Talk:Isratine proposal

Qaddafi talks about an united Israel/Palestina
At the Swedish TV-channel Kunskapskanalen they showed a documentry that is part of a series called  "De skapade historia" and the episode has been named "Khadaffi" (Aired first time as I know of 2006-02-07 21:30CET and rerun 2006-02-08 18:00CET). Qaddafi talks about the White book with what he belives is the only way to get a lasting peace in todays Israel/Palestina and naming the new state as Isratine.

As far as I know the documentry was produced by DR in a project founded by the nordic state owned tv-channels (at least DR, YLE, SVT, NRK).

Myself I have had thoughts in a similar solution, as Israel is depending on the Palestinan labour force and Palestina is depending on the money from Israel, both wants Jerusalem as the capital of the state. Palestina will control important areas for the Jews and Israel will control important areas for the Muslims and Christians, so to give everyone free access to thise palces would be more logical to form one state which allows religious freedom and where state and religion is separated from eachother.

Found a link to the most reliable source, ALGathafi

Trizt 10:29, 10 Feb 2006 (UTC)


 * The link appears dead now, so I will remove it. It would be good if anyone could find a new reference.
 * -Ingar R -- IP 80.203.45.142, 00:38, 11 August 2006

The link says that not all historical details... are accurate-- can anyone clarify which ones are disputed? Lusanaherandraton 07:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To start with the second paragraph of http://www.algathafi.org/medialeast/medialeast-en.htm, the Philistines weren't "the original inhabitants of the land" -- the Philistines were part of the migration of the "Sea Peoples" from the Aegean area, and didn't enter Canaan until a little after 1200 B.C. Furthermore, the Philistines only occupied the southern coastal plain (i.e. the location of the Philistine city-states of Gaza, Ashdod, Ascalon and a few others).  Thus פלשת / παλαιστινη / Palaestina meant "Philistia" (i.e. the southern coastal plain) and not the whole land of Canaan/Israel -- until a semi-arbitrary renaming by the Roman emperor Hadrian ca. 135 A.D.


 * So much for the first two sentences of the second paragraph. I'm sure I could go on at further great length to deconstruct the rest of this document, if either you or I had the patience... AnonMoos 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that "not all historical details... are accurate" is a "characterizing opinion of people's work". Please consider removing this statement or link to a discussion about a possible rebuttal. Thanks.

Ichihi 15:33, 30 Jul 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Neutral point of view seems to be mainly about applying inherently subjective adjectives like "fascinating", "magnificent", etc. AnonMoos 19:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What is Wrong with some pictures?!
I wish to state that i am against the removal of picture in this article!

Pictures like these add colour to the article and make it less dull and boring. and since it doesn't take space in wikipedia to have these images in the article, than i am bringing them back.

anyone who has a different opinion is welcome to express it. --Oren neu dag (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed them again. Please do not re-add them unless and until you can provide a reliable source stating the the person who made the proposal stated in this article has also proposed the flag and typography in these images.  I strongly suspect that you cannot do so.  We don't have images just to add color to the article; we have images that have something to do with the article, and these do not appear to do so.  6SJ7 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, Oren, that I added my image as a lighthearted little bit of fun, without any particular claimed encyclopedic value, but almost sure to raise a smile among those who know both the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets -- while your attempt to add a speculative flag was a little bit more heavy-handed... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2009 Op-Ed
With all due respect to the folks that have taken the article thus far, I added mention of the new NYT op-ed into the article. I'm not well-versed with the references, so I fear mine might be clunky; I welcome all attempts to mend any mistakes therein. Also, removed the statement of lack of support among the two parties, as no sourcing has appeared in the 10 months since the statement was entered.JGray (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked your edits but they were good. Thank you for contributing to the article! --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)