User talk:Zeq/Archive 2

Thanks
Thanks for the opinion of uncle Shlomo. The obvious parallel of this situation is, for example, Palestinians expelled from Kuwait or from Iraq or some other countries. Palestinians expelled from Palestine to foreign countries is not a parallel situation to Germans expelled from foreign countries - where they had made their roots - back to Germany. For Germans, the fact that they still have the ancestral homeland, Germany, is the key difference in the two situations. Keep in mind that many of those Germans in Poland and elsewhere still considered themselves of German ethnicity and most spoke German in addition to the native tongue. I think they also had German citizenship (or the right of citizenship). In my opinion, it was horribly insulting for the German minister to compare the two, and even more so for Shlomo to insist that the two are parallel. I can assure you that Palestinians who were expelled from Kuwait have no ambitions to a 'right of return' to Kuwait, even though they lost all their property and were rooted there, because it isn't their homeland. This is partly why Abu Mazen was able to go and make peace with Kuwait last year, because he did not ask for a right of return. You have to understand that for a Palestinian to leave Palestine and go to another Arab country (like Jordan) is a step down, not up. Also, I doubt Russian Jews want a right of return to Russia, or you want a right of return to Iraq, because you all have your ancestral homeland (Israel), even if it hurt deeply to have to leave the home your families have known for generations. Until the Palestinians have their ancestral homeland (even if it's only a part of it), where refugees can come and become good citizens, there is absolutely no use to try to compare the Palestinian and German refugee story. That is my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So to make it totally clear: Ramallite, you consider Palestinians to be a nationality of it own? What is in this case the relationship between the Palestinians and the Arabs? -- H eptor 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there any dispute that Palestinians are a nationality of their own? Your first question confuses me because you make it sound like there is. Palestinians are a nationality while "Arab" is an ethnicity, maybe in the same way that Venezuelan is a nationality while Hispanic is an ethnicity. So we are 'Palestinian Arabs', but that definitely does not mean that we are the same nation as Iraqi Arabs or Saudi Arabs. What's the relationship? Because the past few centuries saw the 'Arabization' of the middle east (trade, immigration, Islamic conquests, etc), we have the same language and the same overall religion (although not exactly the same sects within Islam as Arabs elsewhere), but different cultures, foods, gene pool (how many red-headed Bahrainis have you seen? We have a few of those but not too many. A lot of Hebronites are green-eyed, you don't see that in Jordanian natives) etc. Two other relationship: one, Jordan has a large native Palestinian population (although contrary to widely believed reports, there is no proof that they are the majority - they may very well be, but it hasn't been documented), so a lot of Palestinians have relatives in Jordan and identify with people in that country (but definitely not the regime, which is descended from Saudi Arabs), and the other relationship is financial, the PLO used to ask a lot of those governments for money and as long as some of them are still willing to donate (for example, an Emir from the United Arab Emirates is donating money to found an industrial area in a former Gaza settlement, a Kuwaiti Emir donated the money to build the main library at Birzeit University in the 1980s, etc), there will continue to be some form of official political relationships. You probably got a much longer answer than you wanted, but lastly, remember that not everything said by Palestinians about nationality has to be a political statement. Even the notion the Palestinians are descended from tribes that lived in the holy land long before it was holy to anybody has somehow become a political statement; what other nation has to prove its ancestry to inhabitants of that same land 5000 years ago in order to 'deserve' some basic human rights? What a pity.... Ramallite (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ramallite, thank you for your answer. Somehow I did expect it to be lengthy. I am not claiming to be an ethnisity expert, so I am not to make any claims on my own, I am trying to undertand your viewpoint just as I try to understand anyone else's. But I do believe there actually is a dispute on whether Palestinians are a nation on its own or not.


 * At least early Zionists did not consider the population of the British Mandate of Palestine to be different from other Arabs: they thought they could painlessly create a Jewish majority in the mandate area by 1. Buying up land 2. Create job opportunities for Arabs (I do hope it is politically correct to call Palestinians that) 3. Denying them job opportunities within Palestine.


 * On the other hand, the region was indeed an area with considerable international mixing, which would explain the red hair and green eyes. Those are typical European characteristics, which probably came to the region during the Crusades...


 * As far as I recall, noone mentioned Palestinians as a nation before around 1948 war, it may have come even later. For example, the British White Paper of 1939 used the word "Palestinian" only a few times, and that to refer to all inhabitants of Paletine, both Jews and Arabs. Otherwise, the document uses "Arabs", or "Arab population of the country". Or do you know of any reference to the Arab population of the country as a nation on its own from before that time? Or do you believe that Palestinians of today are descendors of the biblical-times Filistines?


 * Again, I do not claim to be in posession of of final truth or something, I am just trying to understand how the situation is viewed by different sides of the conflict.


 * Looking forward to reading your answer


 * H eptor 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for Zeq - as always you and I are not on the same page. Of course I believe that your father's hometown was Baghdad, but remember what your father told you about Israel. A Palestinian father would never tell his child that 'Yemen is your homeland', why on earth should he? Like Vietnam, Palestinians have no ties to Yemen. I told you before that the Palestinian refugee problem is two problems in one: the first tragedy is that they were expelled from their homeland (not being allowed to return after fleeing a war = expelled), and the second tragedy is that they ended up in places like Arab countries. It would be nice if both tragedies were corrected, but even one of these two would be a great help. Ramallite (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ZOG and Islamofascism
I'm not sure why it's up to me to "solve" this. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I get involved in the things I chose to get involved in; I don't understand why you think that makes this particular item my responsibility. Nor do I understand what you mean when you say "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". Jayjg (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, it's actually pretty arrogant to assume you can give advice on exactly how I should be participating in Wikipedia, or on which areas I should be focusing my attention, or on policy itself and what is "in" or "out" on Wikipedia. It's also rather bizarre; do you imagine this kind of behaviour wins people to your cause? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments on a talk page
This is yet another example of what I might term a problematic approach to collaborating with other editors in a civil and collegial manner. Why do you do this? These sort of condescending remarks (I'm referring in particular to your last sentence) will not help you in getting your point of view represented on Wikipedia and can only make other people angry. Yet again, I appeal to you to try and rethink your approach to editing and to collaborating with other editors. I am sure you mean well, so please try and think how you would feel if someone addressed comments like that to you. Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fisk
Hi, several editors disagree about the paragraph you wish to add (about a blog award that uses his name). Please help prevent an edit war by explaining on the talk page (Talk:Robert Fisk) why you think it necessary. Thanks. Rd232 talk 23:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Further to your comments on the talk page indicating that you do not accept responsibility to cite credible sources I have asked the Arbitration Committee to make a ruling. --Ian Pitchford 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Torah
You can see from the edit summaries that I was trying to eliminate that claim made by an anon but the software or me made an error. Try to be more careful in future. --Zero 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year
All the best wishes for 2006! -- H eptor  talk 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

War of 1948
Hello Zeq. I went on working on the article. Your comments are welcome :) User:ChrisC 11:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon
HaKol beseder itchem? eich matsav ru'ach shelchem? Ramallite (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus
I will protect. But. 2 things. First of all, the discussion ceased when we protected last time. So I have no idea if this will help or not. And #2, please don't put 2nd requests up. :) What I mean is that you can put them all under one heading. Gets too unwieldly otherwise. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think of it in those terms. For one thing, the page cannot be altered now. So they cannot add to what they already have there. For another, you still have a voice in this. I am giving them 3 days to start conversations on the talk page. If they do not, the page will be unprotected. If anything else, that might get them talking. I'd love to say I can revert the page for you back to your version, but we never choose sides when we protect. Sorry. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Zionist propaganda
The Iranian president's use of Zionist propaganda is very different from mine. I mean, for example, such thing as describing East Jerusalem as being annexed rather than occupied. I think he is intent on genocide. Fred Bauder 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

israeli arab... articles
Hello Zeq.

About the palestinian refugee. Why don't you proceed the way Ian says and instead of deleting what he writes. Why don't you develop the counter arguments ? I am sure you know Jewish Virtual Library. This is claimed not to be objective but whatever when it gives quote and arguments they can be used. I have just read their mind about refugee problems and they are many many arguments (and quoties) that could be interested to insert in the article. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#c

About ArbCom. I think you are right on some points and wrong on others. I think you should take care not upseting ArbCom people by the way you discuss because you risk to alienate you from everybody and that will not help you.

this is just my POV ;-)

User:ChrisC 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Zeq. I read your note in "palestinian refugee" article. It is clear that Jewishvirtuallibrary is biaised but there are many references in this articles and in others that *** refer*** to non biaised documents and that could be used. The main interest with JVL is that it always give all docuemnts in favour of a thesis and that it is easy to use this as a starting point. User:ChrisC 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gaza Strip
You always tell people to use the talk page. I have a new section there about your edits and the problems with it, but you don't want to take your own advice to others and use talk? Your entry is clearly POV pushing because you took one article from the BBC, 'cherrypicked' the parts of it that shows that the Palestinians are ruthless bastards (like all right-wingers do), and refused to respond to my comments in talk.

The BBC version is that "There has been plenty of lawlessness and competition after the Israeli withdrawal, the reasons for which may be related to years of occupation (including killings and house demolition) that has both radicalized and traumatized Gazans, and left the society broken. There have been militants taking over institutions and briefly kidnapping foreign hostages". "The editor of a Palestinian daily newspaper has lamented in his editorial that such displays of lawlessness and corruption are worse than occupation, which Palestinians should not blame for this problem as per habit". "All this has to be kept in context," says the BBC. "Much of the upheaval has been confined to the south, and to the town of Rafah in particular - and much of the turmoil has about it an element of show. There have been few casualties, and very little serious, sustained violence. Protesting gunmen who occupy government buildings often leave as soon as they have made their point."

Zeq's version is that "After the Israeli disengagement, Gaza has descended into "complete chaos" with kidnappings and takeovers of buildings, and "many" Palestinians say that the occupation is better. " Zeq also introduces his POV in his own edit summary where he states "This is what a Palestinian state will look like: Somalia".

Do you see the difference? This is very dishonest of you, and (as usual) very inconsistent with your desire for peace (your userpage) when all you have been doing on Wikipedia is doing your best to show the worst of the other side even by inaccurately summarizing articles. Please read my comments in the Gaza Strip discussion page which I posted early this morning. Ramallite (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you not seen the news lately, Ramallite? Is Gaza not in complete chaos? There are militants bulldozing the border, killing Egyptian soldiers, occupying government buildings, kidnapping foreigners, and demanding the release of known murderers (which the government of course caves to.)


 * On Zeq's edit, I do agree that if quoting the BBC, it should not be changed, and I would omit the part about many Palestinians preferring the occupation, since that cannot be substantiated. However, the fact that Gaza is in "complete chaos" is very evident.

Aiden 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I have followed the news and yes there are severe problems in Gaza (but it's not like people are cowering indoors in fear, it's more like too many gangs are acting like degenerates every so often but extremely rarely are people getting hurt as in the corrupt PA officer assassinated or the two Egyptian soldiers killed). In any case, the dispute is not the existence of the problems, but the specific manner that Zeq chose to describe them - I was hoping I had made that distinction clear. Ramallite (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Chaos by defintion can not be "partial" it is complete loss of order in the area in which it occur. Maybe you need a math professor to explain you this in terms from termodynamics. I know just that person. Zeq 10:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is spelled "thermodynamics" and I was not referring to Chaos theory but anyway thanks for the scientific clarification. Maybe your friend can provide an equation that describes Gaza chaos! Ramallite (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that as a Wikipedia administrator you still employ condescending and contemptuous remarks, Ramallite. Perhaps you should find a subject you are less personally involved with to administrate. Can you honestly say you are not partial to one side or have a personal grievance against Zeq? Aiden 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Condescending and contemptuous eh? In fact, my response to what you may consider his very respectful comment above is one of the more jest-full replies I have made to Zeq of late. Before you accuse me of having a personal grievance against Zeq, you should look up the history of our contributions to see his past writings. I consider it somewhat weird that you would stumble upon comments made by me in response to someone else's (tactless) statements on their personal talk page (and not in an article discussion page) and start questioning my suitability to edit on Wikipedia in a manner that is clearly 'contemptuous' of me - for an unknown reason. I do not 'administrate' certain subjects, nobody here does, that responsibility lies on all editors here including yourself. The tools of an administrator are to take care of some housekeeping issues and are not a Merlin's wand. If you have any concerns about my actual editing, address them on my talk page please. Ramallite (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we don't continue this unhelpfull direction. Ramallite is in general a reasonable guy and I am sure he can actually descibe the Gaza situation himself. One day when he will understand why the Avinery article apply he will made a great step toward understnding how the conflict can be resolvd. Zeq 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Ramallite. I read that out of context. Aiden 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - forget about it! Ramallite (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

some material from Palestine Post
I have started reading Palestine Post from here : http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/palestineEn.html I think that is the best source to understand properly what Jews thought about what they lived in Palestine at that time. I am just at the beginning but it seems interesting.

and the Mufti

 * 13 mars 1946 : discovery of the link between Mufti and Nazis


 * Following days : many references of this in articles.


 * Palestine Post, 27 mars 1946.
 * “Mr. Shertok (…) Countering the assertion that the leader had done nothing actively to further the Nazi victory, je recalled the Mufti’s Berlin broadcasts calling on the Arab world to carry out sabotage behidg the British lines and await the signal for a general rising, its organization of Palestina Arab prisoners of war for service in Germany Army units ; his propaganda tour of Moslem Bosnia ; and his part in instigation the extermination of the Jews.”

about israeli histirians point of view

 * Palestine Post, 13 May 1947.
 * “The Jewish nation (…) is eager to cooperate with its free Arab neighbours to promote the economic development, social progress and real independence for all the Semitic countries in the Middle East. The real, just and lasting solutioin of the problem before you is a Jewish State and a Jewish-Arab alliance.” Mr Ben-Gourion Concluded”

Best Regads. User:ChrisC 12:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Tim Hames
Are you sure that Tim Hames is Arab? It doesn't sound like an Arabic name but maybe. Anyway, here is how I would respond:
 * 1) Remember that Palestinian Arabs are separate from the rest of the Arabs. Palestinians are the ones under occupation, the Arab leaders of other countries have their own problems and they have a lot of work to do, but they blame Israel for everything. This is not our problem, this is their problem.
 * 2) The Palestinians have recognized Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders, and have tried to negotiate a peace settlement to finalize borders. Palestinian intellectuals have also non-officially negotiated with Israeli intellectuals to produce an unofficial document called the Geneva Accord which had the borders modified. What other country in the region would have dared to produce such an accord? Arab countries are ruled by dictators, only in Palestine could there have been such a movement. Also note the Nusseibeh / Ayalon document.
 * 3) Keep in mind Israel, to this date, has never recognized the legitimate right of Palestinians to their self-determination in the land.
 * 4) The Arab countries will never have their own Sharon as long as they have dictators supported by the Western governments. When the Arab countries do have their own Sharon, he/she should not be dealing with Israel, but (hopefully) fixing all the internal problems in his/her country first.
 * 5) Lastly, I don't know who this Tim Hames is, but he is very one sided. The majority of Palestinians support peace with Israel, and the 1967 borders. All Palestinians 'would like' the land of Palestine back, just like Jews 'would like' all of Eretz Yisrael, but we are willing to have our independence in only the West Bank and Gaza (22% of the land of Palestine). 22% is less than a quarter!! So it is very inappropriate for him to say that 'Palestinians should realize they will not get everything they want', we already know that - we have settled for only 22%. As for other Arab countries, who cares?? Ramallite (talk)  20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is written by an Arab (Jordanian of Palestinian origin who now works in Beirut). Fareed's article funnily starts with the de Gaulle quote, just like Tim Hames, but it is a different article. Fareed Zakaria is strange, sometimes he says things that are decent, and then after 4 whiskeys he says something so crazy it's embarrassing. Calling Gaza a "failed state" is an example; Gaza is not a state. He is not Arab, he is born in India and now lives in the US. Ramallite (talk)  05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

your mind
Hello Zeq. Do you agree with the following ?

I think that the hypothesis according to which Jews feared a genocide war is not stupid as shown by the quotes I gave you. But the fact that it is not stupid doesn't mean that it is real or even it deserves to be written in wiki.

From my side I don't agree to answer to the question if it is revelant or not for the 1948 war. I think that the matter is to determine if this is revelant or not for wikipedia.

If a historian or somebody with a worldwide notoriaty studied this because he considered this revelant then it is revelent for wiki. Whoever he is. We just have to report what he told and eventually remind who he is.

A question I have is therefore if there is somebody else than Rabbi Dalin who claims so (and eventually Pearlman I don't have his book).

I also think this is exactly the same concerning eg "master plan". Our matter is not to know if this is propaganda or not or even if this is true or not. Our matter is to report what historians or notorious people claim about this. We don't have to decide who deserves to see his pov reported a npov way in wikipedia. The reader will decide according to what he knows about him.

Now you can say : "what if Michael Jackson would comment that there was a genocide war in Belgium last 5 years ?"... I think this should be reported in Belgium article, wouldn't it ???

Do you agree ? disagree ? or maybe what I write is not clear (my English is far from being perfect, sorry for this) ?

Have a nice day. User:ChrisC 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to 'democracy'
"But I understand that you can not admit this, maybe even to yourself." You do NOT understand. I see you have standard attitude of 'arrogance of power', what makes you believe you have superior intellect over me and can actually tell me what I can or cannot 'admit to myself' - do you think I live in some sort of swamp where I actually have to be told what to think and what I can 'admit' to myself? Why wouldn't I be able to admit anything I want or believe? Who will stop me (except the Shin-Bet at the borders)? How can you have so many Palestinian friends if almost no Palestinian is allowed into Israel in the first place? Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and my very educated opinion is that democratization of Palestinians is despite Israel, not because of it. I probably have much much more Palestinian friends than you (and it also helps that I am one myself), and I can tell you that Israel is far from a "role model for democracy". Most Palestinians do believe that Israel is a strong democracy, but for Jews only, but if you're not Jewish, you are screwed. It is far from a "role model" when it comes to us. I am not saying there is no influence, but your assertion that there is direct causation between Israel and Palestinian democracy is flawed, and your claim that Israel is a "role model" for Palestinians is laughable. Sorry. Ramallite (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR block on Palestinian exodus
I have blocked you for 8 hours for breaking WP:3RR on Palestinian exodus. This is a somewhat shorter block since you haven't been blocked before, though you've been warned above about 3RR. You will be blocked for longer if you continue this behaviour. If you feel this block is invalid, or there are some extreme extenuating circumstances, please reply here: I'm watching. William M. Connolley 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Zeq contested this assserting that is not a revert. Since its explicitly labelled a revert, I don't find that convincing. Please be aware that reverts do *not* have to be exact word-for-word reversions. William M. Connolley 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Is No. This is not what Revert is (but you are making a common misconception) Here is quote: "This (rule) 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 Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC) " Zeq 09:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC) at all familiar? William M. Connolley 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Israeli West Bank barrier and gaining economy
I knew you would jump on it, but you must not understand it. Please see my most recent entry at the bottom of the discussion page and see point #2. Also, if you are stating 'gain', then it is 'gain' compared to what year? Loss is compared to the years before the intifada and the wall. 'Gain' is compared to when? Sarit's wedding? Lastly, the CIA factbook does not say that "GDP growth in the West Bank declined annually by 7.5%, 35.0%, and 22.0%, respectively, in 2000, 2001, and 2002 before major construction of the barrier began". It says " GDP growth in the West Bank declined annually by 7.5%, 35.0%, and 22.0%, respectively, in 2000, 2001, and 2002". The CIA doesn't mention the barrier, please phrase your edits appropriately. Otherwise, you make it seem like the CIA is making a connection between the barrier and the economy (original research). It isn't. Ramallite (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you call your recent edits 'according to Ramallite's comments"????? In 1999 the GDP of the West Bank was 3.3 billion. The most it has been after that is 1.15 billion. How is that GAIN???? There has been no recovery in the economy to pre-intifada levels, so you can't label a section "loss and gain". You also completely messed up the problem that SeattliteTungsten and I had tried to solve by using the phrase "However, carefull examination of the facts revel". First of all, you are disputing an argument that WASN'T MADE. Second, I'm really surprised that you have been at WP this long and still choose to ignore NPOV when you want to push your POV. Don't you know that a phrase like "However, carefull examination of the facts revel....." is not neutral and POV pushing? fix it please. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you have agreed in the past that you cannot just cut and paste a whole section out of another article (which is also copyrighted) and add it into Wikipedia as fact. Not to mention that the paragraph is incoherent; this is an opinion piece in a magazine, not encyclopedic material. Most importantly (and as usual with your edits), it is blatantly POV: "Bizarre situation"?? "If the Palestinians come to their senses"?????? "current terrorism policy"?????? "precisely where the Palestinians want it"?????? "It's hardly inevitable"????? come on Zeq, you should know better by now. If you want to quote such opinions, do it in your own words, and quote if necessary. But an entire section that is cut and pasted from an opinion piece is just not encyclopedic. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you see this? Do you agree? Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus
No, trust me, I understand. Someone pointed the article out to me last night and I've been pretty careful about reading the history of the current problem. The reversion was mostly motivated by the provocative comment in the article text. That demonstrates some extremely bad faith. I don't have a POV to push here. I again encourage mediation. Tom Lillis 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Red text, bottom of the third text block. Tom Lillis 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be the material enclosed in the HTML comment-blocks that I am concerned with, yes. That was the core of my objection to the edit--it seems provocative for the pure sake of provocation.  Which is not to say that I don't believe there's a greater issue here that needs addressing: this editorial conflict needs a resolution, and I doubt that resolution is as simple as merely including the material you want.


 * Incidentally, it's not irrelevant. Bad faith is bad faith, and is grounds for reversion.  Cheers. Tom Lillis 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The section you identified is what I have a problem with. I understand it's not yours.  It was, however, inappropriate and signified bad faith, which is a valid reason for reversion.  I do not object to the rest of the edit, except for the fact that it is not a solution to the edit warring problem.  Clearer?  Tom Lillis 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1948 Arab Israeli War
Zeq, You've summarised your last edit as "added ref" when in fact you have deleted a large number of references and footnotes. You have also added a great deal of dubious material that is not related to the War. Please stick to the subject of the article and cite appropriate sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor
Now Zeq, you know the protection policy. did nothing wrong, and I would have protected it myself had you I not been asleep. Now, we're going to try this mediation again, okay?--Sean|Bla ck 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How can I report vandalism
(copied from the help desk. DES (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)): such as this ? Zeq 20:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone has already reverted that. Follow the link on "revert" to learn how to do this yourself. if you feel unable to revert yourself, you can report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To make reverting easier, you can use a script called popups, created by User:Lupin. More details about how to install, use, and customize it are on that page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Injunction
The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in your case. Until the conclusion of the case, you and Ian Pitchford are banned from editing Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. See Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq. Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By Cooke or by Crooke
Shalom Aleichem!

Thanks for clarifying the issue with Alistair Crooke in the Hamas article: that really had me confused, because Alistair Cooke had renounced his British citizenship back during World War II. Justin Eiler 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Election - mazel tov
No I'm not too happy but definitely not surprised. The previous people in power were corrupt and were pissed on by the Israelis (the Israelis said that they are not a partner). Hamas is also pissed on by the Israelis (also not a partner, so no difference) but is not corrupt. There is nothing Hamas could do that would make our situation worse, but at least they are much cleaner domestically, so they just have much less crap attached to them. The one thing it makes 'clear' is that the Palestinian people have nothing more to lose, but since Hamas is much more organized and much less corrupt, many many moderates and even left-wingers voted for them. Israel was not going to give Fatah anything anyway, and people were fed up with this 'peace process' that was making peace further and further away. Hamas didn't lie about it, they say they will not engage the Israelis to 'pretend to make peace'. Also, Fateh were idiots because, back in 1994, they agreed to recognize that Israelis have a right to a Jewish state in return for what? In return for Israel 'recognizing that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' which is the only thing that metumtam Arafat wanted. Hamas is different, they will consider recognizing Israel only when they get an equal response, that Israel also recognizes that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, which makes much more sense than that BS of Arafat. I believe the Israelis are very very happy now, since their policies have ensured that there is 'no partner' on the other side and so can do whatever they want unilaterally, and they will not be held back by the US. This is a big 'matana' for 'kadima'. And don't worry, I really don't think Hamas will try to attack Israel now. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Can you e-mail me
Says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Aiden 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Get my email? —Aiden 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your request
I do not review motions. Perhaps you have confused me for an Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dhimmi
I also noticed that. At this point, we probably need to apply for formal mediation. Will you join?--Pecher 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arbitration case
I will spend some time today looking at your input to the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The two versions solution to contested articles has been proposed from time to time by other arbitrators, see Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision. You will see that although I supported it, it met with little favor. Fred Bauder 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as recusing, there is no basis. I am only candid, not prejudiced. Fred Bauder 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Already I can see that the ArbCom did not temporaraly ban Zero who is as pasrt of the discussion as Ian or myself. Bias ? I sure think so. Zero is an articulate anti-israel voice and that is the reason he was not temporaraly banned. But in any case I don't think long term banning is the answer: The process is what need to be fixed. Zeq 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look at the edit history and see what is going on, but Zero is not a part of the arbitration case. To include him in the arbitration case he would have to be brought into the case. This is troublesome because being brought into the case will come as a surprise and seem quite unfair. It is not bias. We are just going on the people named in the case. He may be an articulate anti-Israeli voice, but the question goes beyond that to his style of editing. Let me take a look. Ok this edit, by he removes a quotation from http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21741 on the grounds that it is "fake". So why does he say that? If it is fake, where is it coming from? Fred Bauder 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, from Zero's statement: "Zeq and Heptor want to present it as a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends. To this end they found some alleged "quotations" of the Palestinian leader Amin al-Husayni during WWII (when he was a Nazi collaborator, which nobody denies).  These quotes come from a book by a Haganah spokesman Pearlman and were repeated by a book by Revisionist Zionist and Arab-expulsion advocate Schectman. Both books are regarded as propagandistic by academic historians, and I gave an example of a provable lie in Pearlman's book. No other sources are known even though Ian Pitchford and I have scoured the academic literature.  Moreover, when I went to a contemporary report of the radio broadcast in question, I found a  version that is quite different.  None of this has any effect on Zeq or Heptor who want this "quotation" to appear and that's that." This seems to be the same quotation. What do you think of his contention? Do you think it should appear in the article and how should it be presented? Fred Bauder 21:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

יהיה טוב
I'm not that worried, like I told you before, it's hard to see how it can get much worse than it was in 2001-2002. Maybe it would be good for Netanyahu to win, because Netanyahu versus Hamas would be a fun show to watch. Better than Dudu Topaz. The riots in Hebron and elsewhere are by idiots - if they throw stones at Europeans just because of cartoons that the Europeans don't even know about, this is a big demonstration of stupidity. Al-Quds newspaper had an editorial today saying the same thing in a more diplomatic way. Maybe the Europeans shouldn't come back to Hebron so those idiots can get beaten up by the settlers every day, then we will see who they hate more. I'm actually enjoying these demonstrations, it just shows me how retarded the average person is. Same thing with Amona, it's just amazing how many stupid people live in the holy land. In fact, the vast majority is mentally retarded. The settlers will start to get more violent as the army starts to go against them. Remember that these religious settlers are the exact same as Islamic Jihad, except that the settlers don't do suicide bombings because the IDF does all the killing. But once the IDF decides to leave, the settlers will start to become a lot more interesting. It's just going to be so much fun. As for this garbage website about finding a synagogue in Ramallah (which would actually be nice), they are saying "See, Ramallah is Jewish and belongs to Israel because there was a synagogue there!!" In that case, Akko, Yafa, Jerusalem, Safed, Haifa, all belong to Saudi Arabia because they all have mosques there!!! Yippee!! How incredibly stupid. By the way, biblical "Rama" is not Ramallah, Rama is "Al-Ram" between Ramallah and Jerusalem (where the checkpoint is)... Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Naqba
Thanks Zeq. Yeah, unfortunately WP is full of POV articles and I am totally swamped. I'm planning to reinstate some text at Hamas, gone due to anon activism. Could you please move your msg from Portal talk:Israel to WP:WNBI. The portal talk page should be used just for that: discussing the Portal. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aribtration System Broken
Zeq, I read your comments on this point at Charles' talk page. A similar problem has been going on at the Anselm Page, and may be unresolvable. I posted on that page my suggestion that editors be held bound to 2 Academic Principles that are used in the world of scholars, and that, if the Aministration of Wikipedia enforced that, this would resolves the problesm of edit wars and immature individuals who prefer their own opinions to the hard facts of the real world. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Credible sources
Opinion articles by Dore Gold and other nuts are not credible sources for THIS topic because THIS topic requires historians and not opinions. Everybody has opinions, but not everybody knows the true history. Al-Masri DOES mean 'Egyptian', but 'Yarden" or "Yardeni" also means Jordan or Jordanian. Are we saying that some Israeli Ashkenazis actually came from Jordan? Rise above this Zeq... The Masri family dates back centuries, long before the Zionists came to Palestine, and many Arabs came and went and many went and came back, so a person who traveled to Egypt and then came back was sometimes referred to as The Egyptian. We don't know the origin of the name, and we also know that the garbage that many Palestinians are Wahabis is pure hateful propaganda. Can you find a history book or reference (one that has not been discredited like From Time Immemorial)?? Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to source that Masri means Egyptian. That is true and nobody disputes that. What you need to source is that the Masri family (and there are many Masri families) came from Egypt during the end of the Ottoman empire like you are trying to say. That paragraph is saying that Egyptians and Wahabis came to Palestine during the Zionist takover, and that Al-Masri is an example of those Egyptians. This is total BS. I don't know why the Masri family have the name "Masri", it may be because their ancestors came from Egypt or maybe because some of their ancestors went to Egypt and came back or maybe they married an Egyptian family or maybe it's because Egypt is next door to Palestine or maybe they just like to have sex with Egyptians - who knows? I don't, you don't, and Dore Gold doesn't know either. Maybe it's the same reason that some Israelis are called "Yardeni". What we DO know is that the Masri name was in Palestine long before 1880, so to give them as an example of Arabs who moved to Palestine because of the Zionist (which in itself is highly disputed) is just ridiculous. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there must be SOME people who can trace their origins to Wahabis, Turks, Afghanistan, and even Greece, this is the Middle East after all. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the attempt to say that most Palestinians are other Arabs who came to Palestine because the Zionists brought a good economy. I don't dispute this for nationalistic reasons, because I don't care where most Palestinians are from. Remember that many Belgians come from Holland and others from France; many Swiss come from France and others from Germany, but that doesn't mean they should be kicked out of their country, If most Palestinians are from China, I don't care.

But I do care about two things: accuracy, and POV pushing. It may be true that "even an immigrant that came to Nablus in the 1920s and 1930s has a right to live in Nablus. same go for Haifa", but the question is how many immigrants came from those places? And of those who came, when did they come and was it because of Zionists? A lot of people on WP take little snippets of facts, and assemble them together to make complete rubbish. Dore Gold is correct that Al-Masri means Egyptian. He is correct that there are some Arabs in Palestine who came from outside Palestine. But he doesn't prove that the Masri family came from Egypt. Rantisi does mean "from Rantis", but not all Rantisis are from Rantis. In fact, many Rantisis are Christians that have nothing in common with the Muslim Rantisi. Famous American singer Barry White is actually black, so last names can have significance associated with the word but not necessarily. Sometimes a name is just a name. All I know is that the information in that paragraph in Palestine is just made up because there are no credible sources that confirm anything in there. There are probably more Palestinians of Greek origin than Wahabi origin. In fact how many Palestinian families have Wahabi genes? maybe... ten?

The other things is that, due to the tribal nature of Palestinians, if any of them came from another Arab country, they wouldn't call themselves Palestinian necessarily. For example, one of my best friends (from Nablus, but not a Masri) has a grandmother who is Syrian. She was born in Palestine, but her parents came from Syria. But when he introduced her to me, he told me that she isn't Palestinian, she is Syrian! Tribal customs like that would make it easy to know who is Palestinian and who isn't. If the Masris were actually Egyptian, it is very hard to see how they could have grown into the prominence they now have unless they have lived here for much much longer than the 1800s.

Thank you for the Yemini article - he is not the first to say such things. There are many columnists (including some in Palestinian media) who have said similar things: Why do Muslims make such a fuss out of cartoons but never said a word about what Asad did in Hama or what the crazy Iraqis are doing in Iraq, like blowing up Islamic funerals. Muslim peoples in Arab countries have a huge sense of denial, and unfortunately, many Palestinians have learned this from them (one reason I hate the occupation so much is that it forced the Palestinians to mingle and get ideas from the rotten neighbors which makes me sick). So although I don't like Yemini's one-sided analysis because he forgets the rotten situation that most Arabs are in (corrupt dictatorships incapable of self-criticism), it's hard to disagree with him. I told you how I think this whole cartoon affair is incredibly fun to watch because there is nothing more fun to me than people worked up over religion. Yemini says "תנו כבוד לדת", I say "אין כבוד בדת"!! Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

/Workshop
You will be blocked if you continue to change headings on the /Workshop page of the arbitration case Fred Bauder 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.
 * We have talked at some length in a number of forums. Unless there is something new, please accept /Proposed decision as my position. Fred Bauder 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to work on Nakba personally Fred Bauder 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any suggestions other than Jayjg Fred Bauder 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't edit is this area much, but Jayjg might have some suggestions, unless, of course, you would consider Ian Pitchford? Fred Bauder 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of...
Speaking of "not bothering to look at the evidence", you may wish to note that I have not yet voted in your case. I supported the temporary injunction to stop the edit warring for the duration of the case but have not voted on any further remedies. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hello. I don't know if this is the right place or if this is still time but I think this is a good start toward the right solution. I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. User:ChrisC 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy them too
Hi Zeq - I am still going to write you a little longer response but I just wanted to say that I don't mean to neglect you, it's going to be a busy week for me. I know what you mean about the restrictions, Amira Hass also wrote about this in Haaretz yesterday. In any case, I really have not been following the Arb case very much (that's the truth), but I will try to do so. More later, Regards Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are just too addicted, huh? Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Meditation
Hi Zeq. I don't think I can mediate on the article itself while the case is still before the Arbitration Committee. I'd be happy to do so once the case has closed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. As I said, I won't be able to look at mediating the article until the case is closed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The case was opened after a vote by the arbitrators to open it. One need not go through formal mediation before a case can be opened, though in general one must show attempts to resolve the issue. In any event, the Committee members felt that a case should proceed, and it will now go to its conclusion before other steps are taken. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Zeq, I see that you're taking a wikibreak. This is a good place, but I know it can get frustrating at times. Your contributions here are valued, and I hope that you are refreshed by your break and return soon! Babajobu 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was aware that it was going on, but didn't really have a chance to follow it. Plenty of great editors have had scrapes with arbcom, though. Babajobu 16:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

delete
Zeq, I permitted to delete your last comments just after mine. Please have in mind your comments were really counter-productive ! User:ChrisC 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In all conflicts both sides often "forget" some elements. I think this would deserve an article in wikipedia. I don't think this is different in wikipedia... What people forgets to see concerning the matter here is also due to what yourself forgets to see : that shouting everywhere and harashing people is counterproductive. It is up to you to see if you can react with pragmatism or not. Why don't you go away a few days from wiki to try to think about all this and the best way to deal with it... User:ChrisC 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq. If someone considers himself unfairly treated it is useless to pray, to shout or to cry. He just has to act with pragmatism and wisdom. (This is not from me, this is from Alfred de Vigny... huh... Do you believe me or do you request a scholarly source :-(((
 * Please, keep cool and take a break to think about all this. You have been heared if not listened. I don't think there is anything to add. User:ChrisC 10:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi vs German army
Technically more correct description is German army. Nazism was ideology, NSDAP was party (controling the army, among others), and Nazi is usually used for member of the party. Labeling everything with Nazi dillutes the term, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did Arabs leave the new State of Israel?
The vexing question of the "Palestinian Refugees" is one of the perennial open sores of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Tragically, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

There are now claims from Arab sources that millions of Palestinians were pushed off their land by the Zionists, then expelled by the new State of Israel in the War of Independence in 1948, followed by similar Israeli policies that continue today. What is the truth of these claims?

The Palestinian tragedy is primarily self-inflicted, a direct result of the vehement Palestinian Arab rejection of the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947 calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine, and the violent attempt by the Arab nations of the region to abort the Jewish state at birth. Palestinian Arabs have tried to rewrite the history of the 1948 war in a manner that stains Israel politically and morally. Their objective is to 1) extract from Israel a confession of the allegedly forcible dispossession of "native Palestinians" by "an act of expulsion," and then 2) to ensure the return of refugees to parts of the territory that is now Israel and/or to compensate the Palestinian Arabs monetarily for their sufferings.

But this cannot actually happen, however fervently Arabs may believe in it, because historical fact is not what they claim. Arabs left Israel in 1948 in large numbers, it is true, but not for the reasons that Palestinian Arabs put forth. Fortunately for history, during the past decade Israeli and other state archives have declassified millions of records, including invaluable contemporary Arab and Palestinian documents, relating to the 1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. These make it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Palestine.

A good example is events of the War of Independence period in the city of Haifa. When hostilities between Arabs and Jews broke out in 1947, there were 62,500 Arabs in Haifa; by May 1948, all but a few were gone, accounting for fully a tenth of the total Palestinian dispersion.

The first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of hostilities, and even before the UN’s November 29, 1947 partition resolution. On October 23, over a month earlier, a British intelligence brief was already noting that:

... leading Arab personalities are acting on the assumption that disturbances are near at hand, and have already evacuated their families to neighboring Arab countries. By November 21, as the General Assembly was getting ready to vote, not just "leading Arab personalities" but "many Arabs of Haifa" were reported to be removing their families. And as the violent Arab reaction to the UN resolution built up, eradicating any hope of its peaceful enforcement, this stream of refugees turned into a flood. Thus it was that, by mid-December 1947, some 15,000-20,000 people, almost a third of the city’s Arab population, had fled, creating severe economic adversity for those remaining who found essential services disrupted, causing both unemployment and shortages in basic necessities. As 1948 wore on, looting, infighting between rival Arab groups, and other disturbances made Haifa increasingly uninhabitable. The Arab leaders of Haifa dispatched an emergency delegation to Cairo in late January, warning that, if terrorist activity did not cease, the result would be the eventual disappearance of the entire Haifa community. Their warning had no effect.

There is an overwhelming body of evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out of Haifa, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay. During the fighting in the city in April 1948, The Hagana’s truce terms stipulated that Arabs were expected to "carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa." In its Arabic-language broadcasts and communications, the Hagana consistently articulated the same message. On April 22, at the height of the fighting, it distributed a circular noting its ongoing campaign to clear the town of all "criminal foreign bands" so as to allow the restoration of "peace and security and good neighborly relations among all of the town’s inhabitants." On April 29, even Farid Saad of the [Arab] National Committee was saying that Jewish leaders had "organized a large propaganda campaign to persuade [the] Arabs to return."

As the Jews were attempting to keep the Arabs in Haifa, an ad-hoc body, the Arab Emergency Committee, under orders from the Arab Higher Committee, was doing its best to get them out. Scaremongering was a major weapon in its arsenal. Some Arab residents received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death. Others were told they could expect no mercy from the Jews. Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Murad of the National Committee, who had headed the truce negotiating team, proved particularly effective at this latter tactic: on April 23, he warned a large group of escapees from the neighborhood of Wadi Nisnas, who were about to return to their homes, that if they did so they would all be killed, as the Jews spared not even women and children. On the other hand, he continued, the Arab Legion had 200 trucks ready to transfer the Haifa refugees to a safe haven, where they would be given free accommodation,clothes, and food. Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner for Palestine, wrote in an official communication to London:

British authorities in Haifa have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it. Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on April 22, 1948 on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected." The following day (April 23, 1948), however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous. The same day, Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."

Palestinian Arabs bemoan "the uprooting of the Palestinian people in one of the worst crimes of modern history." But were they uprooted, and if so by whom? In Haifa, one of the largest and most dramatic locales of the Palestinian exodus, not only had half the Arab community fled the city before the final battle was joined, but another 5,000-15,000 apparently left voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000-25,000 souls, were ordered or bullied into leaving against their wishes, almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee. The crime was exclusively of Arab making. There was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological "blitz." To the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay.

The well-documented efforts, indeed, reflected the wider Jewish attitude in Palestine. All deliberations of the Jewish leadership regarding the transition to statehood were based on the assumption that, in the Jewish state that would arise with the termination of the British Mandate, Palestine’s Arabs would remain as equal citizens. Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state:

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. In the country as a whole, just as in Haifa, the first Arabs to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends. All of those who left fully anticipated being able to return to their homes after an early Arab victory, as Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref explained in his history of the 1948 war:

The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy. The fabrication can probably most easily be seen in that at the time the alleged cruel expulsion of Arabs by Zionists was in progress, it passed unnoticed. Foreign newspapermen who covered the war of 1948 on both sides did, indeed, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that it was not voluntary. In the three months during which the major part of the flight took place -- April, May, and June 1948 -- the London Times, at that time openly hostile to Zionism, published eleven leading articles on the situation in Palestine in addition to extensive news reports and articles. In none was there even a hint of the charge that the Zionists were driving the Arabs from their homes.

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamal Husseini, the Palestine Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, made his long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later -- while the flight was still in progress -- the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Throughout the period that preceded the May 15 invasion of the Arab regular armies, large-scale military engagements, incessant sniping, robberies and bombings took place. In view of the thousands of casualties that resulted from the pre-invasion violence, it is not surprising that many Arabs would have fled out of fear for their lives. The second phase of the Arab flight began after the Jewish forces started to register military victories against Arab irregulars, as in the battles for Tiberias and Haifa. Arab leaders were alarmed by these developments:

On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: "The first of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle." Another Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages." John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war" (London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948). More than 200,000 Arabs had left the country by the time the provisional government declared the independence of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. When the invasion by Arab armies began the next day, most Arabs remaining in Palestine left for neighboring countries. The Palestinian Arabs chose to flee to the safety of the other Arab states, still confident of being able to return, rather than remaining in Israel to act as a strategically valuable "fifth­column" in the war. A leading Palestinian nationalist of the time, Musa Alami, revealed the attitude of the fleeing Arabs:

The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled. (Middle East Journal, October 1949) As the possibility of Arab defeat turned into reality, the flight of the Arabs increased, exacerbated further by the atrocity stories following the attack on Dir Yassin. More than 300,000 departed after May 15, leaving approximately 160,000 Arabs in the State of Israel. Although most of the Arabs had left by November 1948, there were still those who chose to leave even after hostilities ceased. One survey concluded that sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

The research done by Benny Morris in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is, despite occasional inaccuracies, more detailed and accurate than anything that preceded it. If we consider the facts Morris presents, it is reasonably clear that the flight of much of the Arab population from the territory that became Israel stemmed from battles between Arab and Jewish forces, and from the fears of Arab civilians of getting caught in the fighting. The Zionist leadership, Morris' research shows, correctly understood the danger that the Palestinian Arabs posed to the nascent Jewish state, and therefore did little to prevent their departure, at times encouraging or even precipitating it through political or military actions. In fact, Morris' own research does much to disprove the claims of his recent writings that what happened during the War of Independence was "ethnic cleansing."

The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down. The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country. In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return. Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948):

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile. One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:

The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in. Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down. And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue