Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 4

Boston Tea part and &#8216;violence against non-combats&#8217; / &#8216;terrorism&#8217;
Yeah they were not against people &#8216;directly&#8217; but they were against &#8216;non-combat&#8217; (owners of the property) and I can refer to many places where they are even refered as terrorism.


 * Wikipedia:Words to avoid It says
 * &#8217;Participants in the Boston Tea Party would be considered "terrorists" by British standards at the time&#8217;


 * on List of terrorist incidents it says
 * The Boston Tea Party was one of the first colonists' rebellious acts of the American Revolution. Today, the FBI classifies this as an act of terrorism, under destruction of property for purposes of political coercion.

So it doesn&#8217;t refer to &#8216;killing of people&#8217; but use of &#8216;voilance/force against non-Combats&#8217;. A general category which includes both &#8216;killing of people&#8217;, &#8216;hurting them&#8217; and &#8216;destruction of their property&#8217;.

So please add that again (I don&#8217;t want to add my self due to bad english :-(

Zain 11:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is it that you would like to have added, Zain, and I'll see if I can do it myself for you. Slim 20:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Refugees
Zain, I changed your most recent heading (I forget was it was now) to "Treatment of Jews by Muslims" because I didn't understand it. Let me know if you feel that's not accurate.
 * Some of the other headings are pretty hard to understand too. Jayjg

I think we should try to pin down how Palestinians are treated in other Arab countries, because we say that they are not required to live in refugee camps, whereas my understanding is that they are, in some countries. They are also not given nationality, even if born in other Arab countries, except Jordan, which is why the refugee problem continues. This has a direct impact on the "right to return" issue, which is at the heart of the conflict. So we need to do more research in this area. I will look around for references. I almost hate to look inside my Benny Morris book because he's bound to have written something about this, and then I'll be accused of being him again. :-) Slim 23:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I provided a link above about the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon, which, frankly, is incredibly poor. Jayjg 23:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's the link again . Jayjg 23:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course. Lebanon, however, is a decidedly special case, due to the Lebanese Civil War.  A substantial body of opinion in the country blames Palestinians for upsetting the Muslim-Christian demographic balance there, and thus causing the whole war; as a result, they've even written into the constitution that they will not accept any solution that makes the refugees permanent Lebanese residents. - Mustafaa 23:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, there's always a good reason to discriminate. ;-) Jayjg 23:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think that we should "try to pin down how Palestinians are treated in other Arab countries" in this article, except to the extent that it is directly relevant to the various sides'. There are more narrowly focused articles where that should be covered. - Mustafaa 23:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Palestinian refugee article could use some expanding on this. It should also list treatment in other countries besides the 3 mentioned there, particularly Kuwait. Jayjg 23:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, now I look at it, at least some of that should be moved to Palestinian. I don't think there are any Palestinian refugee camps in Saudi Arabia, for instance. - Mustafaa 23:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Jay. Mustafaa, I agree we shouldn't say much about it in this article. Palestinian refugees is devoted to it, though it doesn't say how people born to Palestinian parents are treated in other Arab countries i.e. which countries won't give them nationality. But we need to say something more in Arab-Israeli conflict, even if only a couple of sentences, because it states that Palestinian refugees are not required to live in refugees camps, which I believe is false &mdash; though to call them "camps" is misleading, because they often look like normal areas, with nice houses etc, but I believe they are restricted to living in those areas. However, I'm writing this from memory and could be wrong, so I'll have to look for sources. If I add anything, it won't be much. Slim 23:52, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you can source the claim that Palestinian refugees are required to live in camps somewhere, then by all means change that; but I see no evidence for it. For Syria, only about 20% of refugees even live in the camps; see also, , . - Mustafaa

Thanks for supplying those links, Mustafaa. I've had a quick scan, but I'm going to print them off and read them more carefully later. I won't change anything unless I can source it very carefully, and if I intend to do that, I'll mention it here first. What I wrote above is based on recollection, from reading and speaking to people, that the Palestinians in Syria were not, in fact, well integrated, and were not only required to live in certain areas, but were also restricted regarding their movement around town (Damascus) at night. But I could be wrong, or my information could be out-dated. Thanks again for the articles, which look very interesting. Slim 00:12, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Explanation as requested

 * Meaning of &#8216;collective punishment&#8217;
 * See Collective punishment which says
 * Collective punishment is a term describing the punishment of a group of people for the crime of few


 * Application here
 * Jews were not protected by all Muslims and most of their protectors were their ancestors not them so if it is crime to protect jews then term collective punishment is suitable here


 * Meaning of &#8216;crime&#8217;
 * According to [www.lawyerlocator.co.uk/glossary.htm www.lawyerlocator.co.uk/glossary.htm]
 * Activities which are prohibited for the protection of society as a whole, or a section of society


 * Application here
 * Society as a whole in a Palestine suffered from it.


 * Historic Protection of Jews
 * This can be seen by contents.

I don&#8217;t say that every body should agree with this. But as it is a claim, not a fact it doens&#8217;t require every body to this. Zain 23:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Zain, I'm still not with you. I know what the individual terms mean; I just wasn't certain of the way you were putting them together. Do you feel that my substitute heading "Treatment of Jews by Muslims" is an accurate heading for that section?

Zain, you have reinserted that headline: "Collective Punishment' due to 'crime' of historic Protection of Jews" What do you mean by "collective punishment" here? What is the punishment and who is being punished? And what is the crime? Slim 23:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Who is being punished --- Palestinians
 * What is punishment -- millions in migration. Tens of thousands killed and occupied in west bank and gaza and ...... list goes on.
 * Crime: They were not able to predict the future. If jews continue to migrate in these areas they might create an independent state.


 * I think now it is clear? :Zain 01:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you. You are saying that Palestinians are being punished for their failure to foresee, because of their attitude toward the dhimmi (that Jews were weak and not worth paying attention to) that the Jewish people who began to buy up land from Arabs might one day form an independent state.

Okay, got it. :-)

The problem now is twofold: (a) the words "punished" and "punishment" are POV in this context (not necessarily in others but definitely here); and more importantly, the paragraph this is a header for isn't about that. I would like to change it back to "Treatment of Jews by Muslims" which very neutrally describes what the section is about. Do you agree? Slim 01:23, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks God you got it. now as one problem solved lets move to other one. See the headings now see the following headings.


 * Islamic law requires non-Muslims to be subservient
 * Nearly all muslims (1.3 billion of them) will dis agree with it. (At least 1 billion will). It is NPOV.


 * War was pursued by the Arabs, not Israel
 * ooh So If all chinese come to Sri lanka native population leaves now they say and try to get back the land by force chinese will say war was pursued by arabs. Nope many will dis agree with you too here they will see jews as the main cause of war.


 * Israel cooperates in peace process
 * I don't call it POV I call it joke!


 * Zionism is misunderstood
 * Zioniism is used different in practice and in theory that is problem not lack of information. Here too it is POV.


 * Arabs as a threat to the state
 * So all agree that israel is state? na na


 * Return of Palestinian refugees a problem rather than a solutio
 * Problem for only jews right? not for palestenians NPOV???


 * Alternative solutions to the refugee problem
 * like don't come back. It is 'solution'? NPOV.


 * Land disputes do not justify violence or terrorism
 * 'justify' is always NPOV in All cases. Any how should they make a mutual signed application? and of course after this all problems will be solved? NPOV justify??


 * Concerns regarding violence or civil war
 * This is not even a valid heading. it is just 'hidden heading' to hide actual claim that settlements are legal. NPOV?


 * Minorities are treated well in Israel
 * yeah well is totally NPOV word as we all agree that what is well treatment and what is '''not well treatment

So you see all headings are fully NPOV. I didnt' make them POV because claims are always NPOV. yeah and facts are always POV.

by the way ever heard of negative logic?? i'll suggest reading. intresting subject.

Now?

01:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? :-)

Could we deal first with the "collective punishment" header, because it doesn't describe what the section is about, and it really is POV. It might be a POV you agree with, but it's POV nonetheless. I would like to change it back to "Treatment of Jews by Muslims", because this is purely descriptive. Do you agree?

I would love to have some reading recommendations on negative logic, if you have any. Thank you. Slim 01:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You didn&#8217;t comment on NPOV of Israel headings? I wonder why. First let&#8217;s try to agree on fundamental issue first.


 * If &#8216;claim content&#8217; or &#8216;claim heading&#8216; of any &#8216;claim&#8217; is accepted by some as a &#8216;claim&#8217;,  but not as an NPOV fact by all. Should it be changed?


 * For your help understanding negative logic please see

Web page with pictures.

Zain 02:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I think you misunderstand the reason for the titles and their wordings. Each title reflects the argument that is made in the section following it. You may not agree that the argument is fair, or accurate, or NPOV, but that is not really the point. Rather, the title simply reflects what is in the section. The problem with the title of your section is that it doesn't reflect the contents that follow. I hope this is helpful. Jayjg 02:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok at least we agree on two things


 * NPOV of israeli side headings is not very valid.
 * headings may be NPOV as they are claims


 * now I have made some changes. I think now the matching problem is solved.

Zain 02:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, we didn't agree that the Israeli side headings are NPOV, or invalid. My point was that the heading should match the contents of the section. Jayjg 03:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, Can you please provide a reference here or in the article for the claims regarding the Collective Punishment section? You say "Many muslims...", can you provide the reference in the article? Jewbacca 02:38, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I see what you mean now. I've come up with a compromise between our positions. As Jewbacca says, it's probably also a good idea to find a reference (an external source, like a book or newspaper, which makes this same argument). To say "many Muslims," "these Muslims" is a bit vague. The new section now reads:

Treatment of Jews by Muslims and its consequences
Many Muslims assert that Jews were treated better by Muslims than by other rulers who persecuted them. This resulted in the migration of Jews (especially those fleeing the Spanish Inquisition) to the Ottoman Empire, including the present-day region of Israel and surrounding areas. Had the Muslim treatment of Jews been worse than the treatment Jews received in Europe, these Muslims argue, Jews would have left Muslim areas, just as they left Nazi Germany and Russia, instead of migrating in. As these Muslims see it, Palestinians are paying the price for their forefathers' failure to see that Jewish migration might one day lead to the creation of an independent Jewish state.

Slim 02:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 22


 * POV Reverts?? may be had too much pin? may be too difficult to deny? at least never got a response section in that one! but for how long? Please list all the things which u disagree with. Let me list some of them.


 * Palestenians suffered --dieing--refugee---?
 * Jewish migration?
 * Increase in number due to migration as a factor in creation of 'jewish state'?
 * They were them self not a part of decision to welcome jews?
 * Ooooooohh reason is that all of it is difficult to deny but no muslim has eyes to see it. It is very easy to verify. let's do a sample surven on palestenians you know many of them on talk page. let's show them this claim and ask do you claim this? This way we will find do they claim it or not.

But at least one is claiming???

Ok please answer all of the points that do u thing all of them wrong??

Zain 03:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I just moved your comment to the bottom here to make the flow of the discussion clearer. Slim 03:17, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Slim why u removed Excellent but didn't remove 'wel treatment' in israel section? please it is a claim. which can be POV. (although i believe it is NPOV) but please explain.

Zain 03:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zain, Why don't you provide a reference source for the "collective punishment" section & claims? Jewbacca 03:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I have removed the words "excellent" and "destructive" from your header, as they are POV terms in a headline. In the article itself, you can use these terms if you attribute them (e.g. Mr X thinks this is excellent), but otherwise not, and you can't attribute them in headlines. The headers should be neutral i.e. with purely descriptive words. No prescriptive or value-laden words. No words suggesting you approve or disapprove. Also, I changed the header below it: the one about anti-Sentiment, because I couldn't understand it. I think you wrote most of the headers, so it's probably a good idea to let other editors have a go at editing them for clarity and to make sure there are no POV words that are not attributed. I hope that's okay with you.

I didn't see the "well treatment in Israel" comment. Which section is this in? Slim 03:30, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just found it. It nows reads: "Treatment of minorities in Israel." I see what you're trying to do, which is to represent first the Israeli view, then the Muslim view, and that's fine, but it can't go too far in headers, with words like "punished," "excellent" and "destructive," and you can only make these points in the article itself if you attribute them i.e. provide references/sources/citations like an academic text, or a newspaper article, for example. Slim 03:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry I edited during you explained on talk page. It is a full section
 * Minorities are treated well in Israel
 * and please see my earlier comments. All Israeli side headings are POV.

yeah late here too typed this things before your second comment :-(

So how 'far' it can go. Very difficult to to define if you give an arbirtary limit. It will be helpful. Plus does this mean i can put it in contents with replace many muslims by very few muslims or some thing like this? I will even compromise if you write only one idiot on wikipedia says that! at least that will bee see by many as factual :)))

Yes, but which Wikipedia editor would that be? :-)
 * You can call me if you add that material. Even if you claim it is only a conspiracy theory. Utter lie. Terrorist whatever. What matters is the argument is strong very difficult to deny. So it has its place if it is invalid in respnose section you can write it is just concept of an idiot editor. I will agree with that text if 'claim' of this idiot is mentioned.

Sorry for another possible misconception I earlier thought that you are some pro-israeli supporter. Are you some official from wikipedia to monitor this page? If you can refer that you are. then it will be great help for me in this page.

No, I'm not an official from Wikipedia, just an ordinary editor. I'm going to archive this discussion shortly, as the page is getting a bit long, but I'll answer your point above about many muslims/very few muslims, in the section below. Slim 04:03, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well initially as expected from my affliation insertions were kind of POV. But you can see very difficult to deny using logic. But I'll like to remain on this page for long and this page will further change, count on me! :-)

Another thing please don&#8217;t edit talk page a lot i am posting this three times now :-(

Zain 03:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion on arbitrary limit
here is a purposal but please once agreed it will be applied to ALLL. and won't change until decided with concensus.


 * I'll say that claims headings can be negative but shouldn't be abusive.

yeah i agree line can't be drawn. but it will help remove things 'son of ...' in headers.

Zain 03:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My own feeling is that all headers should be in neutral language, because otherwise, as you say, it becomes difficult to draw the line. If you are going to have Israeli POV headers, followed by Muslim/Arab POV headers, then the expression of the POV should at least be very minimal, and not words like "excellent" and "destructive," which are extreme POV words. But it's difficult to say what's too extreme, and for that reason, I feel it's safer and easier to have all header contain only NPOV words. If you have POV headers, and we have long discussions about how POV and what is appropriate, and we then agree, another editor could come along in six months and make everything NPOV again, so we would have wasted our time. So I would say, let's make them NPOV now, so they are more likely to be left alone in future.

Also, don't forget the issue of references. If you need me to explain more about references, please ask and I'll go through what Wikipedia policy is and how references can be found. Slim 04:10, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Slim Please help jyjg 'corrected' the english by removing material
I posted this


 * Muslims say even if this false propaganda regarding understand of 'dhimi' is accepted as the 'most undisputed fact in the world' It is totally irrelevant in the context of 'current conflict' because of following. 'dhimi' is only applicable when Muslims are rulers. As Muslims never ruled jews during current conflict so the purposed connection between current conflict and 'dhimi misconception' is irrelevant. But still to clear the minds about dhimi Muslim clarify as following.

It was 'translated' by jyjg as following


 * Some Muslims respond by contesting the accuracy of this understanding of dhimmi status, and by stating that in any event it is irrelevant, since currently no Muslim nation imposes these laws on its non-Muslim citizens

He removed the most important pieace of argument


 * 'dhimi' is only applicable when Muslims are rulers. As Muslims never ruled jews during current conflict so the purposed connection between current conflict and 'dhimi misconception' is irrelevant

So please 'translate' it and put it. I will really appreciate it.

Zain 04:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, I have added something. That section now reads:

"Some Muslims respond by contesting the accuracy of this understanding of dhimmi status, and by stating that in any event it is irrelevant, since currently no Muslim nation imposes these laws on its non-Muslim citizens (though Saudi Arabia) requires all citizens to be Muslim). The dhimma, or writ of protection, only applies when Muslims are rulers, and as Muslims have not been rulers in Israel, they argue that any purported connection between the conflict and the history of the dhimmi is misleading. They also argue that Qur'anic passages regarding relations with non-Muslims are often taken out of context and assert that the tolerance of Muslims toward Jews was one of the reasons Jews fled to Palestine to escape European persecution."

Is that okay? Slim 04:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mostly except following which I tried to fix


 * Ruler in current conflict, argument is more convincing so mentioning first
 * Jews instead of Israel is used, bcoz of you see israel article they claim it was first &#8216;liberated&#8217; in BC. So it will some what apply muslims ruled Israel. Third as most muslim don&#8217;t consider israel to be an state so contradiction in claim may be sited
 * Further to avoid confusion 'current conflict' is used.
 * not ruled part is highlighted.

Zain 05:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited the punctuation/grammar a little, and I swapped the order of the paragraphs because Jay's paragraph was a direct response to the one preceding it, and your new paragraph interrupted that flow. But I have left it as a separate paragraph so that it stands out. I put "in Israel" back in, because Muslims do rule Jews in some countries. Whether individual Muslims regard Israel as a state or not, Israel is a state. I have left "Muslims say" in order to reach a compromise with you, but for the future, we can't leave statements like that often. Claims like that need to be sourced, especially if you get rid of "some" or "many" because now it sounds like all Muslims would say this, which may be true, may not be true; we can't know because they are not all here for us to ask. That makes the claim unencylopedic. But I have left it to avoid further dispute over this section. I also got rid of the bold (highlighted) part, which is also unencylopedic. Hope that's okay now. Slim 05:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * After highlighting, mostly acceptable although believe it can be improved. Now you got my point that why I wanted more mention of the history. Because current history section Explains nothing about land claim, which is core of the conflict. may be I'll like mustafa or any 'better english person' to add that for me.


 * Zain 05:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the bold/highlighting has to go. If I don't remove it, another editor will, so it's a waste of time to keep adding these things, because they're POV and won't survive. It would be very helpful if Mustafaa could help you with the English aspect. I don't know what your mother tongue is, or what Mustafaa's is, but if you have another language in common, it would be very useful to have that assistance. Slim 05:51, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see following


 * Well muslims didn't rule jews in 'current conflict' in Palestine is very accepted.
 * It is not only a muslim claim, it is difficult to dispute even by jews.


 * 'dhimi' only apply when when muslims are ruler.
 * This is also agreed. of course how can u get 'jazya' when u don't rule?


 * Third you say muslim don't accept it state but it is state. See following arguments.
 * Let's say only muslims accept it as state
 * Still 22% of all humans living on the planet disagree with it!


 * Please consider 'Taiwan' problem. It was considered as State before us-sino relations and even held Veto vote in UN. Because it was 'state' china it self. Now every where it is called 'non state' simply because of increased power of main land china.


 * You see in the world we live the terms are 'defined' by power rather then facts.

Zain 05:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

so are you asking me for references of first two or any thing else?


 * Zain 05:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In general, editors must supply references for any claim that is challenged, or any claim likely to be. So for example, instead of writing "Muslims argue that the history of the dhimmi is not relevant to the conflict," it is better to say: "According to X, the history of the dhimmi . . . " where X is an academic, a journalist, an organization like the United Nations, etc. And if possible, after the sentence, you write where they said this. For example, in brackets (Washington Post, June 12, 2000). Or you can simply say "According to the Washingon Post, with the date in brackets after the sentence. The format is less important, but what matters is to refer to a published source. Then no editor can challenge your statement, so long as it is relevant to the article. Slim 05:51, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I think it will be difficult method to use in more NPOV facts. Like according to (washington post X jan ..) a war broke in 1967. I agree that providing links is positive. But relating Muslims didn't rule jews in israel in recent times claimed by Arab-Times in its edition XYZ will be NPOV. because it will suggest some sources claiming it, while other denying it.


 * Problem is that I have tried to use less disputed 'ground facts' to make a claim. like migration, early treatment. because this article is more porn to 'prove your self war' then other articles. To avoid this i try to put more known facts. Although in other articles I take different approach. But that approach will cause harsh revertion here. So I am using less disputed claims and then using logic to make a connection.

Zain 06:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain, please provide a reference
Zain, 3rd request: Please provide a reference source for these claims that you added, or else they are liable to be removed:
 * Many Muslims assert that Jews were treated better by Muslims than by other rulers who persecuted them. This resulted in the migration of Jews (especially those fleeing the Spanish Inquisition) to the Ottoman Empire, including the present-day region of Israel and surrounding areas. Had the Muslim treatment of Jews been worse than the treatment Jews received in Europe, these Muslims argue, Jews would have left Muslim areas, just as they left Nazi Germany and Russia, instead of migrating in. As these Muslims see it, Palestinians are paying the price for their forefathers' failure to see that Jewish migration might one day lead to the creation of an independent Jewish state.

Jewbacca 06:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

That link does not address the following claims which are still without reference:
 * Many Muslims assert that Jews were treated better by Muslims than by other rulers who persecuted them.
 * Who are these "Many muslims"?
 * Had the Muslim treatment of Jews been same as the treatment Jews received in Europe, these Muslims argue, Jews would have left Muslim areas, just as they left Nazi Germany and Russia, instead of migrating in.
 * Who are "these Muslims"?
 * As these Muslims see it, Palestinians are paying the price for their forefathers' failure to see that Jewish migration might one day lead to the creation of an independent Jewish state.
 * Who are "these Muslims"?

Please provide references. Jewbacca 07:38, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You asked me to link I linked.
 * well treatment jews under muslims that link is also provided in the section which tells about well treatment.


 * paying priceI gave the link which you removed without telling why it is not relevent?


 * So I answer both of your question by linking directly. So please again revert the changes which you have made.
 * And it is claim. not a fact I have only to show some body claiming it that's all. If you disagree with that claim. write in response.


 * Provide references to articles, journal citations, books about the "Muslims" you cite. There are spaces above under the three questions I posed to you.  Linking to images of dead Palestinians does not answer the questions above. Jewbacca 08:12, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Zain, that's not an unfair request. I suggest that you come to the party with your sources, otherwise your information is liable to be taken out after a day or two due to lack of proper attribution. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain 08:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, before we start getting to eager to remove stuff, let me remind you that almost none of the claims listed here are sourced; why focus just on this one? This general claim is common enough to sound extremely familiar to me. (Mind you, if on those grounds the entire "perspectives" was deleted, I wouldn't object; it strikes me as basically an excuse to put in POV material.) - Mustafaa 14:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, one representative link for this sort of perspective is this IslamOnline article. - Mustafaa 14:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mustafaa. Could you please help Zain understand what the difference is between linking words in a section, and actually providing evidence that "many Muslims" hold a specific viewpoint? Jayjg 16:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agreed to how many, probably you havne't read earlier talk. I said for me it doesn't matter that what u write with it, few rare, non-existant, only one whatever. This was not a problem with me. I provided refrences to muslim claiming this. So if you like to say they are few you could have edited and wrote few.

Zain 01:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Request
I was asked to help mediate here. I assume that means I would stop editing any articles relating to this topic during the mediation - if my offer to mediate is accepted.

My impression is that problems between contributors at Wikipedia fall into 2 categories: (a) courtesy has broken down between various individuals or factions, and neither side wants to be the first offer an olive branch; (b) one side (or both!) is so convince they are "right" about a certain point that the very idea of including other points of view (POV) seems ridiculous (like seriously considering the flat earth theory in an article on astronomy.

We are all in this together, so I hope we can restore an atmosphere of civility or even harmony (!) as we labor to describe the various ideas about what happened in the past in the Middle East and what various religious, political or other leaders/groups think ought to be done about the situation. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:51, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, it appears that Zain has asked you to be an informal mediator, which is odd, because Zain has been getting a lot of his own way on this page, and several editors have been bending over backwards to try to help with the language problem. Still, any help you can offer in that regard would be appreciated. It would also be useful if you could help Zain understand the need for external, reputable references for any claim likely to be challenged. If you read through this page, you'll see that Zain has written that he inserts facts then joins them up using his own logic. He wrote: "this article is more porn [prone] to 'prove your self war' then other articles. To avoid this i try to put more known facts. Although in other articles I take different approach. But that approach will cause harsh revertion here. So I am using less disputed claims and then using logic to make a connection." Zain 06:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is precisely the problem. He is introducing his own POV (his own logic) without external references to back him up, but the things he's writing are (for him) so obviously true, that he doesn't understand why anyone would object to them. Slim 21:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, to make things easier for you, I've catalogued previous discussions so that Zain's concerns are either on this page or in Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict/Archive 4. As you'll see, it's not an unfriendly discussion. The biggest problem is the language barrier, I feel. Slim 23:16, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ed, I just read your comment again about offering to mediate only if your offer of mediation is accepted. Does that mean this is a formal mediation offer? If so, who are the parties and what is the stated issue? This is just to clarify that I didn't intend any of my comments above to imply my acceptance of formal mediation, and I'm not in a position to speak for anyone else. Slim 00:26, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, there is some confusion about my request to some here. I will like you to help mediate in State Terrorism. No problem here, slim is quite helpful here. So can you help me in mediating State Terrorism.

Thanks Zain 01:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain&#8217;s newest &#8216;Original Work&#8217;, using negative logic.again!
Here is my newest &#8216;original work&#8217; on this conflict. If any body else has done similar work I&#8217;ll like you to refer it to me so I can put it in the article. As I am wikipedian editor. My work doesn&#8217;t qualify as &#8216;worth&#8217; enough to be in the article :-(

This also uses the same &#8216;negative logic&#8217; which basically relies on the &#8216;negative&#8217; argument of the opponent. Most Muslims specially Palestinians take opposite approach. They deny every thing that israeli say. I on the other hand accept every thing which they say. They reject every thing from holocaust to Anti-Sentiment presence. If they say yes Nazi did bad, hate exists, I agree with them more forcefully then jews themself. Every thing they say I accept and use that to make my case. Now my this work is basically result of acceptance of their claim of Silent Holocaust. Coupled with claims of &#8216;&#8217;dhimmi&#8217;&#8217; &#8216;discrimination&#8217; and jazia. Further assumptions which are helpful are forced/semi-forced conversions. And claim that Muslim kill any body who converts to any thing other then Islam.

(Work done entirely on 25-Dec-2004)

Initial Assumptions for this work


 * 1) Muslims treated Jews harshly.
 * 2) Jews need separate state because intermarriages have negative effect on their population, unless they have a state.
 * 3) &#8217;Discrimination&#8217; against jews is reduced or eliminated when they convert. So &#8216;forced conversion&#8217; directly or indirectly is very effective method Muslims implied to convert jews&#8217;. The &#8216;forced conversion&#8217; is a term usually coined by jews to justify their less numbers.
 * 4) Jews claim of Silent Holocaust are largely true. Their claim is that there are 13 million instead of 20 million largely due to intermarriages.
 * 5) Islam (with Christianity) allows easy conversation. Some times it is more then easy, it is even &#8216;forced&#8217;.
 * 6) Islam allows intermarriages with Jews. (yeah it is official)

Now crushing the numbers from Silent Holocaust


 * 1) Numbers from Silent Holocaust give the impression that, 35% people with jewish ancestry now belong to some other religion within 50 years.
 * 2) But looking a little deep will reveal further. If we assume intermarriages and &#8216;same marriages&#8217; produce same children X. In &#8216;same marriages&#8217; 2 jews produce X children. While in intermarriage  one Jew produces X-Children. So it gives an impression of 70% people having a Jewish ancestry converting into some other religion.
 * 3) But another factor reduces it
 * 4) This is 70% of 20 million.
 * 5) Using this method total people of having &#8216;Jewish blood&#8217; has increased by about 35% more then &#8216;normal population growth&#8217;.
 * 6) Making total &#8216;Jewish blood population&#8217; 27 million. With people still sticking with Judaism 51% of total &#8216;Jewish blood&#8217;.
 * 7) But one might say that some time an intermarriage results in Jewish children too. But that population is already counted in the increase. But still if we try to be conservative let&#8217;s use 33% in a half century.

Now using same figures in Muslim era.

But now let say they might come back to religion and all geographical things helping jews. At least 10% mixing/converting when occupied by Muslim is very very difficult to dispute. Specially considering &#8216;dhimmi&#8217; thing and other &#8216;discrimination&#8217; which don&#8217;t exist today. Like forced/ Semi forced conversions. And 5% when they are free. Now let&#8217;s say if we have 100% Jewish population. In start of Islamic era in Palestine.

Please here note I am accepting another anti-Muslim assumption that if a muslim converts to any other religion he is killed. (Assuming all negative helps further any way).

After 50 Years (half a century) 90% jew-jews, 10% muslim-jews Now 100 Years 81% (only getting from 90%)

Now after 1000 Years 100 * (09)^20=12% !

Almost exact to the percentage of Jewish population to Muslim population before Zionism caused migration in Palestine.

Now if we assume the rate of current &#8216;silent holocaust&#8217; % will be much reduced. Even if we use 20% reduction per half century.

100*(.8)^20=1.15% !

This all is based on 1000 years of Muslim rule. If full 4000 years are taken. Current Jew-Jews make no considerable portion of &#8216;actual Jews&#8217;. With most of the jews are actually arab, or Romans?

So arabs have better claim (as they make majority of 'actual jews') on the israel then jews!

This is not an isolated phenomenon relating to jews alone. It is also common in America with 'white blood' in 'blacks' and 'black blood' in 'whites'.

In US case even when intermarriage is low. Slavery and not to mention very small time. Time really matters here because the mathematics is exponential.For 100 Years it is 81%. For 500 years it is 100*(0.90)^10=34%. For 1000 years it is 100*(0.90)^20=12%.

Of course &#8216;forced conversion&#8217; can&#8217;t happen to convert a black to white!

May be some body say that they have 'more pure blood' but noticed this research given on page African American. Which says


 * "Further, recent genetic tests on a small population of African-Americans revealed their ancestry to be, on average, approximately 19 percent white."

So looking at a 4000 years phenomenon I doubt they will have 'pure blood'. So they don't have any more right (if not less) then palestenians on 'Tel Aviv'.

Please read which says.
 * "Fully half of all American Indians today are married to non-Indians"

So if you have seen any such related calculations please let me know, so I can refer it in the page.

Zain 17:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the general point that both Jews and Palestinians have significant Jewish and non-Jewish ancestry is well taken, and it is nicely ironic that, if you accept some extreme anti-Muslims' improbable assumptions, the Palestinians must have more Jewish blood than the Jews themselves. But few Zionists are stupid enough to try to justify their takeover of Palestine just on the basis of ancestry - no one's added such an argument here, for instance. - Mustafaa 18:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well their assumptions will make them less then 0.1%!(With 30%--0.08%, with 40%--.004%, with 50% (Silent Holocuast claim)0.0001% ). But I am talking about a lot realistic estimate, which is 5% intermrraige resulting in 10% jewish blood in non-jews. Convertions can add more to it. I personally believe that there are a looooooooooot more musilms-jews then jew-jews. Let me try to give you simple example of Pushtoons. According to Encarta (and many others) they are jewish. their current population is 42 Million! Exclusively Musilms.About 3-4 Times more then all other combined, who still call themself jews . Then jewish mixing in rest of arabia.


 * I seriously think that in Arabia Muslim-Jews outnumber Jew-Jew by atleast 1-10 ratio (if not more)


 * Do you have any reference to any research work that how many 'jews' are muslims? Some approximate figures. It is must mention in this article. (If we can find any such references) Rough ideas of non-forced conversions

Zain 18:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

minority argument waiting to be destroyed
In my quest to find resources of my &#8216;original work&#8217; I found some other resources which can destroy the argument of minorities in Israel. Because this one is upto the level of ministries, and a general trend by all jewish society.

Like is http://www.mediamonitors.net/ahmadsublaban11.html

And ofcourse the worst more 'terrorist' muslims were taliban we can compare both that can be confirmed even by jewish resources http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Afghanistan.html

Mustafa can u add it in ur english :) or slim can u help me in it.

And also don&#8217;t forget to see my 'orignal work' using negative &#8216;logic logic&#8217;.

Zain 19:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)