User talk:Zeq/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! John Z 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Son of Welcome!
Hi Zeq!:

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Claims by the Israeli court are stated as facts:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


 * Just to let you know - I am going to have to try and significantly shorten the section about the effects on Palestinians because it has just become too long. I will try to keep all important points, but this "back and forth" editing like a basketball game has just made it unnecessarily large. I also also add some more examples other than Qalqilya. Ramallite (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the references to terrorism, I just removed the endless quotations listing unnecessary things that are already in the article. As for your statement that "You may think that 5k"m detour must be terrible but to mention a "human guided bomb" must be POV......", again I must ask you not to assume you know my POV. A human-guided bomb is terror, as is an F-16-guided bomb that kills civilians. But the vast majority of people who are affected by the wall (and 5km is very short compared to what people in Ramallah have to go through) are not terrorists, but are human beings. If I were to ask Palestinians about the "quiet" I doubt many of them would be happy that they have a wall/fence built around them, they would say they are being treated "like animals". And that, unfortunately, brings more hatred and violence. If you were to ask a Palestinian about the wall being "beneficial", she would tell you that it is as beneficial as somebody imprisoning you in your house, and then telling you a few months later that you are now free to go into your garden, and that's a "benefit"! These are all things I've heard. As for my own opinions, I am not going to state them, they do not matter. Ramallite (talk)  21:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

What are you doing?
Is there any text in the West Bank article, from which I added, that is different from what you wrote? I clarified that it is not just the settler roads that are restricted, traditional roads between cities are also restricted because you also said it in your edit. Why do you just blindly revert everything I do without reading it? Even the West Bank barrier article is full of mistakes because you just keep reverting. You are going to do the same here now? Can you please ask another editor to look at it if you don't care to read my edits first? I'm really discouraged by your attitude. Ramallite (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, and I hope you had a peaceful Yom Kippur. I don't recall ever saying that most Israelis don't like Palestinians, but I know there is huge misunderstanding on your side. I have noticed that most Israelis actually believe what the your government tells them. Somehow, you have the idea that if you lift a checkpoint here and there, we should be very happy!! You were describing how Palestinians can move through Qalandia checkpoint south of Ramallah, but you seem to fail to understand that there should be no checkpoint there to begin with.

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

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

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

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


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


 * I left this article (above) for you a few days ago, I guess you didn't see it. And it's not nice to make accusations, it's not easier or harder to talk to you compared to Irgun supporters. I just don't know what to say to you except answer your statements directly:
 * A unilateral wall around my city is nothing I can defend. It may have bought calm as you say, but it a price that will be much heavier in the future. Nobody likes to be stuck behind a wall built by a foreign army.
 * I think the wall will have many many unintended consequences for both sides. For the Israeli side, read this article (which I included in my edits on Israeli West Bank barrier but you deleted, in fact, that article is still really messy and a lot of my edits were removed for no reason and I am still disappointed about that because you didn't try to work with me like you are doing now in Israeli Arab). Also read the following from Thomas Friedman (who I rarely agree with, but sometimes I love his quotes) here. It was written in 2003, but don't tell me that the checkpoints have been removed according to the UN, they can come and go, and right now, after what happened with the settlers in Gush Etzion, they are back.
 * You are comparing settlers with general Palestinians. Most Palestinians that I know also agree to a two-state solution, but there are two things that you don't seem understand about this. First, Israelis can talk from a position of power, whereas Palestinians have to talk from a position of humiliation (not weakness - humiliation). It is easy for Israelis to declare things (like Sharon declaring support for the road map and then building settlements anyway) because they are in a position of power, but Palestinians are not only in a position of weakness, but of humiliation, השפיל, and what Israelis have to understand is that it is almost impossible for Palestinians to do or say what the Israelis want while they are still humiliated daily. Second, again read the Friedman article above, because it is the Israeli government's policies over the last 20 years that are making the two state solution impossible. More and more Palestinians no longer think that a state on a sliver of disconnected lands is feasible, and what Friedman writes makes more sense to more and more people (including Michael Tarazi).
 * You remind me of Haj Amin - let me tell you something about Haj Amin - I never heard of him until I started reading foreign books and web pages a few years ago. We weren't allowed to study Palestinian history in schools, and I think most people now don't know much about him. From what I understand, he was influential - 80 years ago- within those people who followed him, but not all Palestinians. In fact, there were large rivalries between the Husseini and Nashashibi and other clans in the country. So telling me about Haj Amin is like me telling you about Ovadia Yosef, who has many followers, but is hardly somebody to represent Palestinians in general.
 * More importantly, bringing up Haj Amin or Arafat or anybody else is pointless, because the Palestinian child growing up now doesn't care about somebody who lived 100 years ago, he cares what his life is like now. When he is born with Israeli soldiers with guns standing in the street, that is all that matters. Talking about the past is useless because young people don't care what happened before, they care about their lives now. And they also react to their lives now, in many different ways. You said "and there are 14 years old kids who go to checkpoints with bomb belt this give an excuse to the Israeli government to keep these checkpoints." Many Palestinians will tell you that if the checkpoints were not there, there would be no angry boys with bombs going to them, they would be studying to become doctors instead.
 * Palestinians don't blame Israel for all their problems, although in the past they have put some blame on Israel when they should have looked at themselves as well. But these days most Palestinians realize that they need to clean up their own house also. But most Palestinians also believe that it is not in Israel's interest to see a strong Palestinian leadership, Israel needs the Palestinians to remain weak and scattered.
 * You said "Do you know Palestinians who understand that dividing the land also means giving up this so-called "Right" to return into Israel? Why can't your Abu Mazen, if he is so strong say that out loud ?" He is not "my" Abu Mazen, (I didn't vote for him), but he is the elected head of the PA. The right of return seems to be perceived very differently between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. To use the words of "Rashid Khalidi", a professor at Columbia university: "The refugee problem is a deep wound in the Palestinian collective psyche, and there needs to be an acknowledgment of responsibility from the people who caused it (i.e. didn't allow the refugees to return) before any healing can begin". In other words, nobody seriously expects Palestinians to return to Israel, but an acknowledgment of the "right", followed by the necessary compensations that Israeli itself has agreed to, should be enough. And you said that Palestinians are strong but the leadership is weak. Let me tell you, Palestinians have fought 2 intifadas against a much stronger power - Israel - and you don't think they can remove a weak leadership? Palestinians know that the major problem is not with the leadership, it's with the occupation. Just look at Arafat, so many went to the funeral and then the very next day, everybody forgot about him. I don't know what it's going to be like next month during the anniversary of his death (and I will be abroad anyway), but don't make the mistake of believing the Israeli government about the "weakness" of Abbas (read the Haaretz article above). It was Saeb Erekat who said: "I'm afraid that if we get Mother Teresa to be the president, Thomas Jefferson to be the speaker of our parliament and if we get Mahatma Ghandi to take my job and be the chief negotiator, and Nelson Mandela to be the prime minister of the Palestinians -- if the Israeli government is not ready for peace, they will link them to terrorism," . If the Israeli government, which is in position of power, is not ready for peace, they will find all excuses (like calling him weak or an unfit partner) to prevent it.
 * Ramallite (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * You seem disappointed? Anyway, you may not understand why I am not as optimistic as you... here is another example why:
 * http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=639246&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0
 * Do you still believe a two state solution is easy? Ramallite (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Work for you...
Work awaits you; see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And again, more work: see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Question
I saw your entries on the RfA page. I want to ask you something honest (and I'm not trying to be strange): We have communicated extensively over the past few weeks over articles, and you have formed an opinion of me. Let us forgot about the RfA, I'm just really curious about something: What do you think is my POV? If somebody asked you "What is Ramallite's POV?" What would you say? Truthfully? Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. First of all, you are the one who keeps saying that I support the "right of return", I never said that I want all refugees to return to Israel. Second, I don't see how I personally claimed to be a victim in the barrier article (which is still a big mess), can you please show me? Third, whatever aspects you brought up in that article, I tried to include them, including Um-Al Fahm residents being happier and Jenin being calmer, but you reverted them (with no real explanation other that I support a one state solution which has nothing to do with the article or my beliefs). There is no official Palestinian source (whether NGO or PLO) that supports the wall, and that is what we have to represent in Wikipedia. Of course Jenin residents are calmer because there are no more incursions, but that doesn't mean life is heaven now, because now they are stuck behind a wall, and your Jerusalem Post article says this. The only thing I have told you is that the outcome of the conflict is in Israel's hands, and Israel is making it impossible to have two peaceful states. I support the people of Israel, I don't support the government policies of Israel, and the wall is one of those policies that is making the two-state solution impossible because of obvious reasons (it is part of a network of controls, which includes the wall, the checkpoints, the major checkpoints, and the IDF presence on both sides of the wall, as well as the settler presence of both sides). I'm afraid you are just intent on misunderstanding me, and misinterpreting my positions. I am very sorry for this, you seem like a nice guy, but you have taken an adverse position towards me because I don't love Ariel Sharon (I know you don't either, but you think I should!). Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My answers to you are not the same as my editing of articles. I asked you to show me how "my victimhood" as apparent in actual articles. If you cannot do that, I cannot take you seriously. Again, all Palestinian official sources (NGO or PNA) do not support the wall. If I want to claim that Palestinians support the wall, that would be my own original research. Lastly, if we are not victims, what are we? Are we the victors? Do Palestinian tanks patrol the streets of Tel Aviv? Did Palestinians build a fence around Tel Aviv to protect the people of Nablus from your soldiers and your tanks? Do we control all exit and entry of Israelis into the country? What on earth are you talking about? You are just not serious. Sorry. If you can't demonstrate how I portray personal "victimhood" in articles, instead of stating Palestinian sources (and not just your Israeli or UN maps), then you are being very discriminatory against me, and I reject such humiliation. If I don't show the Palestinian POV in articles, that I am not abiding by the NPOV policy. I am here to make sure that all POVs are properly represented. You only want the ones you like, while I want all, even the ones I don't like. This is why I tried to also edit the section about "effect of the wall on Israelis" but you reverted it without reading it. Your accusations against me are just disingenuous, and I'm terribly disappointed in that. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeq - you have cast your vote, so thank you for that. Now please stop harassing me on my own talk page. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hello - I noticed your posts on the request for adminship page in which you reported problems with User:SlimVirgin in response to a post I made asking her not to make bad faith sockpuppet allegations without proof. It also appears you were attacked by her in this same discussion as a "difficult editor" - something that arguably violates WP:NPA. I am currently in a contentious arbitration case against this user at Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. Unfortunately, the persons on the other side of this case are all admins and have widespread influence on wikipedia. Nonetheless, I believe I have documented evidence of multiple major policy violations by the parties in this case & I'm open to input from any editor who has had a similar experience with one or more of them. Please take a moment to review this case and, if you desire, share any input from your own experiences [here. Thanks. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Zeq, you've posted enough to Ramallite's RfA, and your posts are starting to look disruptive and gratuitous. By all means continue posting comments to the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's looking gratutious because you've made your substantive point several times, yet you're continuing to post to the project page rather than on the talk page. By all means carry on there if you have more that you want to say, but as things stand, my guess is that you're upsetting Ramallite for no reason, and making yourself look bad into the bargain, so the wisest thing might be to cool down. I hope you'll consider doing that. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Ramallite
I find the comment on Ramalite's user talk page that you find it strange that he's a molecular biologist who also knows Hebrew to be mighty weird. Am I missing something? Figured you should know I replied on his talk page - if you want you can reply there. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. If it's more about the ability to be an admin, that's fine. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

RfA page
Leave the page alone. You keep making a mess of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Your "no hate" article
"Since Gaza is being turned over to the Palestinian Authority, like the other 99% of the middle east where arabs have sovereignty, Jews cannot live there"
 * Implies racism - "Jews" can live there, settlers cannot because of Israeli orders.

"Now that they are gone, the towns they left behind have been destroyed, their synagogues firebombed and Gaza is now in anarchy."
 * Israel destroyed "the towns", 4 synagogues were slightly damaged from the reports I read, so again, this exaggeration implies hatred.

"Indeed when a Jihadi blows himself up in Netanya, you can be sure he came from Tulkarm"
 * Speculation on the writer's part, implies deep prejudice. Like saying: "If a terrorist killed the Prime Minister, you can be sure he came from Bar Ilan University".

"Leftists call this an "apartheid wall" while they remain silent on the slave trade and genocide of blacks in Sudan by arabs."
 * Arabs in Sudan???? What about trading girls for prostitution in Eastern Europe? Don't the Palestinians also have a role in that also?

" If someone were to do this to a Palestinian policeman he would get seriously beaten."
 * Prejudice and hate against Palestinians; how many Palestinians have been beaten by Israeli soldiers and how many by Palestinian police?

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

"Yousef is this kid that hang's out at our checkpoint. Like in other societies where "different" kids get picked on, Yousef isn't isn't too popular amongst his peers because of his weight..  Unlike other Arab children who are sometimes brainwashed into thinking that by blowing themselves up and killing people they can redeem their honor, Yousef simply hangs around our checkpoint since bored soldiers are always looking for people to talk to."
 * No hate in this? So other Arab children are "brainwashed"? And the "reservist" is making up stories about why the kid hangs out at the checkpoint? Again, this is racist prejudice.

"The Arab states goal of finishing the Holocaust didn't go too well."
 * Yet another example of hate-mongering...

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

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


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


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

Sup
Howdy,

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

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

Klonimus 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

3RR
You have now made 4 reverts in 24 hours on Israeli Arabs. May I suggest that you self-revert? Also, you incorrectly accused me of doing the same in the edit summary. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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


 * The three revert rule reads "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours." Palmiro | Talk 20:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think commenting something out can be considered a revert. Also, it was part of a very substantive edit. I commented it out and raised it on the talk page. If commenting new material out constitutes a revert, then it looks like I am guilty as charged, though. Palmiro | Talk 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That, too, was a violation of the 3RR.Palmiro | Talk 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about article quality
Zeq, if you really are concerned about article quality, I suggest you take a look at this recent edit to History of the Jews in Iraq. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

wikithanks
thanks for your conciliatory reply on Talk:2005 civil unrest in France. dab (&#5839;) 09:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

interesting; yes, by all means do a dugri article. It appears to mean "straight" or "sincere", with overtones of rugged manliness or so. The concept certainly exists outside Israel, and I do prefer it over oblique innuendo to be sure, but it shouldn't be used to gloss over simplifications or strawmen. In fact, I have adapted the style of my reply to your dugriness, so imho if you talk dugri, you have to expect that people talk dugri back at you :) dab (&#5839;) 10:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A strawman argument is one that is beside the point and easily knocked down, but distracting from the direction of the discourse. For example, if you argue "you don't have to be ashamed of being a Muslim", while the point at issue was not whether people should be ashamed of their religion, but whether religion was even a factor in the French riots. It is like saying "people do not have to be ashamed of their sex, nationality or music taste" and because of this insist that "predominantly male French citizens with a predilection for Hip hop music" is given as a description of the rioters. dab (&#5839;) 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * I'll take a look at it. But by the way, you have a very interesting user page :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk)  Attention Washingtonians!  01:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Sorry for the lecture, but I hope we can find a way of collaborating in future. None of us are benefitting from the current situation. Palmiro | Talk 16:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that remark. I don't doubt that you edit in good faith too. It's just that your approach to editing results in difficulties, and, let's be blunt, sometimes in chaos. After all, on Israeli Arab you have at least once condemned one of your own edits as POV on the talk page, on the West Bank barrier page you have reverted away from a version of your own, and lots of people seem to have difficulty coming to consensus with you on talk pages. I'm just asking you to be much more rigorous in your approach to adding material on to articles, as well as a little more sparing with the accusations... Regards, Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * In response to your comments on my talk page:
 * I hope you realize that the Palestinian refugee problem is more on our minds than other stories because it is still ongoing, these refugees are still refugees. Part of their tragedy is that they lost their belongings, and the other part is that they didn't end up in Europe of America, they ended up among the most corrupt and retarded regimes on earth (non Palestinian Arab countries).
 * I also hope you realize that we are trying hard to "Focus on building a society instead of trying to take revenge in Israel". But you don't seem to know how impossible it is. If Israel didn't even let Christmas trees donated from Norway to come to Bethlehem, or to allow new telephone equipment to be released from the Ashdod port in order to expand Jawwal, and it built a wall and checkpoints to choke the economy, how do you think we can get anything done? Then when Hamas started terrorising Israel, the first thing Barak (then Sharon) did was bomb the PA police, not Hamas. And now they want the PA police to be responsible for security of Israelis, when they can't even be responsible for security of their own shampoo. But I fear you do not comprehend the real problems we have. In fact, in my conversations with Israelis, very few of you guys really know.
 * Don't worry too much about ROR, you guys are making too much of it, because polls show that most Pals would not want to return to Israel anyway. I think the main issue is 'recognition' of the right, not actual return of the people. (Not that I expect you to be convinced of this after you have been convinced otherwise by successive governments).
 * I have edited some biology articles, and am even preparing some figures to upload, but I normally come to WP to get away from science. What do you think I'm writing when I'm not on Wikipedia? I have 3 science articles to write this month for my work (big ones, not short WP ones). Why are you so concerned?


 * The problem with our conflict is not really Israeli-Palestinian (well it is, but there is another dimension), it's also within Israel itself. As I say on my talk page, Israelis still have not faced reality: In order for there to be proper peace, there will have to be full integration of the two peoples (not 'disengagement', which has been your mentality because you think the word 'ערבי' is a bad word). This logic of 'disengagement' will not lead to peace, the two communities have to be supportive and 'wanting' to be full partners in order to succeed (if nothing else, economically). This is the problem that every Israeli knows, but nobody admits: Full peace = full engagement, not 'disengagement'. But full engagement will create the scenario of the two states becoming more like a single state 'de facto'. Even though there will be two states, in order to survive fully in peace, they will have to be so symbiotic that it will become a de facto single state. And this is what Israel is terrified of, which is why they prefer keeping 'ערבים' behind a wall. But the wall won't work (I know you think it will, but I think it won't, and one of us is right). So Israel has to really ask the question of what kind of state it wants to be. Will Israelis be more open to 'engagement' even at the risk of losing some of its 'uniquness'? Or will it transfer all the Palestinians to Iran (which we all fear even more than you fear the 'right of return', but I'm sure you don't know about that). Then imagine if there are no Palestinians anymore - the world is changing, and there was talk recently of Israel becoming a member of the EU in the future. This means that any EU citizen (including French Muslims) would be able to live and work legally in Israel. What then? How long can Israel keep up this fear of 'ערבים'? And if not the EU, who knows what will come up? What kind of country do Israelis want Israel to be? (A very good Israeli friend of mine once said that if the Palestinian 'problem' disappears, Israel would probably self-implode. I don't know if I agree, but it's interesting).
 * I took that test a while ago, I saw it on Ian Pitchford's page. I came out strongly "Post-Modernist" :)
 * As for the Kadura Faris interview you just heard, as they say in Northern China: יש תקווה
 * Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 06:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't put that link into the Hebron article, somebody keeps trying to remove it and I just reinserted it. Also, thanks for the Shlomo Avineri article. I fail to see how Germans being kicked out of a foreign country to go back to Germany is the same as Palestinians being kicked out of Palestine and have nowhere to go except a foreign country. The Kuwait argument isn't as important either, because Palestinians are foreigners in Kuwait, it isn't their country anyway. People being kicked out of their own homeland is not the same as people being kicked out of a foreign country, don't you agree? Anyway, I'll send a fax to the refugees in Lebanon telling them at if they drop their ROR, Shlomo Avineri says that they may one day become foreign ministers of Germany! Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I missed the point, because I don't see one. The Germans (if it was their country why were they still called 'Germans')? got kicked out, but they still now have full rights back in Germany. Palestinians don't have full rights (or even citizenship) in most places where they live. Is this Israel's fault that Syria or Lebanon don't give equal rights to Palestinians? No. But as long as people don't have a home, they will yearn for the only home they ever had. There needs to be some responsibility from all sides: acknowledgment by those who refused to let the refugees regain their property, and acknowledgment by those governments who treated refugees badly under ridiculous pretexts. The refugee problem is a deep wound for Palestinians - anybody who is not Palestinian would probably not understand the humiliation of becoming a refugee only because we are of the 'wrong' religion PLUS being denied basic human rights (or even citizenship) given to must other refugee populations around the world. Lastly, and on a slightly different matter, who in their right mind would want to become a citizen of a place like Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I sure wouldn't, and being forced to become one is incredibly offensive, but unfortunately for many, the only choice they have. If the Palestinian exodus had been to the UK or the US, while there would still need to be an acknowledgment by those responsible for denying their return, the refugee problem would have had an entirely different face. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

You have no email address
I cannot email you my phone number, as you do not have an email address registered in Wikipedia. Go to "my preferences" and enter an email address, or you can post it here, or you can post your phone number here and I'll call you.--Doron 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Either that or you have unchecked "Enable email from other users" in the preferences. In any case, it is usefull to contact people by email sometimes, instead of posting stuff on their talk page. --Heptor 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Zeq;Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who is making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the mufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC) An answer was posted to the article talk page and several more sources (15 main and they have other they refer too) are posted to the article itself Zeq 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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

Thanks for participating on my RfA
Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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