Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 3

Talk:Palestine Archive 3
Simon J Kissane- My name is Joseph E. Saad, I have been very busy, so I apologize that you have had to edit alone, and get blamed for things that I know were never meant to offend. I, originally when I edited, tried to include as much relevance as I could to make the article more balanced. I was extremely shocked, hurt, and dismayed to find the original article so biased towards in my view, the Israeli view. I have seen an encyclopedia written by a Palestinian author, which did much at that time to illuminate my perspectives. Also I have looked at sources such as culturegram, companions to the middle east, histories of the region & others in that line to get an idea how a balanced article should look. I am afraid that the way it is is presented now still needs some work, but it is getting there, the figures are also I would say not accurate.

I am not an extremist, I am just a person, I try & be fair in my views. I have nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion, only Zionism & the concept of Zionism.


 * This, by definition, is anti-Jewish. How would you feel if someone said that they "have nothing against Arabs or Islam, only against the existence of Arab nations and the concept that Arabs should have the same national rights as other human beings."  You would brand such a person as a bigot.  So why is this same behaviour towards Jews acceptable?


 * I don't like any sort of nationalism, be it Arab or Jewish or anything else. (I'm an Australian, and if is little I dislike more than Australian nationalism.) But RK, you are ignoring one fundamental difference between Arab and Jewish nationalism -- the Arabs actually lived in the land they claimed as theres, and had lived there for over a thousand years. --SJK


 * Garbage. It has been conclusively proven that the majority of people who call themselves Palestinians today are the descendents of people who immigrated to Israel in the 1800s and 1900s.  I don't accept your fact-free historical revisionism.
 * And as everyone knows, the majority of Jews in Israel today migrated there from Europe or from other parts of the Arab world. Even if most Arabs are later migrants, the fact still remains that until the rise of Jewish immigration due to Zionism the majority of the population was Arab and had been Arab for over a thousand years. -- SJK
 * Agreed. RK


 * Although Jews had lived in Palestine/Israel/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the past, and some still remained there, most Jews lived in Europe or in other parts of the Arab world. Jewish nationalism inherently involved colonialism and irredentism. Arab nationalism didn't. -- SJK


 * Where do you get this socialist brand of antizionism from? Not from history books, UN demographics, or English historical records of the Palestinian mandate.  You are merely repeating the antisemetic claims that extremist Arabs use to deligitimize the rights of Jewish people to have a state of their own. RK


 * Do you have any evidence it didn't inherently involve colonialism and irredentism? Most of the Jewish emigrants came from Europe. Admittedly they did not fit the definition of colonists in the sense of being a colony of a particular European power, but they were Europeans (whatever their more distant ethnic background, they had lived in Europe for centuries). They came with the intention establishing their own society separate from that of the native population, not integrating with the native population. The Balfour declaration was only possible against the background of European colonialism in general. And Palestine was a British colony, although the League had renamed colonies "Mandates" for reasons of political correctness (the system of mandates was primarily developed to deal with the Central Power's colonies after WWI -- they didn't want to give them independence, lest it provide a precedent for their own colonies, but they did not want to let the Germans keep them either.)


 * Ok, I will defer to your argument and agree with you. (Don't forget to pick your jaw back up...)RK


 * And it was irredentist. Irredentism is claiming a right to territory occupied by another state or people, on the grounds of distant historical connections. Zionism is undoubtedly the most irredentist philosophy in human history -- it wanted territory which the majority of its people hadn't occupied for over a thousand years.
 * Also, I didn't get my views from "extermist Arabs". I mainly developed them myself. -- SJK

That it excluded and continues to exclude myself and others from the land of our birth, from our homeland, is the main reason for this conflict..LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT IS THE WAY IT IS....


 * Nonsense. Over 75% of Palestine is now in Arab hands, mostly run by Hashemite Arabs in Jordan, and partially run by Palestinian Arabs in parts of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is only a small part of the original Palestine land mandate. Further, Arabs already have more than 100 times the land area in the Middle East than Jews do.  If every Jew in Israel was murdered by Hamas, Hizbollah and the PLO, and all Israel was destroyed and became part of another Arab state, that would still amount to less than a 1% increase in the amount of land controlled by Arabs.  Thus, ending Zionism would have virtually no effect on Arabs at all - but it would be Hitler's greatest post-humous victory.  I cannot understand why you see the mere existence of Israel as the cause of the middle-easy conflict?  Open up some history books, and you will learn for that every time Arabs have fought against Israel, they have fought against each other four or five times.  While there have been only five Arab-Israel conflicts, in this sime time period there have been over two dozen Arab-Arab and Arab-Persian conflicts.  The region was war-like before the existence of Israel, and it still is now.  As long as you continue to blame Zionism for the problems of the Arab nations, you will get nowhere.  RK


 * Jordan is not part of Palestine. It was part of the Mandate prior to 1923, but the British then turned it into a separate entity. The British doing so was foreseen by article 25 of the Mandate, which permitted them to withold most of the provisions of the Mandate in its eastern part. And AFAIK (you are welcome to submit evidence to the contrary), the separation of Trans-Jordan was approved by the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with article 27. -- SJK


 * Saying that Jordan is not a part of Palestine is exactly like saying that Israel is not a part of Palestine. Both statements are so ludicrously false that one hardly knows where to begin disputing it.  Yes, the land of Palestine was LEGALLY separated into two different legal domains...but the land still PHYSICALLY EXISTED, and it still does exist!  Giving it a new name doesn't make it "not part of Palestine" anymore.  If your argument were true, then once the UN recognized the State of Israel (note the new name!) then Palestine no longer exists!  The British could have separated 75% of Palestine, or 95% of it, or 1% of it, but that has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Just because the name of one region changes, history doesn't suddenly rewrite itself for that area.  RK


 * Of course the land still physically existed. But geographical names are decided by a combination of convention and legal recognition, and the meaning of geographic names can change over time. The legal definition of "Palestine" changed in 1923, and the conventional meaning has changed as well -- in the usage of most people, Jordan is not part of Palestine.


 * That is totally true, but I would argue misleading. The places that people came from are still those same places, even if the names changed, and even if today people talk more about the Western region (nowadays the State of Israel) than the rest of the region. RK


 * Also, Israel is increasingly not a part of Palestine. When a Palestinian state is established, it will be called "Palestine", and then saying "Israel is part of Palestine" is going to sound like saying "the United States is part of Canada"... of course, some Arabs might still think of Israel as part of Palestine, but most of the world won't. And signs of this change in meaning can be seen even today -- increasingly people in the West use "Palestine" to refer only to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as recognised by the UN. -- SJK


 * Agreed, but this is a semantic problem, and it needs to be carefully separated from the geographic and political problems. This, btw was one of the reasons that the Zionist groups decided on the name "Israel" for their state, rather than "Judea", as they hoped that the name would refer to the biblical land of Israel, and not necessarilly descendents of the tribe of Judah (which most Jews today are from).  They had hoped that their region would have the name Israel, and that the rest would have some other name. At the time, the entire region, it was imagined, would still be referred to as Palestine.  Today the semantic issue is hopelessly complicated, and no one can even speak about the damn thing without footnotes and maps. RK

So sorry again, but anyone who does not follow the Zionist line gets it, we have seen it too often, again, and again. I am not trying to be offensive or "anti" anything, but the facts are the facts, I remain a refugee, while Eastern Europeans, are welcomed to the land of my birth (with US funds), good luck anyway, I will try and help in a positive way.


 * Revision of previous statement: I disagree. The State of Israel does not turn away Jewish refugees. In contrast, most Arab states have such a hatred of each other than they refuse to help each other's refugees - and often murder each other by the tens of thousands - and this doesn't bother you?  I would suggest that you step back and look at the bigger picture.  Jews do take care of each other, but this isn't as true in the Arab community, and the Palestinians suffer as a result.  But this doesn't make the Jewish inhabitants of Israel (most of whom are Zionist) bad; it makes the leaders of the Arab nations bad.  RK


 * RK: I really wish you would stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a Jew-hater. It is unjustified and uncalled for. -- SJK


 * I really wish that people would stop saying that only the Jews have no human rights when it comes to having their own state (i.e. this is the definition of Zionism) but claim that all other human beings (especially Arabs) do have such rights. THAT position is unjustified and uncalled for. As long as people claim "I like Jews, but I am agains Zionism and the very CONCEPT of Zionism", antisemitism continutes, and terrorism against Jews is justified. The position you claim to be justis *precisely* what Hasmas and Hizbollah claim. Doesn't this bother you? Human rights are for all humans - including Jews. RK


 * I don't believe any people has a right to a state. Ethnic or racial groups do not have rights; only individuals do. Jews have no right to a state; Arabs don't either. Of course, the residents of any particular place have the democratic right (though it is subject to some limitations) as individuals to have the government in that area organized in such a way as best suits them, be that having an independent state, or some degree of autonomy in a pre-existing state. But Jews, in the period when Zionism arose, where not the residents of a particular place claiming rights as individuals. Thus the right did not apply to them then. (On the other hand, it applies to Jews living in Israel now, insofar as they do not violate the rights of non-Jewish individuals in doing so, which I would argue it often does.)
 * RK, let me clarify something for you. I have no objection to the current existence of Israel, only to its creation. Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel was immoral and was either illegal or should have been so. However, now that the state of Israel has been in existence for over fifty years, and so many Jews have been resident there for even longer, it would be immoral and illegal to just kick them out. Israel's existence although originaly a wrong has been converted to a right by prescription, as it were.
 * But this right to existence is not absolute. Israel and Israeli Jews have a right against attempts by Arabs to kill or deport them all. However, if Arabs moved in peacefully and slowly grew until they formed a majority in Israel, then although that would be the end of the Jewish state, so long as the Arabs respected the rights of the Jewish minority no harm would be done, and Israel or individual Jews have no right to prevent such a peaceful annihilation. Any attempt by Israel to prevent such a peaceful annihilation would be immoral and illegal, since it would inevitably involve discrimination against Arab people.
 * And I don't support Hizbollah or Hamas, nor do I support violence, be it committed by Palestinian militants or the Israeli government. -- SJK

BTW- When I do a search for Palestine, it does not come up, why?, is there a way to fix it so when you do a search, it pops up, like any other topic... Thanks, so far the article is not bad...

Joseph E. Saad - Don't worry Joseph, I more or less agree with you. Your do have some pro-Palestinian bias, but a lot of other people editing it have pro-Israel bias, so don't worry. I hope people will be able to argue it out to some sort of basic agreement on what happened. The thing that really gets me is some other people (not you) who can't seem to have a civilised discussion without hurling abuse and insults. -- Simon J Kissane

=
================================================================================

Thanks the search is much better, I will have to clean up some other definitions, like, Canadian/Christian ( and others) that come up. It is more professional to have just the meaning without our comments, I am still learning....

Joseph

The article's lead sentence makes it sound as if someone has been using "Israel" and "Palestine" as synonyms, something I haven't seen myself. I thought Israel was only part of Palestine.


 * "Palestine is a region in the Middle East, also called Levant and Israel. "

Changed one statement about legal status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The original statement that the West Bank and Gaza could be considered integral parts of Israel is incorrect because *Israel* doesn't make that claim. Unlike the Golan which Israel has annexed, it hasn't annexed the West Bank or Gaza and as far as I know the Israeli government has never asserted that it has full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. Certainty there are some in Israel who think that it should annex the West Bank and Gaza and one can argue that Israel has a historical claim on the West Bank and Gaza, but unless the Israeli government actually declares sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and annexes the territories, I don't think it's possible to claim the legal theory that was proposed to be valid.

This statement should be altered: "Israel captured these territories at the end of the Six Day War. Israel has claim to have annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem." This is very odd. Does anyone believe that Israel secretly didn't annex these lands, but only claimed to? Why would they do that? They've got enough troubles as it is! Rather, we should say that Israel did annex these lands, but this annexation is controversial, and it has not been recognized by other governments. Its like when Morrocco took over Western Sahara; they didn't claim to have done so...they actually did so. Whether other people recognize or not is a different story, and can be noted. RK
 * Depends on what you understand annexation to mean. If "annexation" means "legal incorporation into its territory", then whether or not Israel annexed it is controversial. (It might be true as a matter of Israeli domestic law, but many would argue it is not true as a matter of international law.) On the other hand, if "annexation" merely means "Government claims it as its own territory", then everyone agrees Israel annexed it. -- SJK


 * Yes, I meant only that the Israeli government passed a law to this effect and claimed it as its own territory. I don't mean that anyone else accepts it. In fact, Israel didn't annex the Golan in the same way that it annexed part of the city of Jerusalem, nor did it annex it in the same way that other nations annex land. The government of Israel did a very curious thing, and I am not quite certain why. They effected a quasi-annexation of the Golan, by extending Israeli law over it, effectively making it part of Israel. They had other options open to them, yet they didn't take it. I suspect that this was a compromise. Perhaps they thought it might give future governments more wiggle room. (i.e. they could say "No, we never really annexed it, that's why it Ok to give some of it back in a peace deal" or "Yes, of course its annexed, that's why we can't give any of it up.") RK

RK

Quick question: Does anyone consider the Golan heights part of Palestine? I was under the impression that the answer is no, and if that is the case the article needs some refactoring.
 * As I understand it, neither side considers Golan Heights part of Palestine. It used to be part of Syria, until the war (was it 1967 or Yom Kippur, I can't remember). Israel now says they have annexed it, sort of (see RK's comment above). Most of the rest of the world, including all the Arab states, consider it to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel. -- SJK

I removed the following, because I would like to see a reference for it: "Though about ninety-five percent of the territories were offered to the Authority, the offer was rejected." -- SJK


 * Camp David talks, August 2000. It is agreed by all parties that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the territories inside the "green line", including territories in East Jerusalem. This offer crossed just about any "red line" that the Israeli public has ever had, although many Palestinians claimed it did not go far enough. See http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000720/2000072019.html and http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380. I will modify the sentence somewhat and return it where it belongs. --Uriyan

Hang on, you are confusing interim and final status negotiations. The PA only has full control of a few percent of the territories under the Oslo Accords (and succeding agreements.) The offer to grant PA full control over 95% of the territories was not an interim offer (like the current control the PA has), but a final status offer. Control PA currently has comes without strings attached with respect to the final status of the negotiations. The control Barak was offering comes with strings attached with respect to the final status of the negotiations. Arafat, rightly or wrongly, (personally I think wrongly), refused to accept Barak's strings. But by comparing the current situation and offers made in final status negotiations, you are comparing apples with oranges. -- SJK


 * Yes, that's a good point. I'm aware of the distinction, but I've just been taking it for granted. I will mention that too. --Uriyan

=
================================================================================

I am getting pretty tired of editing out falsehoods and misleading statements, by obvious Zionist supporters. Look the truth is the truth, no less and no more...

Is it not enough that Israel holds all the cards? Can you not let a Palestinian person (who is now a refugee) to at least set the record straight? It is not always Jewish history or Zionism or Israel, there has always been and always will be a Palestinian people, so do not try to minimize us...

No matter how hard you try, the truth will come out, and justice will prevail. It cuts both ways and I pesonally feel both sides have equal rights to the land...

I have tried to play fair, and keep the article sounding like a proper Encyclopedia article, not a propaganda article. Please try and do the same, please... Thank You!

Joseph (Proud Canadian, Palestinian Refugee)

=
========
 * Note to Joseph, or whoever had added this part of the article. An Arab state has never existed in the land of Palestine. The Arab inhabitants of this region have never, before the 1960s expressed en masse their desire for statehood. So before the 60s, there wasn't a "Palestinian people". That's also the reason why you don't have a Palestinian state according to 181 - the Palestinian arabs were not able in consolidate in 1948. As to the claims below - feel free to make them, but do three things - stick to the facts, write whose opinion it is and don't censor out the other side's thoughts. --Uriyan, a proud Israeli citizen.

removed Palestinian propaganda

There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine:
For all the invasions and changes in its rulers, the core of Palestine's population has been etthnically stable for millennia, posessing for the last thirteen hundred years a culture that has been unambiguously Arab.

Many popular images of the Zionist movement portray the land as desolate or empty of a vibrant people and culture. Golda Meir announced that they never existed as evidenced in this famous quote:

"There was no such thing as Palestinians...It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

This kind of propaganda could never have been really convincing outside Israel because so many people - travellers, merchants, missionaries, and soldiers - had actually seen the Palestinians and knew that they existed even if they did not know much about them.

There are now somewhere between 6.5 - 7 million Palestinians worldwide, some live as a minority in Israel proper, some live in the West Bank and Gaza portions of Palestine, most are refugees in many parts of the world (mainly the Middle East, Europe, and North and South America) living a life of diaspora, as displaced persons.


 * According to your figures, perhaps. But the Palestinian social agencies are infamous for dishonesty in their reporting of refugees. Even the UN, which is staunchly pro-Palestinian, used to have figures which were much lower than those published by the PLO.

Few Palestinians have assimilated to their host countries. Most feel too strong, a sense of identity, with their Palestinian nationalism.


 * Yes, but this is because their Arab host countries treated Palestinians as criminals to be locked in regugee camps for decades at a time. It alway shas been the open policy of many Arab nations to actively prevent Palestinians from assimilation. You make it sound as if Palestinians refused to assimilate. Nothing could be further from the truth. There has a 50 year long middle-east wide Arab policy to actively prevent this from every occuring. You can't leace this fact out. RK

In 1948 Palestine ceased to exist politically, however, its people remain a vital and integral part of the land, known variously as: 'the Holy land', Israel, Palestine, etc. They remain Palestinians awaiting their political and national rights.


 * This comment is ludricrous. No Arab state of Palestine existed at this time. The British Mandate of Palestine was give mostly to Arabs at this time, and only 20% was given to the Jewish people. In the vast majority of Palestine, the Arabs fought amongs each other, and one group (the Hashemites) have oppressed the other group (the Palestinians). The oppression still occurs today. Stop blaming the Jews for inter-Arab problems. That's not constructive criticism; that's historical revisionism. RK

=
================================================================================

No I do not think your comments are right at all, and I think that many would disagree with you. There has always been a Palestinian people, (state by the modern meaning or not) these people are still a people called Palestinians, living in a land called PALESTINE (pre-1948)

You are a racist trying to deny these facts.You can put out your view, I will put mine, do not delete my work... and I won't delete yours, there are two sides, two views, neither yours or mine are exclusively right...

Joseph


 * Tell me, does the fact that Jews lived in Palestine 2500 years ago make them Palestinians? What makes the difference is the desire for self-determination. Until the 1960s, the Arabs living in Palestine did not desire self-determination. They never had a joint sub-culture, join symbols, joint (agreed upon) leadership. Try to disprove me here. As to the "racism" part, I must regretfully inform you that I belong to the same Semitic race as you. I dislike you for another reason, though. Your view of history is perverted and you are yourself a hypocrite trying to show something through your double standards. Your writing is not not encyclopedia-worthy as it is now. However, I didn't delete it. Learn what "objectivity" is and come back later. --Uriyan

- A response:

Uriyan

At least I acknowledge your (any Jewish or Palestinian) right to exist in this land. I looked you up on GOOGLE, your family did not even live in Israel until shortly after you were born some 16 years ago (Russian Jews, if you are even Jewish, who payed for you to be able to go there?)... My familty can trace our coming to the Holy Land since the 6th century AD. We have lived there for Millennia. Contrary to what you may think, if you do, Arabs and Jews lived together there for Centuries under Ottoman rule, with no problems.


 * Well, I never objected the fact that relations were peaceful under the Ottomans - but that was 200 years ago in a totally different situation. I was born out of Israel; and yet anywhere in the world but Israel I am a refugee, and I yearn for my country as much as you do.


 * Dear Joseph, it is a proven fact that most people who call themselves Palestinians are themselves descendents of recent immigrants to the land of Palestine. Thus, all of your argurments to deligitimize the Jewish State also deligitimizes the struggle for a Palestinian state. Why do yuo also leave such facts out? By refusing to own up to such facts, you end up with a vehemently anti-Jewish point of view.

It was not until the establishment of the terrorist state of Israel that problems began between these two people. Unlike yourself, I do not hate you or any other Jewish person, I hate Zionism, and the concept of displacing a whole people for another solely on ANCIENT HISTORY.


 * I'm not basing on ANCIENT HISTORY anymore than you are. In 1948, Israel did not set out to displace the native Arabs of this area. The fact that Arab refugees were created was as much a surprise for Jews as it was for Arabs. After all there were twice as much Arabs than Jews in Palestine before 1948. And by the way, do the words "Hebron 1929" mean anything to you? Terrorism goes both ways, you see.


 * So all of us Jews support terrorism ? That must be your claim, since you define Israel as a terrorist state. Listen, Joseph, until you can get over your seething hatred of the State of Israel, and learn a little bit about history, you will not be able to work on this entry in a productive fashion. Stop the diatribes. RK

I never said anything about Jewish people, living there or anywhere else, being anything other than Jewish. As for my poor encyclopediac writing, sorry I am doing my best, but I have had to educate myself, fund myself, since there is an assistance given to Palestinians who had the means to escape the Zionist prosecution. Unlike the Jews from all over the world who have never even lived there, like yourself, since the last 15-20 years. I have tried to be objective, but I have not seen too much objectivity in these articles on Palestine...


 * Well, deleting the other's side position (permanently, not into the talk page), is surely a means to facilitate objectivity.

BTW: The ARABS/PALESTINIANS (whatever) were promised independence since the end of the First World War, by Britain for helping fight against the Turks. They have never given up that dream, or desire. It is significant that of all the countries that were former colonies all have achieved independence, except the Palestinians. We will however one day, you can be sure, do get ready. I can read in your language and comments, an Israeli view and bias towards history. Until Israel gives justice to the Palestinians, thee will never be PEACE!


 * There is a state of Jordan, you know. The problem with Arabs is that they never agreed to compromise anything less than 100% of Palestine. Too bad for them. There will never be PEACE until you understand that Israel does exist and will do so in the future.

One more thing, say what you want about me, but my grandmother told me lots about the life of Palestinians before 1948, as a matter of fact, my grandfather was good friends an dpartners with a Jewish man and his family before the 1948 war. It was this man and his family who warned them to flee because of Jewish terrorist attacks that were coming, shortly after, the 1948 war started, and my grandfathers home (and my fathers) became part of the green line of Jerusalem. Just try to remember there are always two sides, to any argument.


 * I know that there are two sides; and I've met a person who has fought in this areas. Say, what were those gunmen doing in Bab-El-Wad? --Uriyan

Joseph


 * Joseph, sweeping all the changes I've made is impolite. You can re-write paragraphs or dispute my points but the page is supposed to evolve with both sides' participation, not reverting it to an older version just because you like it more is bad. I based on your writing when I modified the page, why can't you do the same? --Uriyan

- Uriyan-

I am not sure what you mean, all of my comments and statements have been removed, I am hurt and disappointed, I feel that this whole article has turned into an exercise in Jewish history only. There essentialy is nothing to indicate the truth that Palestinians lived there in the past, continue to live there, or that we have an equal and just claim to the land. Everything of importance I wrote has been removed...


 * You copy-and-pasted your old version over what I'd written. I edited your writings, not cut them out. Imagine how I felt when you did the same.

I feel that this project is no longer worth my time, I do not have a lot of extra time to keep arguing about it. I suggest that you read other encyclopedias that deal with the Middle East, and see what a proper article looks like. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East is a good start, it covers both sides. Also there is a new book called Culturegrams this also covers both sides well, it explains the problem in real human terms, that a layperson can understand.

If you dare, you could also take a look at The Encyclopedia of the Palestinian People by Issa Nakhleh,or Encyclopedia of the Palestinians - edited by Philip Mattar, this explains many aspects of what you do not seem to understand, mainly, there has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine!


 * Arab perhaps, but not Palestinian. If I ever get around a copy I should surely insepct it, although I suspect it is mainly a work of Palestinian propaganda. Speaking of which, you've never tried to get through the Jewish argument either.

Also there are a number of good books published by others, The Arab-Israeli dispute by Don Peretz, Beseiged bedfellows: Israel and the land of Apartheid by Benjamin A. Joseph, Creating Facts: Israel. Palestinians, and the West Bank by Geoffrey Aronson, The Intifada: causes and effects by Aryeh Shalev, Resignation or revolt?: socio-political development and the challenges of peace in Palestine by Cristopher Parker, and finally the best of all: The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky (he is Jewish even).


 * Yeah, Noam Chomsky. You wouldn't pick Osama Bin-Laden to represent the Arab people, would you?


 * Is this a joke? Chomsky is a virulent Israel hater, and he promotes the total destruction of the State of Israel. Most Jews view him as an anti-Semite. Do Arabs actually teach that Chomsky is respected by Jews? Such a distorted viewpoint, so totally disconnected from reality, explains a lot about your views.

Also one more thing I thought the purpose of this article was to write from a neutral point of view, I see nothing of this, at all, just more Zionist propaganda... If as you say it is all our fault, why do you a Russian 'presumable Jew' who was not born there, get to live there in prosperity, and me a Palestinian Christian Arab, who WAS born there live in poverty in a land not my own? Why can I not return to the land of my birth? Do not say it is because we did not accept Israel, it is because Israel chose war and terror every time since before 1948 till now.


 * It is not up to you to check for my Jewishness. The 1948 war was fair play, and had the Jews lost, they'd find themselves in the Mediterranean rather quickly. I thought you knew there was always more than one truth.

No I am sure there will never be peace, like I am sure justice will never be given to the Palestinians, the only way is war, Israel will have to realize that we have as much right as she does for statehood, that is all there is to it.


 * So, you have the right to murder people until you get what you ask for? And you want to cooperate on an encyclopaedia article with that attitude? Joseph, you sound like a dangerous man who supports mass murdering Jews in Israel. You'll find previous few civilized people who think of that as an acceptable point of view in this era.


 * You have as much right as Israel for peaceful statehood alognside it. Nobody is denying that.

This article as far as it goes is far from objective or neutral, as a matter of fact it sucks. It is totally biased towards your side. I would like to make a new page called Palestine as seen from the Arab viewpoint, and you can have your side, we cannot agree, and all my work has been removed... It is not right, it sucks, and I am sick of it.

Joseph


 * I did not remove your work, it is still present in edited form and in history (in full form). Let me explain what you did: there was a page called Palestine months before I approached Wikipedia. It was subject of fierce disputes, and was eventually edited into a state which was equally bad for both sides, which resolved the disputes. For a while it experienced only minor changes (such as the elaboration on Areas A, B and C). Then you come and change it to reflect a fierce pro-Palestinian position. I changed it to a general pro-Israeli position. You then come and paste your old version over what I had written. Now that's bad, I get angry and do the same to you.
 * I am very sorry for my part in this flamewar, and in no way did I mean to scare you away from actually improving the article. You're new to Wikipedia and not used to the style of work here (avoid generalization and always state the side explicitly for disputed parties) - and I wasn't considerate enough. I apologize and I'd like to see you back. --Uriyan

Uriyan

OK I accept, and I am sorry too. I was pretty selfish and inconsiderate as well.You seem like a nice enough person, and I believe that perhaps we could work this out. It will take me some time to formulate a workable plan, with guidelines for us to follow, not only for this page, but for other contentious pages as well.

I am not really sure why there is this insistance on making the page called Palestine so one sided, when there is a page called Israel that should contain all this information anyway. I set a see also link for that page to this, and one for this page to the other. In all my library training I have never seen such a backwards way of representing an issue than the way it is represented now.

I am willing to work with you, but you have to promise that statements like:

"Until the 1960s, the Arabs living in Palestine did not desire self-determination."

will not be made, as it is false, and untrue. My Grandfather was put in jail in the late 1930's by the British, for protesting British policies, and in the rebelliion that followed. My father remembers the family going to see him in prison, he also remembers how much of a toll it took on his mother, my Grandmother.

this statement:

"There is a state of Jordan, you know. The problem with Arabs is that they never agreed to compromise anything less than 100% of Palestine."

again is false, we do not consider Jordan, our homeland, nor was it ever, the fact that Israeli propaganda for years has tried to make it seem that way is misleading. The fact that many Palestinians have been forced to live there, because of this conflict does not diminish their rightful claim to their homeland- Israel/Holy Land/Palestine- whatever.

The fact is that more than half of my fathers family, after 1967, ended up in Jordan. This does not mean that we did not live in the West Bank of Palestine before the 1967 conflict. In fact we were living in the French Hill area, if you know where that is, from 1948-1967. We (I should say my Grandfather and family came to settle there after the 1948 war, after coming back from Lebanon), as a matter of fact it was twice in a lifetime that my Granfather lost everything, and he never recovered. In all the years after 1967 he received assistance from some agencies, but mosttly from my father and his brothers, to get by, that is all. You should know that this is a small part of the conflict, so many people lost so much.

It is too late for my father and mother, they will never go back, peace or no peace. That leaves the last generation, me & my siblings (who were born there), in fact my third brother was born shortly after the 1967 war, under Israeli occupation, that makes him an Israeli Arab, no?

This statement:

"Arab perhaps, but not Palestinian."

again, why? why can you not accept the fact that there was/is/and always will be a Palestinian people? We have a very different culture than other Arabs, especially the Christians... Look up the unfinished article Palestine/Christian... My Great Grandfather received the Victoria Cross, spoke eight languages, received the Kaiser, and stayed in Buckingham Palace, at one time. You may not believe it, but it is true... There really was a whole culture, people, tradition, whatever called Palestinians, living there, like I said before, for Millenia.

You claim you want me to participate again, I am willing, but as an equal, and I want to see that these issues are addressed.

I never once denied the Jewish right to their homeland, or their state, but I do deny that right to put us down or try to change history, to suit the Zionist cause.

I will try to formulate some guidelines if you agree, but realize that Palestine is not Israel, the same way Austria is not Germany, or Canada is not the USA (no malice intended)

In any case, I look forward to your reply.

BTW: I am very busy three kids, very busy job, etc... But I will do my best to be active at this same time whenever possible. I want to edit the offending 'evil, evil man' remark about Ariel Sharon... as a sign of my goodwill, but I cannot seem to do it, it shows on the main page, but not the edit page? Do you know why? I do want to keep parts of the opposing views section, however. --

Joseph - Hi Joseph

I am thankful that you've agreed to resolve this matter peacefully. Perhaps to begin with, we should move disputed parts to here or to Palestine/Work in Progress and then work on it at the speed we'd like (I am often quite busy myself), according to a certain protocol that we agree upon. One thing that we should probably not do is to discuss the current political situation in the context of our work on this article; history goes from antiquity to modernity, not vice versa. Politics tend to upset people, and if too many emotions become involved on both our sides, this will definitely harm the article.

Now to the matter itself: I did not name the page Palestine (I did not write it, and the only thing I ever added to it was the description of the three Areas). The current geographical and political status should probably stay herein Palestine, while the history should perhaps be moved to another page (like History of Levant or History of Mandatory Palestine).

Both of us have made several far-going statements that are imprecise and/or ambiguous. So in order to repair the situation now, we should better discuss them at a Talk page, add the necessary detail and reservations and update the page with the new details to everyone's equal comfort (or discomfort).

As to my statements per se, I've never denied that there were Arab people in the area of Palestine for more than a thousand years, which developed as the time passed a distinct sub-culture (note that this alone did not make them a nation). The concept of Palestinian nationalism originated in the beginning of the 20th century, became known in the 1920s, but was shared by all of the Palestinian public only by the 1960s. So what I wanted to say was that only at that time did the Palestinian nation become consolidated an entity desiring joint statehood.

I mentioned the state of Jordan because you implied that the British ignored all their obligations to the Arabs; this is not so as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon was created specifically as a way to repay their supporters in the Arabian Revolt against the Turkish empire. As to the "100%", all partition plans proposed by the British and the U.N. (1936, 1939 and 1947) were rejected by the majority of the Arab leaders of that time, claiming that all of Palestine should be in their hands.

I agree to setting guidelines. One of the things I propose we should do is to disclose opinions. As the encyclopedia writer, we do not believe anything, we disclose what other people believe (and in tempered form). So "Ariel Sharon is an evil, evil man" should turn into "Many Arabs dislike Ariel Sharon for ...". The other thing I feel it's important to do is to maintain symmetry: do not claim just e.g. "The Palestinian people have claims to this land", but "Both Palestinians and Israelis have made claims to this land".

I think that our final goal should be presenting an article which is as neutral as possible and contains mostly historical facts with as little of our personal opinions as possible. Such an article won't be particularly flattering to either of our sides, but I think it will be the most acceptible solution for both of them at once. Uriyan


 * Uriyan


 * All of your comments sound positive enough, we will have to work through it, i agree to most of what you have indicated, like I said before, facts are facts, they cannot be changed. We should treat the content in an objective unbiased way, a seperate section for contentious issues I think is a good idea.


 * When I have more I will let you know.


 * Joseph