the War in Lebanon (1985, in Hebrew), and On Both Banks of the Jordan (1994) and coeditor of At the Core of the Conflict: The Intifada (1992, in Hebrew) and The Hashemites in the Modern Arab World (1995).
I liked your joke about the taking of an average of the minimum and maximum. --Zero 16:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questionable section

I have just read this article. When it says "Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings." it seems to be saying that Israel is pressuring Arafat to fire the moderates who speak out against Suicide Bombings. Am I mistaken in my reading?--Josiah 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct in your reading, Josiah. The PLO is under tremendous pressure from the Israelis and also from 'extremist' internal groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas and paradoxically the pressure is making Arafat make the government more hardline, as there is no political gain in the current situation for Arafat to have doves in his administration and if he has hardliners, they can at the very least put on a strong face against all their opponents. Dissention among high-level leadership just looks bad and isn't tolerated in Israel nor in Palestine. Hauser 21:56 3 August 2004 (NZEST)

Please provide some evidence for your claim that Israel does not support the denouncing of suicide bombings. It seems like a twisted fantasy to claim this, at best.--Josiah 14:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where did I, or that section of the article, ever claim that? [[User:Hauser|Hauser] 21:44 3 October (NZEST)

A few pictures

I uploaded a few pictures which are available here under free licences (GFDL and CC-BY-SA). Feel free to ask. Yann 15:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffer

HistoryBuffer, I haven't made any edits on this page except for minor grammar stuff, so it can't be my "propaganda". Please bring proposed changes to Talk: Jayjg 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, 3 strikes -- you're out

Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV).

You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, you have mistunderstood the policy, which discourages more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. As it stands, I have violated nothing. Again, I encourage you to discuss proposed changes in Talk: pages, and refrain from solely making ad hominem comments about me. Jayjg 05:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, Stop Removing Disputed Notice

Jayjg you are way out of bounds. You have repeatedly removed "Disputed" notice from article which has been clearly disputed by many.

And Jayjg, who do you think you are to dictate to others to obtain your permission first?

Jayjg is well known as a persistent Zionist Denier of Palestine and occupation, and pretty much any fact which is unfavorable to Israel.

But, by repeatedly denying even that a dispute over his propaganda articles exists, Jayjg has reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your sick cause.

HistoryBuffEr 22:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, the dispute notice indicates that there is some dispute on the Talk: page, yet you have raised no dispute here, other than disputing my removing the dispute notice. Please follow Wikipedia procedure. Jayjg 22:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've shown your poor reading comprehension and lack of common sense many times before. In this case, the proof of unresolved dispute is staring at you right above this post. QED. HistoryBuffEr 22:38, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

A dispute about a disputed notice is circular and not relevant to the article contents. Jayjg 02:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your comprehension is even worse than I thought. "Above this post" means the POST ABOVE. I am through with babysitting you. HistoryBuffEr 02:17, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

"Most Palestinian groups"

"Most Palestinian groups in opposition to PLO have declared that the only long term solution to the Middle East conflict is the elimination of the state of Israel." I dispute this characterization. What is the source? This is just more Zionist propaganda, "They want to throw us in the sea!" BS. How many Palestinian groups collaborate with Israeli groups like Peace Now and Naturei Karta for a peaceful reform in Israeli policies compared to the number advocating the total dismantling of the racist Jewish state? Alberuni 23:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read "Most Palestinian militant groups". Jayjg 02:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't make those kind of edits, do you? Rubs you the wrong way? Alberuni 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

International "War on Terror" against International islamist movement

The world war between international Islamists seeking to expel Israeli and American occupation of the Middle East is an extension of the Arab Israeli conflict. Netanyahu recently claimed on US TV that Israel's war is now America's war. "It is a war between civilization and those who would like to see a return to the medieval ages. They're nuts. It's not going to happen and we have to stop them." The 9/11 attacks were in retaliation for US support of the racist Jewish state, its occupation of palestine and oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the occupation of military bases in Saudi Arabia to contain and siege strangling Iraq. The War on Terror is intended to crush militant opposition to US and Israeli hegemony over Palestine and Mideast oil supplies. I dispute Jayjg's pro-Israeli POV on edits to this page. Alberuni 23:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Jewish Forward U.S. Refraining From Criticism Of Gaza Foray

By Ori Nir October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON — With their countries mounting parallel military offensives against terrorist strongholds in Iraq and Gaza, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a high-powered White House meeting Monday.

Moments after the talks, reporters asked Netanyahu if Rice had urged Israel to demonstrate restraint during its operation in Gaza. The Israeli leader lifted his index finger and replied with satisfaction: "Not in one word."

The meeting appeared to back up the assertion by Israeli and American officials that the White House essentially endorses the current offensive in Gaza. This view appeared to gain credence Tuesday, when America exercised its veto at the United Nations Security Council to defeat a resolution condemning Israel's actions in Gaza..

According to this view, the Bush administration has concluded that America has a significant interest in ensuring that an Israeli pullout from Gaza is not perceived in the Arab world as a victory for terrorist groups. The fear is that such a perception would embolden the forces targeting American soldiers in Iraq.

The Forward has learned that, in both military and political circles, Israeli and American officials recently have discussed the issue and concluded that the best course is for Israel to conduct punishing military operations against terrorists and their infrastructure as it withdraws from Gaza."

Israel was not allied with the United States in its war on Iraq, nor has it take part in any military action against Iraq. Iraq is at war with a coalition primarily led by the United States, which Israel is not part of. Jayjg 02:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Israel and the US are not allies? Israel was in an official state of war with Iraq when the US attacked Iraq. Did you forget that? Are you claiming that Israel has not contributed in any way, such as missile technology, ammunition, intelligence, access to facilities, training, etc for the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan? You know they (or is it "you all"?) have. Is Israel affiliated with al-Qaida then? Are you claiming that the War on Terror is not relevant or related to the Arab Israeli conflict despite the stated motives of al-Qaida that I cited in my edits, the "declaration of war against the Jews and Crusaders"? Are you claiming that the Israeli attacks on Palestinians are unrelated to Islamist animosity and attacks on the US and Israel? "If mine eyes offend thee...." Alberuni 02:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Quaeda has many beefs relating to Andalusia, Crusaders, etc., and though it has recently played up the Palestinian conflict in a bid to garner more world support, the Sept 11 attack was still an attack on the U.S., not Israel. In response the U.S. and allies attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel was not involved in any of these wars. Jayjg 03:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, that's the official hasbara line from Tel Aviv central office. But if opposition to Israel is only a "recent" goal of Islamist doctrine, how do you explain al-Qaida's Declaration of War against Americans (Crusaders) and Jews (Israelis) dating back to 1996 and 1998 long before the 2001 WTC attacks? "But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindu Kush mountains in Khurasan, where - by the Grace of Allah - the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the superpower was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greatest). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that has been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist/Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the night-journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory." I guess that was just a head fake, huh? Alberuni 03:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure that Israel was not involved in any way with the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan? You would think that Israel would be a better ally and stand up with the US in its time of need. Why wouldn't Israel marshal its resources to help the USA, its best friend in the world to attack Iraq, Israel's declared enemy with whom they were in a state of war? It really is a big mystery, isn't it Jayjg? Makes you wonder what good they are after all the $100 billion we've given them (er "you all").....I wonder why......Alberuni 03:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still waiting for Jayjg to justify his heavy handed edits and reverts

The article intro states "Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world. Animosity emanating from this conflict has caused numerous attacks on supporters (or perceived supporters) of one side by supporters of the other side in many countries around the world." The Arab-Israeli conflict clearly involves the USA and combatants beyond the Arab world, and even beyond 9/11, including Iran, Afghanistan, Europeans who attack Israeli interests, Islamists attacking US and allied interests in Africa and Asia, and American Muslims who are in prison for supporting groups opposed to Israel, etc. It is important to document the link between the Arab-israeli conflict and the world war against "terrorism"; which, of course, is why you insist on censoring it. Instead of constantly butting your head against the revert button like it's the Wailing Wall, why don't you "improve" it with your usual Zionist POV slant? Alberuni 03:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take a chill pill. In any event, it isn't wise to slander a moderator.--Josiah 22:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It isn't wise to slander any Wikipedia editor, and it makes no difference whether or not they are a moderator. In fact, it's a violation of several Wikipedia policies. Jayjg 22:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Small copyedit

Hi. can we change:

"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy by Israeli forces, was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."

to:

"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy, by Israeli forces was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."

This change does not alter the content of the article in any way. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hello,

I am coming from a disinterested point of view. I know almost nothing about this conflict, other than it is highly controversial and it's been going on for a while. I would ask for people's patience with the following questions, as I am but an ignorant fool on this issue. I also know that as this is such a "hot" issue some (possibly) may take offense at my questioning. For those people, I do not mean to take offence. Now that my disclaimer is given: for my own understanding, could I have some clarifications for some parts of the article?

Under the section "Reasons for the Conflict":

Israeli views

Many experts in Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims. Although the countries surrounding Israel have secular governments (including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon), Israelis claim that these ideas still prosper on the basis of nationalism, much like the anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe.

1. Could someone tell me which experts in Islamic society hold the position that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims?
2. What does "Israelis claim that these ideas still prosper on the basis of nationalism, much like the anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe" mean? This is not clear to me. Also, who are the most prominent proponents of this position?

According to Islam, Jews and Christians and other non-muslims must accept the status of dhimmis if they want to live with Muslims. Islamic law allows Muslims to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands who refuse to accept this status. Moreover, this status was upheld numerous times by Islamic scholars and implemented by Islamic rulers. Some Muslims declare, however, that this image is created falsely by passages that are taken out of context. (See Talk page).

1. Where does it say in Islam that non-muslims must accept the status of dhimmis if they want to live with Muslims?
2. Where does it say in Islamic law that Muslims are allowed to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands if they refuse to accept the status of dhummis?
3. Which Islamic scholars upheld the status of dhimmis? Did/have all Islamic rulers implemented this status?
4. What does "this image" in the sentence "Some Muslims declare, however, that this image is created falsely by passages that are taken out of context."? Further to this, which Muslims declare this? If they declare this, what passages do they say have been taken out of context?

At stake is the very existence of the state of Israel. Israelis regard many of the Arab criticisms against the state of Israel as threats to the state's existence, and point out that against the multitude and power of the Arab states, there is only one Jewish state, which, as they feel, should behave vigilantly, and in particular never give up if bullied.

1. Which Arab criticisms of the state of Israel are being talked about here?

Liberal Israelis oppose settlements, believing that they thwart peace efforts. However, most Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war, and believe that disputes over land do not justify terrorism and mass-murder, but rather need to have politically negotiated solutions. This view is regarded as a farce by Palestinians as Israel's leadership continues to reject recent offers of peace and continues to build settlements on Palestinian land.

1. Which liberal Israelis oppose settlements?

Some Israelis fear the consequences if they decide, or are eventually forced, to dismantle settlements. Some settlers may resist by force, creating a risk even of civil war. When Israel withdrew from settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in the early 1980s, moderate clashes between the Israeli Defense Forces and settlers occurred. Those settlers amounted to but a tiny fraction of the settler population in the West Bank. A recent survey by Peace Now indicated about two thirds of the settlers would comply with an order to evacuate, if issued democratically by the government.

1. It is said that some Israelis fear the dismantlement of settlments. This is obviously an identifiable people group. Which Israelis are being referred to?

Palestinian views

Palestinians feel that the Jewish state of Israel was established under conditions that were deeply unfair to them. Some Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state as such, but all Palestinians feel that it should not have been established at their expense. They argue that after World War II - and, indeed, after World War I - the world allowed a state for Jewish people in Palestine to be made without much concern for the existing Arab population. Many Palestinians were forcibly expelled from Jewish-controlled areas before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (see Palestinian exodus.) Those who remained in Israel face some discrimination. Palestinians claim that they are denied many job opportunities, as many jobs require previous military service, and only Jews and some other groups, such as Druze and Bedouins, can serve in the IDF.

1. Which Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state?

Palestinians cite many reasons for the lack of support of their cause in the Western world. One such reason is racism; while stereotyping of many other groups is no longer rampant, Muslims and in particular Arabs continue to be victimized by crude attacks.

1. Are there any particular instances that can be cited of attacks on Muslims due to racism?

Palestinians claim that they have International law on their side. To take a few examples, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 calls for refugees wishing to live in peace with their neighbors to be allowed to return to their homes, or to receive compensation if the don't wish to return. UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the Six-Day War. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power from settling an occupied territory with its own population. General Assembly Resolution 446 has declared that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal. However, there are doubts as to whether the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel, and the preservation of a "just and lasting peace" in the region.

1. Who doubts wheter the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel?

In 2002, Saudi Arabia offered a peace plan in the New York Times, as if it were an original idea. The UN's resolutions call for withdrawal from occupied territories in addition to full recognition of Israel by the whole Arab world. This proposal was backed by some in the Arab World, but the Israeli government rejected this proposal. The same proposal also got criticsm from other Arabs. Therefore, it fell to the wayside.

1. Was the peace plan really written in such a way that it was an original idea? Is this NPOV?
2. Which Arabs backed the peace plan?
3. Which Arabs criticised the peace plan?

Many Arabs deny that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today. They hold that events that happened thousands of years ago do not justify evicting the Palestinians from what they see as their homeland.

1. Are there any prominent Arabs who can be cited to have denied that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today?

Some Arabs maintain that there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine, in itself, any more than there is with Jewish immigration into any other part of the world. But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state. Most Arabs maintain that Israel's settlement policy is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a violation of international law. Thus they claim, because of its expansion of settlements, Israel has the majority of responsibility for the failure of the peace process.

1. Which Arabs maintain there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine?
2. The next sentence: "But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state." is unclear. Is this a general statement that most Jews who arrived came with the intention of taking over, or is this the views of those "some Arabs"?

Moderate Palestinians realize that their cause may be thwarted by extremists within their own ranks; an issue that is mirrored in the Israeli camp. Many view the conflict as essentially extremist vs. moderate, as opposed to Israeli vs. Palestinian. Pro-Israeli advocates often assert that two sets of views exist from the same speaker, with a tolerant view usually expressed in English, and an anti-peace view usually expressed in Arabic, with pro-Arab advocates making similar charges. Palestinians do not deny that they would have preferred that modern Israel had never been created. However, they accept its existence today and call merely for a state of their own.

1. Can the allegation that "Pro-Israeli advocates often assert that two sets of views exist from the same speaker, with a tolerant view usually expressed in English, and an anti-peace view usually expressed in Arabic, with pro-Arab advocates making similar charges." be clarified? Firstly, which Pro-Israeli advocates have claimed this? Secondly, is there any basis to this claim (i.e. is there any documented evidence for this)?

Today, many Palestinians realize that an equitable arrangement for all involved parties requires dialogue with both the Israeli side and the international community. Some in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing prior to the Six-Day War. However, representatives of the PLO (and in particular Yasser Arafat himself), have also declared at times that they intended these statements as purely political steps, and that ultimately the peace process with Israel is only a temporary measure; they say that their ultimate goal is still the destruction of the state of Israel. In support of their claims, the PLO never updated its formal statement of policy, the Palestinian National Covenant to reflect their recognition of the State of Israel; it still calls for the destruction of Israel. Although Arab representatives often deny these declarations, they cause great concern among the Israeli public.

1. Which members of the PLO have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing to the Six-Day War?

Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution. They hold that terrorist killings of Israeli civilians are counterproductive, and some even consider it morally wrong. Unfortunately they seldom occupy a position of importance in the Palestinian Authority (PA). Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings. Thus, their voices are unheard over the Palestinian street's overwhelming support for suicide bombings - at 60%, according to recent polls. However, support for Hamas was consistently below 10% prior to the al-Aqsa Intifada. The ongoing standoff has hardened views on both sides.

1. "Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution." Which voices?
2. "Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings." Which moderates were fired? When did this happen?

In accordance with their peoples' opinions, some Palestinian and Arab leaders from around the world, have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Some Arab and Muslim countries, as well as groups like Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad disagree with any form of peace process, and hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just. The relationship between the PLO and Hamas seems to signify that the PLO itself does not oppose this attitude.

1. Which Palestinian and Arab leaders have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians?
2. Which Arab and Muslim countries disagree with any form of peace process, and further hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just?

Many Arabs declare the Israeli government is not automatically responsible for the crimes of individual Israelis (ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis). They claim that the same standard should be applied to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians further feel that the world should also react against the silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the daily humiliation this leads to for the Palestinian population. Israel, however, claims that this does little to explain why the Palestinian Authority has not arrested a single Hamas official of importance since 2000, although they did arrest many prior to that.

1. Comment: "(ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis)" seems incredibly POV to me. Shouldn't this be rephrased?
2. What does "Palestinians further feel that the world should also react against the silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the daily humiliation this leads to for the Palestinian population." mean? I do not know what "silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza" is talking about. Could we clarify this statement?
3. "Israel, however, claims that this does little to explain why the Palestinian Authority has not arrested a single Hamas official of importance since 2000, although they did arrest many prior to that." Maybe I'm missing something here, but this statement does not appear to follow from the previous sentence. These appear to be two unrelated ideas... shoot me down on this one if you like because I'm sure I'm missing something.

Many Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism. Many Arabs believe Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinian people, worse than that practiced by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of colonialism. Israelis reply that this claim is hypocritical, since Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in some of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against. Palestinians hold that the existence of other Arab nations is irrelevant; they want to have the land they owned back, rather than being forced to throw themselves on others' charity in foreign countries. Probably 50%-60% of Jordanian population is ethnically Palestinian (former refugees and their descendants; estimates vary widely) but the country is ruled by the native Hashemite Bedouin family. In the 1970s, the PLO attempted to launch a coup against the Jordanian monarchy, which led to death of some 20,000 Palestinians and the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan.

1. Can we cite:
   • which Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism?
   • which Arabs believe Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinian people, worse than that practiced by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of colonialism?

• • Yes, do a google search and you'll quickly have your results. Heck, certain persons on wikipedia have expressed those views.--Josiah 14:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, Iraq war are extensions of the Arab Israeli conflict

The evidence is provided in the stated motives for the 9/11 attack (to liberate Palestine from the Zionist Crusader alliance) and in the US motives to attack Iraq in order to "protect our friends in the Middle East" i.e. Israel who Saddam Hussein threatened. --Alberuni 05:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. was protecting its friends the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other oil rich Arab emirates in the Middle East. Saddam was no significant threat to Israel before the first Gulf war, and certainly not afterwards. As for the putative reasons for the 9/11 attacks, there were more than one, and the "Israeli" one was an ex post facto sop to get worldwide Arab support. In any event, attacks on the U.S. are not attacks on Israel, nor part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is not a proxy for the U.S., nor is the U.S. a "Zionist Occupied Government" proxy of Israel. Rather, 9/11 was one skirmish in the war of Islamism on Western culture. Jayjg 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that the US is protecting Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates (for oil) - but it is also protecting Israel (for political reasons). Saddam's Iraq was a threat to Israel, especially if Iraq developed nuclear weapons or other means of achieving military parity with Israel. Israel and Iraq were at war, remember. The underlying conflict with Iraq stemmed from its rejectionist stance and threats to Israel; the same reasons why Iran and Syria are in the sights of US military, economic, and diplomatic pressure. The US has long committed itself, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, to maintaining Israel's military superiority over its neighbors and the Gulf Wars I and II are the ultimate culmination of that commitment. You shouldn't deny it just because it cost the US a 9/11; instead be proud of the successful "special relationship" built up over the years between the US and Israel.

There were three stated Islamist motives for the 9/11 attacks; US forces desecrating Saudi Arabia, US siege of Iraq, and US support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine. These motives were described long before 9/11 so they were not "ex post facto sop" as you and other Zionist apologists claim. The details have been expounded since at least 1996 in Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War. So you are dead wrong on that count. The attacks on the US were a direct response to US military and economic support for Israel's occupation of Palestine (in addition to the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and the siege of Iraq).

Whether you believe that to be a real motive or not, it is the declared motive and it is a motive that impels attacks on both the US and Israel so it is a reality even if you wishfully imagine it to be a fantasy. Why did the US attack Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Precisely because of the growing threat to Israel - and also to regional energy supplies. These two US interests are very strong.

The entire conflict with Iraq and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia represented a commitment to safeguarding Gulf oil supplies - but why? Because Iraq was at war with Israel and the US could not allow a militant anti-Israeli regime to seize those energy supplies which would give it significant leverage over industrialized nations, including the US, Israel's main supporter.

Of course, extremist Zionist propaganda doesn't permit discussion of the linkage between 9/11, the Iraq war and Israel but the facts are apparent to anyone who doesn't eat hasbara for breakfast. --Alberuni 02:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iraq was no threat to Israel, and years away from developing any nuclear weapons. Iraq and Israel have theoretically been at war since 1948, but practically speaking Iraq hasn't been able to carry any war to Israel for 20 years or more, except perhaps through funding of terrorists. Arab conspiracy theorists like to tie everything to Israel, and their imaginings that all American policy revolves around it, but the fact is that the U.S. was protecting its own interests, not Israel's, by attacking Iraq both times, for all sorts of reasons, including stabilizing its oil supply. Iraq's occupation of Kuwait had nothing to do with Israel, and its likely occupation of Saudi Arabia next had nothing to do with Israel either, and everything to do with Saddam's megalomania and empire building. Bin Laden's original "Declaration of War" focussed on the U.S., not Israel, and when Bin Laden just weeks ago admitted (or claimed) the attacks, he modified his excuses and P.R. attempts to woo the Arab world. However, his fantasies and justifications have nothing to do with the reality that the attack was part of the war of Islamism on Western culture, with the U.S. as its prime expositor. Jayjg 03:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, your theories are interesting and, of course, twisted through the usual hasbara lens. I know that we actually agree and you are playing your usual role and there is no point discussing it with you because you argue for Israel not for the truth but anyway, someone else might read this and appreciate it. Prior to the Iraq War were you saying "Iraq was no threat to Israel," and were you so much more prescient than the CIA and unconcerned about the threat posed by an Iraq that was "years away from developing any nuclear weapons"? Or is that just a Zionist "ex post facto sop" now that the WMD theory has been exposed as the war propaganda it always was? You admit that "Saddam's megalomania and empire building" was an issue. Here we agree. Saddam was building an empire to confront Israel and so of course Americans and Israelis knew that he had to be stopped. Hence the WMD canard. Even if you believe that "9/11 was one skirmish in the war of Islamism on Western culture", you also believe that Israel and the US are one side of that battle and so 9/11 and the Iraq war are extensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The opening paragraph of the article even alludes to the connection: "Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world. Animosity emanating from this conflict has caused numerous attacks on supporters (or perceived supporters) of one side by supporters of the other side in many countries around the world." --Alberuni 03:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that speech was far too much about me, and not about the facts at hand. Perhaps you could restrict your comments to known facts about the issue, as relevant to the article, and avoid discussing me, then I'll be able to understand your statements better. Jayjg 04:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your tactic of slothful induction is noted once again. --Alberuni 05:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, that seems to be a personal comment, not a discussion of article contents. Jayjg 19:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

haha, slothful induction is a logical fallacy [12]. You frequently and falsely accuse me of poisoning the well, straw man argument, tu quoque, etc, etc, etc, but you can't seem to digest it when I point out your fallacies. Ever hear the phrase, "You can dish it out but can't take it"? --Alberuni 19:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only fallacy here is the belief that failure to respond to a personal attack is an example of slothful induction. Jayjg 19:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slothful induction is one of your favorite tactics. Just look at Talk:NGO Monitor or Talk:Dore Gold or Talk:Medical Aid for Palestinians or Talk:Yasser Arafat or Talk:Israel Shahak or Talk:Ariel Sharon or all the other page on which you stubbornly insist on pushing your POV regardless of contradictory evidence come hell or high water. When you decide you don't want to accept change, facts don't matter. In the end, you cry ad hominem! or Wikipedia:civility! or anti-Semitism! You are predictable, if nothing else. --Alberuni 05:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guys! Timeout! Could we bring this back to the article please? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence that the 9/11 attacks and Iraq war are directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:

" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission. [13]

"In the video, bin Laden said he decided to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1982 after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which he claimed was backed by the U.S. Navy. "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same" he says, "and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children." He underscored it was U.S. foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks, saying, "Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'" " [14]

" "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said. .... "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said. [15]

It is the emotions generated by this long cycle of shuttle diplomacy - of expectations raised and hopes dashed - that ordinary Arabs talk about when they say they understand why Al Qaeda terrorists hate the US. It is a hatred that Osama bin Laden expresses in fierce terms. His videotaped statement of Oct. 7 ends with these words: "Neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine." Translation: The US will be subject to terrorist attacks as long as it allies itself with Israel. Indeed, the danger might continue as long as Israel exists.... Still, events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath have focused Americans' attention on their nation's ties with Israel to a degree not seen since the Arab oil embargo of 1973. "The American public is now waking up to the cost of the relationship with Israel," says Professor Lukacs. "This is a question that has never been addressed in the past." [16]

War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group. WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.[17].

It is very clear that the 9/11 attacks and War on Iraq are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the US alliance with Israel. The relationship is a significant well-documented issue that deserves inclusion in the article. It is not a "conspiracy theory" to be dismissed as our house Zionists are claiming so that they can continue to promote their one-sided propaganda on Wikipedia. --Alberuni 22:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes, the 9/11 attacks and Iraq war were the direct result of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and until the Israel solves that conflict (and only they can solve it, IMO) terrorism internationally and war in the mideast in particular will be a constant. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No

1. --Josiah 18:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4 reverts Alberuni, will you for 5?

That's 4 reverts Alberuni, will you go for 5? You've been pretty consistent in violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule recently, I'm wondering if you'll stay true to form. Jayjg 21:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reversions are necessary to help Wikipedia overcome Zionist bullies and POV pushers. --Alberuni 21:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guys, hash it out on the talk page. I'm protecting till I see some consensus here. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There will never be consensus while the fanatic Zionists are involved. --Alberuni 22:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's difficult to find consensus with someone who believes the purpose of Talk: pages is to promote conspiracy theories and launch personal attacks. Jayjg 02:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have obstructed edits at every turn in order to promote your pro-Israeli POV on the pages of Wikipedia articles. --Alberuni 02:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gandhi

It would be interesting to include

• A Non-Violent Look at Conflict & Violence by Mohandas K. Gandhi.

in the external links.

Er, no it wouldn't. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Causes of September 11

Alberuni, I hope you don't mind if I respond to some of the points you made about September 11 being an extension of the Arab-Israel conflict. I don't believe the Arab-Israel conflict had anything to do with that, and here's my reasoning:

The main mileposts on the road to September 11 were: (a) the millions directed to bin Laden and other Islamist groups by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, which made the Islamist movement powerful; (b) the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam and the subsequent stationing in Saudi Arabia of American troops because of that; (c) the further growth in Islamist ideology caused by Americans desecrating (as they saw it) the keeper of the holy places; and (d) the American support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, which are regarded by the Islamists as puppet regimes.

There's no evidence that the issue of Palestine has been anything other than a powerful rallying cry for the Islamists, just as the economic sanctions against Iraq turned that country into a rallying cry too, even though the Islamists hated Saddam. These issues are flags that people wave. But the flags are not the underlying causes of the Islamist war with America.

An excellent book on this subject is Unholy Wars by John K. Cooley, a former ABC News Middle East correspondent. He traces the entire relationship between America and Islamism, and the consequences of it, right up to September 11. He calls it "a strange love affair which went disastrously wrong: an alliance, during the second half of the twentieth century, between the United States of America and some of the most conservative and fanatical followers of Islam." He traces how this relationship stemmed from the start of the American-Soviet Cold War in 1946 and President Truman's perception that the Soviet Union was the principle threat to American interests; and how during the 50s and 60s, the adminstrations of four further U.S. presidents (Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon) were faced with finding a way to defend American interests against the Soviets in the Middle East and South Asia.

The question was asked: Who is the principle enemy of our enemy, communism? And the answer was that the Muslim religion, which was fundamentally anti-communist, could be "harnessed as a mighty force to oppose Moscow in the Cold War," as Cooley puts it. Cooley traces how that "harnessing" took place: how the Islamists were used to fight America's proxy wars; how and why the relationship broke down; and how that led to September 11, 2001. Although the state of Israel was something America did want to protect, all of the above would have happened even if Israel had not existed. This was a war between the world's two great superpowers, a battle left over from the Second World War, with Islamists used by America as the foot soldiers, because neither side could afford the devastation of a direct confrontation. Slim 02:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: As I tried to describe in the article WTC & Bin Laden there are of course links between all these events - but I think it is stupid to say "Ah, the Arabs thought they are used in Afghanistan and then turned against their masters” – this is nonsense. We need to understand the entire agenda: Freeing Muslim countries and giving them back honour and pride as it was in the past – and on the other hand the US who want control all major resources and contain major possible enemies or system competitors. This gives the clash.

Of course, US-Israeli links due to given security contracts as well as Jewish Lobby in the US increases and focuses the conflict. If somebody believes the main and single agenda of Bin Laden is Israel, why didn’t he blow up Tel Aviv? This is just one, maybe now the best selling story to get supporters.

H.ST.

Please, someone, help me add this external link

Due to technical limitations beyond my comprehension and control, if I try to edit a very lengthy article on Wikipedia, it usually winds up accidentally deleting much of what was there before.

I have an external link that I think would add to the value of this article and would ask that someone kindly take on the responsibility of including it in the External Links sub-section, and perhaps commenting on the matter within the body of the article.

Here is the title of the article: 70% of Palestinians could be induced to leave; Scientific survey conducted face-to-face in West Bank

Here is the URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41791

"Thank you!" to whomever agrees to take on this task.

N.M.

WTC & Bin Laden

Please keep in mind that Bin laden haven't had a revelation after fighting against Soviets in Afghanistan and kicking them out and then just turning against the US. And he is surely not such a big strategist that he thought, ok, lets fight the Soviets, then we keep Afghanistan, lets use this as a base and then we do our main work which is the fight against the US.

Bin Laden has a red line in his life and that is getting foreign power and foreign un-Islamic rules our of Muslim land to free the Muslim people and to give them a chance to have a life according the Koran. That’s the reason he supports fight’s all over the world and is personally involved in the main conflicts, which comprise – of course Israel as culmination point.

He is quite smart using this conflict and hate the US gained over supporting Israel and the – as he thinks – fallen regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt – and all the hate inside the people in this depressed region to position himself and his liberation activities, which are far more than just Israel and Jerusalem. As he himself stated: Even unbeliever in Saudi Arabia are considered as occupation of holy land.

Resulting – the agenda is bigger – the selling story is focussed and clever – the US answer more or less logical – democratisation or even more participation of the masses in the Arab world as a possible valve or channelling frustration into constructive civilisation building.

But, to be realistic, with this point of view you will easily find a next conflict where unbeliever have their dirty feet on Islamic land. So solving the Israeli conflict will just point the focus of the extremist groups to Kashmir, or to Thailand, or the Philippines or even China.

That’s why China and Russia do not vote for UN backed intervention: To have free hands in crack down their own Islamic extremist groups without international TV journalists. Unlike the US they have more to lose than just two towers, the integrity of their land.

So bad news for the world and all who think this will be over within a couple of years – this will last centuries and running out of Oil of these people will even make thinks worst – because of lacking visions of civilised existence in wealth and pride.

Lies

"Some observers of Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims." This is a lie. People of the Book are all respected by Muslims. --Abdel Qadir 01:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abdel, if you can find a reference for that, you can insert it into the article. Alternatively, you can ask the author of the sentence you object to to provide a reference, and if s/he can't, then you can remove the claim. Slim 01:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have to prove all the lies? There are too many lies here to spend all my life proving the truth. [18] --Abdel Qadir 01:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you don't have to prove all the lies. You have to prove that what you are saying has been said elsewhere by a reputable publisher (e.g. in a newspaper or in book or journal published by a reputable publisher.) Alternatively, you can request that the claim you object to be referenced, and if no one can or will find a reference to support the claim, you can remove it yourself. Slim 02:06, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

These claims were disputed some time ago. No proof has been posted. I note only that the Zionist POV pushers constantly demand proof from others but never of their own side. This vague and extremely POV statement has not been substantiated and yet you demand that detractors must disprove it.Dr Zen 04:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's bizarre, troubling and sad that what I wrote was twisted despite being so clear. I didn't say that detractors must disprove claims. I wrote that Abdel can ask for a reputable reference for the claim he objects to, and if no one will provide one, he can delete the claim. Alternatively, or in addition, he can balance the statement with a referenced claim of his own. Slim 06:15, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of saying you have to do this and that, which implied that Abdel had to show cause to have the claim removed, you ought to have written that editors have to do this and that. You're a good enough writer to know that "you" (impersonal pronoun) can easily be confused with "you" (second person pronoun). Dr Zen 04:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it is, Slim, but not surprising. Jayjg 06:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See dhimmi. Jayjg 04:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know what a dhimmi is. It doesn't substantiate the ludicrous bile in this article. Dr Zen 05:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does substantiate the claim. Jayjg 06:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More Lies

"though proponents do point to the rapid decrease of the Christian Palestinian population (along with those of most Christian Arabs) as, at least in part, outcomes of Muslim hostility to non-Muslims." This is because of Muslim hostility to Christians? Or is it due to jews hostility to Palestinians? Christians can move to America or Europe but Muslims must stay and fight for justice against the Jew. --Abdel Qadir 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one to notice that the last phrase doesn't smell good? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't say "solely the outcomes of...,", it says "at least in part, the outcomes of...". This implies multiple factors. Here's an interesting page to read: [19]. Jayjg 16:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multiedits

Multiediting to reinsert POV is a means to muddy the water, Jayjg, so that you can claim you did not revert. Place discussion here, please, before mindlessly reverting others' edits.Dr Zen 05:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"predominantly right-wing Americans" think thus and such... ?? That's quite a biased, POV statement. Do you have anything to back that up besides your personal opinion? --MPerel 05:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I "multi-edited" because I was carefully examining each of your edits, and NPOVing them, with reasons given for the changes. On the other hand, your reverts were simply blind reverts. As MPerel points out, your edits were often quite biased, and if you look at the edit history of individual edits you'll see why. For example, Bin Ladin's declaration of war listed the primary reason as the American presence in Saudi Arabia, it wasn't just American aid and pressure that turned back the Arab Armies in 1973, the PLO semi-independent state in Lebanon which shelled civilian targets is not an "Israeli claim", the first Intifada did not start because the UNGA declared the occupation illegal (that was an irrelevant statement), Bin Ladin's attacks were on America not Israel, etc. As well, you need to let Israel state it's own case, not the case you would like it to make; the don't make the case that they are supported by the "world's only superpower", replacement of Israel with a different state is indeed its destruction, etc. Finally, your excuses for fundamentalist Islam are most dismaying; dhimmis did not have to wear special identifying badges in order to "avoid offending Muslim sensibilities". Jayjg 06:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My edits aren't in the least biased. They are not pro-Zionist, though, so I can imagine that you see them that way. Bin Laden's declaration of war gave several reasons, including the occupation of Palestine. The American aid and pressure thing was simply a rewrite into better English. The PLO "semi-independent state" is a Zionist claim, not an actuality. I added the bit about the UNGA because the article as it stood made it sound as though the Palestinians were just uprising with no reason, whereas in fact their right to their territory has been recognised over and over by the world barring Israel and the US. Bin Laden's attacks are *part* of the conflict. I remind you that this is an article that has a map that implies that Mauretania is a party to the conflict. The article says nothing about "special identifying badges". This is what I think you would describe as a "straw man".Dr Zen 08:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course your edits are highly biased, though you always imagine they are not. Bin Laden mentioned a primary reason unrelated to Israel which you completely ignored, the "re-write into better English" left a false impression that Israel won the war solely because of American support and pressure, the PLO semiindependent state is recognized by all historians of the era, and the UNGA insertion gave another false impression. Mauritania is a part of the Arab League which is indeed part of the conflict, as the Arab League attacked Israel in 1948 [20] and subsequently enforced a boycott against it. As for your POV excuses for dhimmi dress codes, rest assured the Jews were not forced to wear a yellow badge in order to (as you claimed) avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. Read the dhimmi article. Jayjg 15:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course your edits are highly biased, though you always imagine they are not. Bin Laden mentioned a primary reason unrelated to Israel which you completely ignored I said it was a "casus belli". There are lots of things in this world unrelated to Israel that one doesn't mention in an article about Israel, the "re-write into better English" left a false impression that Israel won the war solely because of American support and pressure Take out "solely" and this exactly correct, the PLO semiindependent state is recognized by all historians of the era All "Zionist" historians, ITYMTS, and the UNGA insertion gave another false impression you don't think the UNGA so voted? Do you want sources?. Mauritania is a part of the Arab League which is indeed part of the conflict, as the Arab League attacked Israel in 1948 [21] and subsequently enforced a boycott against it in that case can we include the members of the UN that have involved themselves in this issue? In particular, we should include France, the UK and the US but there's a good case for everyone else to be included. All have been involved indirectly in the conflict. As for your POV excuses for dhimmi dress codes, rest assured the Jews were not forced to wear a yellow badge in order to (as you claimed) avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. Read the dhimmi article. Even the dhimmi article doesn't claim that the "dress codes" were anything more than a temporary, historical item. This sort of bullshit would allow us to claim that Muslims claim Jews are thieves because Bugsy Siegel was a thiefJayjg 15:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)in italicsDr Zen 04:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, this mangled comment is now un-readable, so I can't respond to it. Jayjg 06:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cite someone who isn't rightwing and/or American who thinks that! Dr Zen 06:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know *anyone* who thinks that. But that's beside the point. This is pure editorializing and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless you have sources you can cite that make these claims. --MPerel 06:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't cite *anyone* who thinks that. I can. Huntington is a rightwinger. Now cite me someone who isn't American and/or right wing and believes that. Dr Zen 08:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn? Anyway, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, if you want to make a claim, you need to back it up with something, it can't just be something you made up. Jayjg 15:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's rather telling that you don't consider Pim Fortuyn to be a rightwinger! How is it original research? It's a statement of fact. I will replace the snippet with a quote from someone who actually says it, rather than leave the weaselly rubbish that's there now.Dr Zen 04:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's rather telling that you imagine he was. He tried to join the Communist Party, stated he was not right-wing, and held liberal views. Do you imagine he was American as well? As for replacing it with a quote, see, that wasn't so hard, quote someone rather than inserting your own original research and POV. That's all Wikipedia really asks. Jayjg 04:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He "tried to" join the Communist party, believed in curtailing the welfare state and making government smaller, was extremely anti-immigrant and held liberal social views (partly on account of being gay himself). Rightwingers don't have to be social conservatives, Jayjg. Dr Zen 05:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He insisted he wasn't right-wing; perhaps your narrow labels simply aren't adequate for complex individuals. Was he American too? That's what you asked for, someone who wasn't right-wing and/or American. Jayjg 06:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't reverse the onus of proof. You claimed it was "predominantly right-wing Americans", you have to back up your claim. Jayjg 06:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are the guy reverting my edit. You show cause. Ah, I forgot. You don't need to. Zionists get a pass. Dr Zen 08:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you're the guy inserting POV, and no-one gets a pass for that. I didn't revert your edits, I NPOVd them. If you look at the diffs, you'll note that my final version was as close to your version [22] as it was to the original article [23]. On the other hand, you just blindly reverted every edit I made. Jayjg 15:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You made widescale reversions without any discussion. What do you expect? Dr Zen 04:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You made widescale edits without any discussion. What do you expect? Jayjg 04:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I expect to be blindly reverted by Zionist POV pushers. You never disappoint. What I didn't expect was to have my comments removed! That's low even by your standards.Dr Zen 05:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I expect to be blindly reverted by anti-Zionist POV pushers. You never disappoint. What I didn't expect was to have the meaning of my comments changed, then have them entirely removed! That's low even by your standards. Jayjg 06:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damn Shysters

Mucked up Arabia, the US and now Wikipedia. --Wiesenthaler 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did anyone else see this? He added the term "shyster" to List of ethnic slurs and now throws it around here to refer to Jews and Jewish editors. Jewbacca 07:28, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've twice reverted his List of ethnic slurs edits. My problem is that I don't know which, if any, are legitimate edits, although some are clearly not, and are not described in neutral terms, so I'm just reverting. I don't have time to do the research required to find out which are widely used and which are his own invention. He's not editing in good faith, that's all I know. Slim 07:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not editing in good faith???????? I did the research and provided the reference. You "don't have time" so you just revert. Looks like you are the bad faith editor here, not me. If you don't like the content, just admit it instead of making excuses. --Wiesenthaler 07:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shyster was already on the list by the way. Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to dishonest cheating stealing murdering scumbags lawyers/ --Wiesenthaler 07:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was NOT already on the list. Here is your edit of List of ethnic slurs where you added Shyster

Learn to read: "Scheister [Shyster] – U.K. Commonwealth & U.S., a Jew - derived from the character Shylock from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice". However, "shyster" today is also a derogatory reference to lawyers, especially those of questionable ethics, regardless of their ethnic origin. " --Wiesenthaler 07:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See, it doesn't even necessarily mean "Jews". let alone Jewbacca, just like the words "ignorant schmuck." --Wiesenthaler 07:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that people are arguing the wrong points. My question is: why did you feel the urge to make insulting comments in the first place? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not read it instead of reverting?

The section about Palestinian Christians is ridiculous blaming everything on Muslims and none on Israel. See this link that you keep deleting. The role of Palestinian Christians --Wiesenthaler 07:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits because, based on your behavior yesterday and today, you seem to be a vandal who is motivated by racism, and you have admitted you're a sockpuppet, so it's impossible to assume good faith. I will, however, read the Palsestinian Christian link and if it's from a reputable publication, I'll re-insert it if my reversion deleted it. Slim 08:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've re-inserted it. If there is anything else you feel was unfairly removed when I reverted, I'm willing to discuss it with you and edit it back in. Slim 08:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that you read edits before considering reverts? You don't seem to have a clue about NPOV or the validity of sockpuppets or a host of other Wikipedia rules. Maybe you need a long vacation or ask User:Mirv (or someone else who is grounded in reality) for help before you make any more biased POV edits. --Wiesenthaler 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know it's too much to ask. It's revert first, ask questions later round here! Dr Zen 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be your policy. On the other hand, I NPOVd your edits in small increments, clearly explaining the reason for each change in edit summaries. Jayjg 15:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting edits one by one is still reverting. Some would argue that each instance should count as a reversion and you have breached the 3RR. I prefer to try to reach out to you through dialogue. Dr Zen 05:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits though, I NPOVd them instead, which is why the final result was as close to your new version as it was to the old version. And no-one would who understood the 3 Revert Rule would argue that individual edits on different sections are each "reverts". And finally, abuse and insults, falsely painting yourself as a NPOV editor and all others as POV warriors (when in fact the opposite is true), mangling my comments so that they do not say what I intended, and blindly reverting everything I do, is not "reaching out through dialogue". Jayjg 20:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is with Wiesenthaler, because he is deleting large sections of properly reference material; has referred to "pigs" and "bastards"; wrote "I love kike" on his user page, and edited List of ethnic slurs to include "German oven mitt – U.S., Refers to incinerated Jews in World War II"; "Nickel nose – U.S., a jew. Refers to facial characteristics and money-centered nature" and "Gargamel – U.S. Jews. refers to greedy money-grubbing nature of Smurf by same name." Not a good-faith editor. Slim 09:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zionist POV pushers work in team again

No unbiased editor can work on this or any other article touching on Israeli issues. Any edits that POV warriors such as Jayjg or Jewbacca do not approve of are reverted automatically without discussion by whichever Zionist POV pusher is on hand, with the others joining the battle when the first has run out of reverts. This is disgraceful. It seems that whoever can push their POV the hardest and the longest wins. Dr Zen 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at the way they hog these articles as if they own them! They delete everything that comes from editors not in their "in-group" on sight then demand that "outsiders" meet their terms before they will agree to edit it back in for us. Jimbo would be rolling over in his grave - if he was dead yet. --Wiesenthaler 08:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dhimmi

Abdel, you were asking for a reference for the dhimmi claims. I've added Benny Morris, who is a history professor at Ben-Gurion University. He addresses only the history of the dhimmi from around 630 to the 1940s. So far, I haven't found anything on the current legal situation of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, but you're welcome to add something if you feel there is positive material that should be there to provide a balance. All you have to do is make sure you take your material from a reputable publisher (e.g a mainstream newspaper, an academic journal, book or similar. If you look around, there are likely to be Arab academics who have addressed this issue. Or possibly the U.N. Slim 09:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Oy vey! It's Benny Morris again. Perhaps you should read some other people, Slim! The whole idea of "dhimmitude" is based on the writings of Bat Ye'or, a rabid anti-Arab, and has become a pillar of hasbara. Historically, subjugated peoples were not treated equally to Arabs but this should be compared with the treatment of Saxons by Normans, except the Arabs actually allowed the dhimmi to keep their lands. We don't refuse to go to France because of our experiences, of course, nor are we occupying Normandy. The levy on them is understandable in the context of being a conquered people. Yes, they were banned from carrying weapons (not surprisingly, since they were the "enemy") and they were not allowed to sell alcohol to Moslems (a terrible burden that, being forced to respect Moslem customs). At times in distant history, the burden on dhimmis was harsher, but the general rule was that they lived side-by-side with Moslems unmolested (something that was not at all true the other way round!). None of it amounts to very much. Your description of Moslems "rising up" against Jewish communities does not even begin to look at the circumstances of these actions, but simply reports them as fact. Do you know the circumstances or are you simply content to report what an Israeli historian writes? Dr Zen 22:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, they were the "enemy" after living among Muslims for hundreds of years? And Benny Morris is a highly respected scholar and historian; why do you imagine he bases his ideas on Bat Ye'or? Anyway, your POV apologetics are interesting, but, unlike Slim, you don't appear to have any sources to back them up. Jayjg 22:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slim extensively quotes Benny Morris wherever she can. I'm beginning to think she is Benny Morris. I note that you do not address any of the points I make but content yourself to yell "Slim's right. Slim cites Benny Morris." As if Benny Morris were the only authority on Muslim history extant!Dr Zen 04:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Find another, then. Jayjg 05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that Benny Morris has written about the details and background of the conflict, and given that he's an academic, he's a very good source to use. The reason I like Bennis Morris as a source for Wikipedia, is that he has tried to straddle both sides of the debate. I suggest you give him a try, starting with Righteous Victims to read his analysis of how the history of the dhimmi directly led to today's prevalent attitudes on both sides. And as Jay says, if you have other sources to add, by all means do so. Slim 21:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Long View section

Why the ‘Views’ is such a long straight? very unreadable i am attempting to provide headings so user can read easily or glance through the article.

Zain 11:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How to contribute in this page? Are there any special rules in this page?

I have some issues which are not mentioned here, some claims by Palestinians which are not mentioned here. And some answer to some things which are not given.

Although normally in wikipedia If editor thinks he is adding relevant, NPOV statement its ok. But I think may be on this page rules are different. So how can I add some thing which is not mentioned earlier?

Zain 12:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does have special rules. If you are adding pro-Zionist material, feel free. If you add material that is neutral or has a pro-Palestinian slant, try to convince the gatekeepers before adding it, otherwise they will revert it without discussion.Dr Zen 22:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page has no special rules; it can be edited like any other article in Wikipedia. Some editors will try to tell you that any changes (except their own) must be discussed here beforehand; they are incorrect. This article is, however, the mother of all controversial topics, and there are unofficial conventions for controversial articles: edit slowly and carefully (i.e. no more than, say, a paragraph at a time), carefully reference everything, pay close attention to the talk page, and don't attack other editors. None except the last are required, but you will usually get better results using these methods. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 12:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, I don't think anyone here has made that claim. On the other hand, they do insist that POV edits not be made, or at least brought to the Talk: page first for discussion. And you seem to ignore Wikipedia:Be bold, which states

But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.

If you are an experienced wiki-ist, you will probably have a good sense what will be accepted edits, and which edits should be discussed first.

If you are new to wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your proposals, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:

1. If the material in question is a sentence or so in length, copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there. 2. If the material is longer than a sentence, list your objections on the Talk page but leave the main article as it is.

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.

Also, show respect for consensus. Avoid making major changes to an article if a vote (or poll) is currently in progress about whether those changes should be made, especially if there is no clear consensus shown by the vote.

By the way, I like your new sig. Jayjg 15:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok I made some changes. Well its difficult to imagine that they can be labeled as NPOV but any how u never know on article like this. as you put it 'mother of all controversial topics'.

So are my changes 'NPOV' can I go further?

personally I believe that article really required a full read for any reader, some one might be interested in some 'glance' two sections were very lengthy.

So can I now make further changes. Or do i have to wait for a 'verdict' on my earlier changes.

Zain 12:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are dealing with an Arbitration case which involves editors to this and related pages. While the decision is not final, one problem that was noted was edits which made controversial changes to most sections of the article, no references offered, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision#Extensive_rewriting_by_HistoryBuffEr. What I am proposing there (applying only to those before the Committee) is that changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English. I think the evil to be avoided is bombarding the other editors with a mass of edits, either all together (in one edit) or over a short period of time. That way others have a chance to consider the edits and not feel the whole article is turning to shit, unless closely monitored (and reverted frequently). Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I just provided headings Without any change in content. May be you are talking about future edits? sorry i was not able to get you. (probably because I am new to rules of this page)

Zain 14:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a policy that "changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English." References in other languages should be entirely acceptable, and limiting changes to one fact at a time makes it virtually impossible to make any major edits, which many of the pages surrounding this conflict need. However, I do agree that all changes ought ideally to be sourced. - Mustafaa 14:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the problem is not whether changes can be sourced. The Zionists can always find someone who has said what they want said; there is a whole industry devoted to saying it. And to be fair, the other side can easily do the same. Most of the fighting is over the spin that is put on the article. And what about those events where references disagree? You'd think we could put both POVs, but the POV pushers are intent on not allowing opposing views at all. Dr Zen 22:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right; the worst POV pushers, for example, actually reverse the meanings of what historians like Morris have said, simply because his views contradict their POV. Jayjg 03:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, would you agree that an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted? A result which will occur no matter how "good" the numerous changes are. I don't think this notion needs to be restricted to "one fact", but if references are provided for a series of related changes, if changes are too extensive it becomes difficult to evaluate what is happening. As do references to books and websites in Arabic or Hebrew. Fred Bauder 16:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

References in Arabic and Hebrew do make life a bit more difficult, but there are enough speakers of both languages on en that translations offerred can be cross-checked, and that is more appropriate than just banning their use, since not all information is available in English. I do agree that "an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted", but what counts as such is hard to determine... My experience with Sabra and Shatila Massacre leads me to suspect that such a policy would be misused to excuse reversions of contributions that actually significantly improved an already POV but supposedly "consensus" article. - Mustafaa 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what it's intended to do. It will slow up editors who are attempting to be bold and render articles to NPOV, while allowing the POV pushers simply to outedit them. Dr Zen 22:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the POV pushers keep putting in original research and unsubstantiated personal opinions, e.g. about right-wing Americans, dhimmi clothing designed to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims etc., which makes it hard for the editors who are trying to render the articles to NPOV to do so. Jayjg 03:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. The POV pushers put in stuff about people thinking there is a "clash of civilisations" without substantiation, mentioning dhimmi "dress codes" that did not exist except briefly in particularly repressive regimes (whereas dhimmi were expected to conform to Muslim norms of dress) in an attempt to smear all Arabs, and quoting extensively from single sources in sections that claim to represent a diversity of views.Dr Zen 04:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nah, the POV pushers put in stuff about about right-wing Americans, dhimmi clothing designed to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims etc., and quote from no sources at all, in an attempt to write an apologetic, rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Jayjg 04:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relation with 'Arabs'?

Here are some things which I will like to change. May be in first step just one proposal. It is stated in article that

"... conflict in the Middle East regarding the existence of the state of Israel and its relations with Arab peoples ...

I won't get into the 'Israel' part, because its acceptance or interpretation is very disputed. But label of Arab is not true. Let me give you example.

• There is a person with jewish ancestry(Any other non-Arab ancestry can also be sited) in Palestine/ Israel, he converts to Islam (now he is not an Arab right) (Or may be his parents converted to Islam) during war he leaves his land but now can't come back. He is in conflict but he is not 'Israeli' neither he is 'Arab'. Non-Jew term if can't be replaced with Arab at least it should be mentioned somewhere to make the claim 'politically correct'.

Same goes for Greek Christians and other refugees.

'Arab Israeli' conflict term is mostly applicable but this is not 'technically correct'. Plus there is no relation with 'Arab ancestry' with the conflict. Whatever ancestry you have if you are accepted as 'jew' you are one side of the conflict, if you are not accepted as 'jew' ancestry or religion) you are on the other side.

So this factor should also be mentioned

What about changing too

" "... conflict in the Middle East regarding the existence of the state of Israel and its relations with non-Jews predominantly Arab peoples ... "

Can I make this change? Or correction?

Zain 15:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would go further. There are Jews on the side of the Palestinians (see Neturei Karta) and even, sadly, Arabs on the side of Israel (eg the South Lebanon Army. - Mustafaa 15:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But Neturei Karta are simple people who disagree but they will be allowed to come back If they leave land. And South Lebanon Army was limited to their usefullness. Just a temprory support. Just because israel needed them not that israel wanted them without 'usefullness'. Israeli main standard is 'jew' or 'not-jew' as far as right to return is concerned.

Zain 15:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as right to return is concerned, yes, but as regards the accuracy of the term "Arab-Israeli Conflict", which is the issue I thought you were addressing, this illustrates that the conflict is strictly speaking neither Arabs vs. Israelis nor Arabs vs. Jews. - Mustafaa 15:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I'm glad to see you here. I'm sure things you help calm things down, and ensure NPOV editing, as is your wont. Regarding your point, you are correct, there are non-Jews on the Israeli side (including Arabs), and Jews on the Arab side. And there are non-Jew non-Arabs on both sides. Jayjg 15:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn’t describe history fully (timer line wise)

History section starts with 1948. conflict between two started when migrants started to come arm groups, property disputes Every thing? Why it is missing in history section. Can I add into it earlier conflicts.

Zain 15:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a fair point; technically, earlier disputes don't involve Israel per se, but given that they involve the people that became Israel, it seems sensible to address them here. - Mustafaa 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course they include 'Israel' It is such a debatable term, they say it exists for thousands of year that's why they are here in first place! Second term 'independence of Israel' is used not 'creation'. So if I get independent it means I exist before independence but only before I was 'captured'.

• Second Point is that have u seen that massacre page it has looooong paragraph on background section. If it is there, why not here ?
• Third Title says Israeli not Israel. Israel might be questioned but what about Israeli?
• Forth there are claims like 'State based on ethnic and religions claims thousands year old' So history is must mention here for background.

So I think history should be provided. Specially migration.

Am I right?

Zain 16:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How far back do you want to go? Is this addressed in any other articles? Also, I don't understand your point about "independent". Jayjg 16:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which massacre page? Anyway, I was agreeing with you: there should be at least some info on the beginnings of the conflict. A good starting point might be the 30's, although the "verbal" war started well before that. - Mustafaa 16:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the first real conflicts happened in the 20s, so I think we should go back at least until then. Haj Amin el-Husseini organized the fedayeen in 1921. Jayjg 16:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

frequently by giving them the property of Palestinian refugees under the Absentee Property Act

"frequently by giving them the property of Palestinian refugees under the Absentee Property Act". Frequently? What does that mean in this context, and according to which sources? Jayjg 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, make it "sometimes" if you prefer; given that most Israeli land falls into that category, I assume "frequently" is an understatement, but obviously I can't prove that offhand. For concrete examples, see, for instance, Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation. - Mustafaa 19:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Jayjg 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And note that it is actually the official Israeli position that "the property of these Arabs and Jews could be counterbalanced due to the population exchange"[24] - Mustafaa 19:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That appears to be a theoretical position regarding future settlement of competing refugee claims, rather than a description of past actions. Jayjg 20:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A new citation:

Mizrahim were brought from Arab/Muslim lands and settled in those communities in the desert, in border towns, or in remote areas, often on confiscated Palestinian land, and usually they were confronted by Palestinians because they were on the borders. Meanwhile, 70% of the Ashkenazim who arrived in the ‘50s were settled in Tel Aviv, so later when their children inherited property in Tel Aviv, an apartment or a house might be valued at $300,000 while a property in a Mizrahi community might be valued at $30,000.

- says an Israeli Mizrahi author, Sami Chetrit[25]. - Mustafaa

He's giving his impressions; he's not a historian. Jayjg 20:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

although in fact Palestinians were nowhere forced

"although in fact Palestinians were nowhere forced to remain in refugee camps". They weren't? Were they allowed to move anywhere they wanted in Syria or Lebanon, for example? Jayjg 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As much so as any citizen, to the best of my knowledge. - Mustafaa 19:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about Lebanon. I know that Palestinians were, and I believe still are, restricted in Syria regarding where they may live. They are also restricted in terms of which professions they may enter; and they're not given Syrian nationality (to the best of my knowledge) even if born there. I'm writing this from memory. I'll check it out later. Slim 19:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly they don't get Syrian (nor Lebanese) citizenship. I haven't heard about residence restrictions, but I'm always happy to see new sources. - Mustafaa 20:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lebanese treatment of Palestinians [26]. Jayjg 20:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

which I note does not mention any residence restrictions, though they do have an utterly unconscionable law "that bans Palestinians from buying property in Lebanon". - Mustafaa 20:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has a number of discriminatory practices. Anyway, if you can't buy property, doesn't that mean you're fairly restricted to your refugee camp? Jayjg 20:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not if you rent. - Mustafaa 21:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am reading this section of talk but not getting, for what section of article this discussion is being done?

Zain 21:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

some Palestinian groups, as well as Egypt in 1973, chose war

"some Palestinian groups, as well as Egypt in 1973, chose war"? This implies that Egypt went to war to fight for the Palestinians, which I think is farfetched. Jayjg 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. Let's remove Egypt. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

full rights and freedoms

"certain Arab states such as Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen do not give full rights and freedoms to Jews, and others, such as Saudi Arabia..." can you source these claims more precisely? (Not that any Syrian gets "full rights and freedoms", mind - the term is rather ambiguous, and I'd like to come up with a more precise one.) - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are some of the easier to find links [27], [28], [29]. Also, Jordanian citizenship law does not allow Jews to be citizens. Jayjg 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A word of caution, Jayjg, given the talk about references above. These sources are highly POV. I hope this isn't what Fred Bauder means! We'll end up with articles that are entirely referenced to hasbara sources!Dr Zen 23:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On those links, I see nothing about Lebanon not giving Jews "full rights and freedoms", and only uncited claims from a highly POV source about Syria and Yemen. - Mustafaa 20:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More information: [30] [31]. The first link is better. The Jews of Syria have been persecuted for years; the issue is quite famous. I'll take out Lebanon. Jayjg 20:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for Syria, the State Department[32] says: "The Government primarily cites tense relations with Israel as the reason for barring Jews from government employment and for exempting them from military service obligations. Jews also are the only religious minority group whose passports and identity cards note their religion." As for Yemen, the only discrimination claim I've found is one that non-Muslims aren't allowed to run for public office[33]. The claim about Saudi Arabia contradicts the Wikipedia article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, copied from State Department, which states that Jews live in Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi Arabia, at least, should be removed too. - Mustafaa 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes and explanations

I think following are two rules here

1. if you see some ‘POV’ in ‘claim’ don’t change it. Answer it at end in response.
2. If you see some thing wrong with response, improve the claim.

Now let me make some changes and try to explain it here

1. it is being claimed that many ‘Arab countries’ never had ‘direct’ conflict, the note is removed without siting reason. the note exlains the same thing as earlier note negaties so it is simple response. Given response but don't remove.
2. ’Anti Sentiment increase’ is different claim then , ‘effects of historic protection’ and as they are 'claim' not facts, please answer them by response not by edit. anti-sentiment and protections are totally opposite phenomenon can't be mixed.
3. Attack on army is not a claim, claim is that ‘legitimate attack’ (note claim not fact)
4. Claim is not they use voilance for independence but that others have used the same too. ('Claim here too')
5. No mention of saying Arab say in title as we already know that this section is claimed by arabs or all above may be changed by ‘claimed by Israeli’.

So please be careful in editing ‘claims’ which may be seen as ‘POV’ better method is to give a ‘response’ that’s the reason we have chosen two sides claim different. Because we are considering both as POV.

What one sides claim is not expected to taken as fact.

Zain 20:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Zain, I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying here. Jayjg 21:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are asking about individual changes or what i said earlier that claims shouldn't be treated as 'Facts' so no need of editing them?

Zain 21:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both, really. Would it be possible to make briefer points? Maybe that would help. Are others experiencing this difficulty, or is it just me? Jayjg 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain is having trouble with English. Consequently both his edits and his comments on talk are difficult to understand. Fred Bauder 22:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the effort he is making, especially working in a non-native language, but I'm just not having much success in understanding either today. I would very much like to understand Zain better, I don't want to ignore a valid point through non-comprehension. Perhaps I'm just tired. Jayjg 23:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK fix grammer of those sentences which you understood.

Zain 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation by Fred on State Terrorism?

ok can we ask Fred Bauder for mediation on [state terrorism] as a 'third person'. I will really like this to happen. So can it happen? If you are tired don't worry we can do it tomorrow or some other time.

Just asking that in principle can it be done?

Zain 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This won't work as I am an arbitrator. I don't want to get into details and then have to recuse myself. Just try to see that everyone is doing their best. Fred Bauder 01:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can you refer to any third person? I mean any one. Not as authority but just as any other neutral third person.

Zain 10:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might try User:Ed Poor or simply Wikipedia:Requests for mediation Fred Bauder 11:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

POV edits yet again by Jayjg

1/ You insisted on "traditional". So, traditionally, the dhimmi were those who had accepted Muslim rule rather than be slaughtered. 2/ The dhimmi were allowed to keep their land precisely because they had accepted dhimma. 3/ Elie Kedourie is a "historian" with no mention of his ethnicity or religion, and yet Muhammad Hamidullah is a "Muslim scholar". 4/ You moved the quote from Hamidullah to the end of a list of antiArabisms, where I had interposed it. And you added a "however". This is clearly intended to bias the reading of this part of the article. 5/ Cite Morris. If he says the Muslims "rose up" against the Jews (a bizarre reading since uprisings are generally against rulers) you won't mind quoting his saying so. If he did not, and this is a POV wording not of his invention, then you'll agree that my rewriting is far more acceptable. 6/ There is nothing to suggest that Harun raised heavy taxes "on behalf of" the vizier, which implies that the vizier prompted it. Please give your source for this edit.

I've reverted your widescale changes, and I ask you to discuss each here before imposing your POV.Dr Zen 04:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. If you wanted to say "rather than be slaughtered", you could have.

But I didn't want to. It's not necessary. It is, however, necessary to imply that the rule was accepted.

Accepted at the point of a sword, perhaps. You could put that in too, rather than your attempts to whitewash. Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. That's not what Morris says. You can't reverse Morris's meaning just because you believe something else.

You can't cite Morris in one sentence and expect his writ to run for the entire article.

You comment is a non sequitur. You reversed Morris's meaning in order to promote your POV. If you think there's too much Morris in there now, go find someone else to quote. Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. Do a search on Muhammad Hamidullah. He was one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, and that's how the links describe him. He was a lawyer, professor, translater, author, linguist fluent in dozens of languages, etc. He's described as a Muslim scholar here and all over the web because that's what he was.

I know who he is. You have ignored the point I made, which is that you do not refer to others in the article by their religion or ethnicity.

I refer to him that way because that is the way he is most commonly referred to, as a simple Google check will show you [34], followed by "Islamic scholar" [35] I didn't make it up. Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4. Nonsense. The structure of the article is to give the position of the people stating it, then give countering positions. Since Hamidullah's position counters those of the earlier people, it goes at the end.

When has that ever been the idea of this or any other article?

Have you read the article? It presents positions, then consistently follows at the end with "however, critics point out" or similar wording. Perhaps you should read the article again. Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5. Slim had the book, and she quoted him. Since you've never read it, you shouldn't speculate about what it actually said, and change things according to your opinions.

She did not quote him saying they "rose up". I assume she cannot. She replaced the part about Spain (not in the area, and not on the map), which has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict the article is about, but does smear Arabs quite nicely.

Well, he certainly didn't say your amazingly POV whitewash, "there were conflicts between Muslim and Jewish communities". A pogrom in which hundreds of Jews are murdered by Muslims is not a "conflict between Muslim and Jewish communities". Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

6. A deputy vizier is an advisor to the vizier; he is appointed by the vizier, and does everything on the vizier's say so. If you like, though, we can take the whole apologetic out, since the only point of it was to provide an excuse for the killing of hundreds of innocent Jews; what is your source for it in the first place?

It provided context. I know you don't like anything that suggests that Arabs are not bloodthirsty anti-Semitic murderers who will kill Jews at the drop of a turban, but the context is important.

It was your typical attempt to insert POV in order to excuse cold-blooded murder. Or perhaps you think that if a Jewish vizier is disrespectful to a Muslim women, then it justifies murdering hundreds of Jewish men women and children in response. And by the way, what was that source again? Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll NPOV your POV edits again now. Jayjg 04:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) You'll reimpose your POV, YMTS. in italicsDr Zen 05:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nah, I just removed your unsubstantiated POV and whitewash attempts, as usual. Jayjg 05:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen asked above for a quote from Benny Morris. I didn't think this much detail was necessary, but as it's been requested, I've put it in, and there is more of it if required. I also added that Morris is from Ben-Gurion University, and I added his book to the "further reading" (or whatever it's called) section, but there should probably be a References section, where we can list our references when we make insertions. If everyone makes sure they have a reference for their insertions, that will reduce disputes. Slim 05:08, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Your quote is entirely disingenuous. You have replaced material about areas that are not connected with this conflict and you do not substantiate the contentious phrase "rose up". So, in fact, you've made the article even more strongly POV, although to your credit, it's stated as Benny Morris's POV and not yours. Dr Zen 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous. It is the passage I was citing (but not quoting) when I wrote the "rose up" sentence. You didn't like that, and asked for a quote. So I have supplied the quote. If you feel another expression is better than "rose up," by all means add it. I'm not sure what you mean by "you have replaced material about areas that are not connected . . . " I have not replaced anything. Earlier on this talk page, Abdel asked for a source for the dhimmi passage, which I had not written. I therefore provided Benny Morris as a source, and I wrote a couple of paragraphs summarizing his views. You questioned those paragraphs, asking for a direct quote for the "rose up" claim. So I have provided the direct quote. Perhaps I should scan the entire book into the Talk page? I don't know what else to call it if not "rose up against," but I'm not wedded to that expression, so by all means find a more accurate one if you want to. There were attacks on Jews. Jews were killed, sometimes in their thousands. Jewish buildings were set on fire. You choose the word. Slim 05:39, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Muslims and Jews had a difference of opinion, in which thousands of Jewish men, women, and children were slaughtered, and their buildings set on fire". That's a suitably whitewashed phrase, don't you think? Jayjg 05:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen, please do not misrepresent other people

Dr Zen, I draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Talk page article, which explicitly states "Don't misrepresent other people: Typing errors, grammar, etc are always fair game, and remove personal attacks where you can, but don't edit someone's words to have them say something they don't believe in.". In this edit [36] you do just that. I will assume that your intentions were good, but please don't do so again. Jayjg 04:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I have not changed even a word of your comments. You, OTOH, deleted mine. Stop this nonsense. Dr Zen 05:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have interspersed your words throughout my comment, so that it gives a false impression of what I intended to say. I restored my original comment, and have assumed your intentions were good, but please leave my comments alone, so that they say exactly what I want them to say. If you want to respond to my comments, you are free to do so, but not by sprinkling words throughout my comments, changing their meaning and impact. Jayjg 05:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get a grip on yourself. My replies are in the correct places in your comments so that anyone reading it can follow the discussion. If you do not like it, find a way of refactoring it, but do not order me to allow you to hold forth unmolested. This is not a soapbox, Jayjg, and you're not writing speeches. My suggestion to you is that when you make a long comment that you expect an answer to, you break it up into numbered points, or leave spaces, or just write a series of shorter comments. And do not delete my comments! That's unforgivably rude.Dr Zen 05:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get a grip yourself. You have mangled that small (130 word) paragraph again, making it unreadable. Please stop doing so. If you need to respond, do so in a way that is readable, and doesn't change the meaning of my words. And don't delete my comments! That's unforgivably rude. Jayjg 05:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reference please

Would the editor who added the following please supply a publication date and a link if there is one? "However, Muslim scholar Muhammad Hamidullah writes in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs: "If Muslim residents in non-Muslim countries received the same treatment as Dhimmi in the Islamic regime, they would be more than satisfied; they would be grateful." Many thanks, Slim 05:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure:

Muhammad Hamidullah, "Relations of Muslims with non-Muslims", Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol.7, no.1, January 1986, p.9Dr Zen 05:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I am about to create a References section, which at the moment will sadly only contain two references, but hopefully it will grow, as that is the surest way of ending disputes that I know of — always cite sources. Slim 05:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

As it happens, I do not agree. It's rather easy to find sources that agree with one view or another. I believe it's best to include as many views as possible and to present them as views (I'm not sure about referencing them all because in a large article one will end up with a long list of references -- but the references are for us not the reader; in other words, I think you should put Benny Morris in the references if you really think he is useful further reading, but cite him here on the talk page if you simply want him to back your POV). I think it helps to present "facts" as neutrally as possible too and for all to accept that facts do not necessarily become any more "factual" just because somebody, anybody says so. Dr Zen 05:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should follow Wikipedia policy, which is Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These policy pages have to be read in conjunction, not as separate policies.

Sorry, what's your point? There are different levels of verifiability, as the policy points out, and different ways to cite sources. I'm entirely conversant with the policies. Perhaps you feel every single claim in the article should be sourced with full references. If so, get cracking. I disagree, of course. I don't believe for instance that you need to source that the Middle East has seen a conflict. You can state that as a fact. Nor do you need to show that it has in fact been the centre of diplomatic and media attention for years. This is not disputed. Referencing these claims would make the article unwieldy, if not unreadable.

The sources are for the readers, not for us, so that they can easily check what we say. Not everything can be referenced, as you say, but any contentious claim must be referenced, and the more contentious it is, the more reputable the source should be. Any claim that another editor challenges must be referenced or removed. The burden of proof is on the editor who inserts the claim, not on the editor who challenges it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means, as you know, that even if we personally know something to be true, we can't include it in Wikipedia unless it has been published somewhere already. (The only exception to this would be if we were referring to primary source material like trial transcripts, but that gets tricky because the other editors and the readers wouldn't have access to them, but these exceptions are rare and needn't trouble us with this article.) So the key is: provide good references — academics on any side of the debate are the best thing; reputable journalist are next best; political leaders, United Nations, government bodies, and so on. Slim 06:37, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I suggested that we ought not to weigh down the article with references for everything (a different matter to suggesting that we should not source everything -- you are conflating the two) because it is simply not reader-friendly. It is readily verifiable that Hamidullah said what I claim. I gave the full quote and the magazine in which he said it. It is not a particularly useful piece of further reading, and as such, I think it can safely be omitted as a reference. By the way, I cannot find anything in the policy that gives a hierarchy of sources. I think clearly that in different cases different sources will be best. Benny Morris is not, in fact, a primary source on 15th century Morocco. A 15th century Moroccan would be! Do you see? Dr Zen 07:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I know Morris isn't a primary source. I didn't say he was. Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources. Wikipedia itself is regarded as mostly a tertiary source, though sometimes we do analyse primary source material, but it's less common. (I asked you before how historians and journalists use information differently, and you never did get back to me on that, so maybe the above is part of that discussion.)

I'm also not sure how you're distinguishing between a source and a reference. Perhaps if you explain your terms and your concerns, I'll know better what you mean.

A reference is a piece of work referred to by the author(s) in the creation of the article, so if you referred to the Hamidullah article, you have to list it as a reference. At the very least, you have to list it in a References section at the end of the article, but if the material you used from Hamidullah was in any way contentious, the sort of thing people might question/challenge, or is a quote, then you must refer to it inline as well, for example by writing in brackets (Hamidullah, 2000). Slim 20:29, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)