User:Guy Montag/archive2005

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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I applaud your comments on Binational solution. Excellent, I can see you will be a great editor already! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Excellent work on Binational solution! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD on Jewish ethnocentrism

Hi Guy, you might be interested in the current VfD on Jewish ethnocentrism. You'll find it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Powergrid

Please note the "contributions" of User:Powergrid; he seem determined to violate Wikipedia's content and NPOV rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) You'll probably find the edits of User:Islamist equally enlightening. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

It appears that User:Irishpunktom is reverting my edits blindly on several articles, primarily Arab-Israeli conflict, Terrorism, and Popular Resistance Committees. I'd be interested in a 3rd part take on the controversy, if you don't mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you Beyong HOPEs Guy Montag?

if so, hi! i am Lifetimer :) Project2501a 12:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Israelis

Hello Guy, please see current discussion at Template talk:Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 07:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Flags at Palestinian territories

I'm having a dispute with an editor who insists on putting in the flag of the State of Palestine at Palestinian territories, with some rather POV captions as well. Since she is very insistent on having the Palestinian flag in there, I have inserted the flag of Israel as well for now, but I don't think either flag belongs, since the final status and ultimate ownership of the territories has not been decided. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Image tags

Ok, first off, no personal attacks. Calling me a vandal is such. Second, Possibly Unfree Images has a clear, month long process for dealing with images. Those images have just entered the second stage of that process, where they are tagged in the article, and we look for the copyright. The tags are therefor there for a very good reason. Please leave them. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 10:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of how long they have been on WP, they have incorrect copyright tags and no source. Thus, they are listed on WP:PUI, to find a copyright tag or to be deleted. Since you are very concerned about them, please do the research and find us a source, or a replacement image that we can use. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 21:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Burgundavia appears to be correct, there is no copyright information given about these images. I suppose you could try to claim they're all covered under "Fair use", but it would be simpler to just clarify the source and copyright status of the images. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Your continued reverts on Mordechai Vanunu are placing you at risk for being blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please review the Three-revert rule, and please refrain from continuing such behavior. Use Talk:Mordechai Vanunu to hash out differences. Sincerely, Kingturtle 03:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Agreed, thanks. I added it to my watch- and todo lists, both of which are too long as well. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

I just realized there is no article on Wikipedia about the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe in Arabia who were slaughtered wholesale in cold blood at the orders of Muhammad. Is this something you'd be interested in collaborating on with me? --Briangotts 20:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Great! I'll see what I can put together in the next week or so and have you take a look at it and make what changes and additions you feel are appropriate. --Briangotts 17:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Check out what I've got so far. It's just a beginning. I suspect that I'm in for a lot of ad hominem attacks and revert wars by some of our Wiki-colleagues. --Briangotts 22:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

On your advice I included the PBS site, though I think it's largely a whitewash. Nonetheless, our friend User:Yuber has taken some swings at the article already... --Briangotts 02:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll cull some tidbits from there when I return from my business trip next week. In the meantime feel free to do whatever tweaking you feel is necessary. --Briangotts 12:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

IDF Chiefs of Staff articles needed

Shalom Guy: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is now done. IZAK 07:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Shalom Guy: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guy, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sea of Galilee

You might be interested in commenting on User:Yuber's latest edits at Sea of Galilee. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Another article into which he is inserting POV is Jizya. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to bring him to reason, but he doesn't seem to respond on Talk: in any meaningful way, he just reverts to his POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Your edit was even better, as it was the most accurate. As I've discovered, whenever he inserts a source you must read it quite carefully, as the information he enters on the page often doesn't match the source provided. Good work. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What I'd really like is for him to respect Wikipedia's NPOV policies, and to communicate meaningfully on the Talk: page. Unfortunately, it often seems that reverting him is the only way to get him to even come to the Talk: page. I wish he would work towards consensus, in co-operation with other editors, rather than his general practice of inserting deliberately provocative POV into articles without Talk: or comment, and then defending that POV with edit wars. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Now he's working on Palestinian territories. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

World Council of Churches article

There is an impasse. I believe I have been trying to develop the article. My understanding is that the material you keep reinserting needs more context.

Why did you delete the Simon Wiesental Centre quote? It is a primary source, better evidence than a anti-liberal media outlet. It also provided context rather than the blunt assertion you reinserted. Paul foord 13:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy

You seem to be editing this article without having read its content. It says that Nicolas Sarkozy's mother was not Jewish, because her own mother was Catholic and she herself was Catholic. Please stop reverting to an inaccurate version.

I note that you were cautioned against jumping to conclusions about Sarkozy's jewishness from vague reports saying his mother was of "Greek-Jewish origin". I specifically pointed out that it could simply mean that his mother's father was a Jew (which he was before converting to Catholicism).

I may add that you seem to have bizarre obsessions about finding out Jewish politicians in countries whose politics you obviously do not follow much. This is weird, to say the least. David.Monniaux 07:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well.. I'm personally not too keen on commenting on length on Paul Sarkozy's affairs. However, they seem to have played upon the formation of young Nicolas. That is, Nicolas Sarkozy seem to have deeply rejected his womanizing father, who left his mother to fend for herself with her children. If one follows the idea that an adult's character is to some extent shaped by childhood trauma, this would perhaps explain his combativeness. You may also have heard the recent scandal, whereby Sarkozy, even as a minister, cheated on his wife (and his wife retaliated by cheating on him); he also seems to have "stolen" his wife from TV host Jacques Martin. So there may be a story of father emulating son. I'm myself not much interested in the sexual life of personalities (unless it interferes with their work, see in corruption or misappropriation cases) but some people seem to be.

(I'm somewhat surprised that Sarkozy is one of the few French political personalities that you like — I was under the impression that you did not follow French politics that much !)

I admit that I'm quite protective of this article. Nicolas Sarkozy is a controversial personality, well liked by many abroad as well as in France, and also hated. He's a probable presidential contender. That's why I think we should be very very cautious before asserting unproved "facts" upon him. David.Monniaux 14:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem to know alot about the French system and have written most the articles yourself, perhaps you can help me out in understanding some of the more byzantine regulations. For example, what does it mean that the court of cessation has to issue a mandatory non binding opinion on every order in council?

I'm afraid that I don't understand your question. France doesn't have "orders in council"; this is a British terminology for certain executive decisions authorized by the Monarch (well, in practice, decided by the Prime Minister, with the Monarch automatically agreeing upon them). France has decrees. Decrees can be taken "in the council of ministers". Decrees, however, cannot be taken arbitrarily; they have to comply with general principles of Law, existing laws, constitutional principles and the Constitution. It is possible to have them cancelled by litigating before the Conseil d'État (mainly, before its litigation section).

The Conseil d'État (other sections) also has to issue a mandatory non binding opinion on every "law project" (i.e. law proposed by the ministers, as opposed to law proposed by members of parliament); it also has to issue mandatory non binding opinion on certain decrees (not all). This means that the ministers have to refer the matter to the Conseil and get its opinion, but they may ignore this opinion. However, failing to refer the matter or to wait for the opinion renders the proceedings null and void.

This provision is here to force the government to seek expert legal advice before moving forward. The rationale is that it's better for the government to be warned in advance that there may be some annoying legal issues in their proposal, rather than to wait for the proposal to be accepted, then for the newly adopted legislation to be challenged in court. Saves money for everybody. David.Monniaux 05:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

We just need to be pointed to places where policies have been breached; diffs would be particularly helpful. I'm not familiar with this case, but I know from past experience how annoying trying to put together evidence is - it's just really necessary if we're to know how to properly respond to a particular case. If you need a bit of time to get things together, it might be wise to temporarily pull the case - it's probably likely to get rejected as it currently stands, but if you post it again in a week with some more evidence, we'll see what happens then. Ambi 13:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't recollect having much interaction with Yuber myself, so I don't see how I can get involved in this. I agree with Ambi that you have not presented a list of diffs that particularly show any problematic edits. The only thing I've noticed that he's done repeatedly is to insist on referring to territories that Israel holds outside the Green Line as "occupied". Frankly, I happen to agree with his view there, but unlike him I would not deliberately edit against consensus in some particular article. Which is to say, I think the consensus here is wrong, but it's a consensus, so I abide by it. I think it would be useful for you to link to half a dozen occasions where he's done this, and also to where people have pointed out to him that the consensus is otherwise. However, if that's all he's done, that's pretty run of the mill. I see him adding a lot of material to articles, most of it on-topic, if sometimes arguably un-encyclopedic. If you see a bunch of what he's done as inappropriate, you really should provide a commented list of links to examples. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to help but I'm relatively new to this. What do you need from me? --Briangotts 02:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put in a short account of my experiences with Yuber at the request for Arbitration. I hope it helps. His continual insertion of blatantly incorrect information into all Islamic-related articles is cause for real concern, as is his constant revert warring whenever something factual is put into those articles that isn't all roses and sunshine.Enviroknot 05:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot

I suggest that you look at his contributions history, with particular attention to his edit summaries. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent you an e-mail through Wikipedia, or you can e-mail me through Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, have you seen his latest POV revert warring on 1982 Invasion of Lebanon? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you've duplicated the Terrorism link on the ArbCom page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racist edit

Although I appreciate that you reverted the edit, I am more concerned with whether it was a sock puppet of a member on these boards who is currently under threat of arbitration. Is there a way to find out?

Guy Montag 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ask David Gerard (talk · contribs), who is an arbitrator with the power to do sock puppet checks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli demographics

There are monthly statistical reports from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, see [1]. --Zero 03:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Guy, thanks for your kind comments on my page! It's been far pleasanter to work together here than I expected, mainly due to the generous attitude of those I've had the pleasure to come into contact with.--John Z 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism

I replied on Talk:Zionist terrorism. The article may need some trimming (or indeed, as you suggest, splitting), but let's discuss what to cut more first. - Mustafaa 01:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Guy, you seem to have violated 3RR at Terrorism. The only reason I'm not considering a block is that I've just unblocked User: BrandonYusufToropov for a 3RR violation on the same page, because he persuaded me he hadn't intended to violate it, and I feel I ought to treat you both equally. However, it's clear that you're editing-by-revert, which is not acceptable. Brandon has indicated he'll revert less often from now on, so I hope you'll do likewise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thanks for your note about the arbitration case. I've added a statement. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the status of your arbitration case? --Briangotts 16:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, the ArbCom will apparently decide now. Good luck on your case. Inter\^Echo 07:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Qana

I'd be fine with Qana bombing, though I shouldn't really be part of the process, except to make suggestions, as I protected the page. Another editor suggested merging it with Qana, Lebanon, as the civilian deaths are the only thing it's known for. But I'll go along with whatever the editors on the page can agree to. You could try asking for some wider input if Yuber isn't responding. Then again, if he won't respond, perhaps it means his objection has lapsed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Qana, Lebanon is anyway about the bombing, which means we've actually got two articles on the same thing. I have no idea how to merge page histories, but I don't know whether it matters here, because Qana, Lebanon has only had, I think, five edits, so maybe we could just delete that, and move Qana Incident to that title. Do you want to leave a note on Talk:Qana Incident letting people know the plan, in case there's an objection? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Talk

Someone left a message probably for you at UserTalk:Guy_Montag (in article namespace). I moved it to User talk:Guy Montag/2 (in your user talk namespace) and deleted the resulting redirect. -- User:Docu

Gee, another one moved from UserTalk:Guy_Montag (in article namespace) to User talk:Guy Montag/3. -- User:Docu

Yuber arbitration

Please change the ruling you made on the 5th about looking into POV at both sides in light of the new evidence against Yuber. Thanks,

Guy Montag 00:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you want me to remove my conclusion about your editing which was formed by looking at one of the articles you cite. I was not impressed by your insistence that any reference to military occupation of the Galan Heights be removed from Quneitra. That said, perhaps you do not carry that attitude into every article you edit. As there seems to be a failure by Yuber to get his shit together and present a coherent defense I doubt you have much to worry about. He seems to be lashing out in all directions and will probably self-destruct. However I do believe you are insisting on a POV as much as he is, just following the rules a lot better while doing so. Fred Bauder 14:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite

I've placed the Radhanite article up for peer review [2]. Your comments and criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Briangotts 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Terrorism

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Israel/Palestine stub proposed

Shalom Guy: I received the following and am posting it here FYI. Thanks IZAK 03:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK - I would welcome your input on something that I have proposed at WP:WSS/C (the stub sorting wikiproject). I am largely responsible for the split of geography stubs into separate categories. At the moment, Category:Middle East geography stubs is getting fairly large, and the most obvious split of it is to make a separate category for Israel. BUT - and here is where the problem lies - understandably, several of the stubs could be just as easily stubbed with a template for Palestine, especially if they are to remain NPOV, and especially given the volatile claims to different parts of that troubled region.

I am proposing a category called Category:Israel-Palestine geography stubs, with two separate stub templates {{israel-geo-stub}} and {{palestine-geo-stub}} both leading to it. The resulting stub category would be a subcategory of both Category:Israel and Category:Palestine. It is, quite honestly, the only way I can think of to get around this delicate problem.

If you can think of any better way of working this, I would welcome any suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Israel-Palestine. Thanks - Grutness...wha? 10:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Grutness, thank you for requesting my input. I will respond soon and will circulate your request to others for further input. IZAK 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The more voices the better - if you know anyone willing to comment from the Palestinian viewpoint as well, it would be appreciated. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Hi Guy, I think Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Evidence should be filled out, otherwise the case could be thrown away. Not sure about the procedure though. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)

I have changed the links in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Comprehensive_List_of_Evidence_against_Yuber and also on the evidence page of the Arbitration case. Perhaps it is related to the change of software, but I was not getting a view of the changes that were made . Please check them an make sure they link to the edits Yuber made that you are complaining of. Fred Bauder July 2, 2005 23:31 (UTC)

On Georgios Papadopoulos

Please respond here: Talk:George Papadopoulos

Michalis Famelis 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

Terrorism

(moved to Talk:Terrorism) – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Please respond on Talk:Terrorism. You reverted an hour of my work, the least you can do is properly explain why. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Thank you. – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)

Christian Exodus

Please stop adding that line into Christian Exodus, as it is both false and POV; the Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most neutral and respected groups in the United States. Almafeta 6 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Image:Hatuelgirls.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Hatuelgirls.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you.

Falafel in Nablus

Thanks for your offer to contact you. I was actually interested in getting to know more about your viewpoints since it's a little intriguing to me how you (and a lot of others like you) are ardent about the Zionist ideology without having lived extendedly in Israel (which is an assumption I make). But I must say I almost didn't want to ask after I read that you support Irgun and what it stands for. Even the map on the Irgun website of Wikipedia says it all. You claim on your page that you don't want your ideology to be "ill-construed", but your ideology in itself is, shall we say, a very radical one in itself. A few years ago a group of Palestinians and Israelis met at a kibbutz called "Neve Shalom" which is home to both Arab and Jewish Israelis. The idea was to get to communicate and "build bridges". One of the young Jewish men there, still a high schooler in fact, said loudly that he was pro peace (he identified himself as a Laborite) BUT Jerusalem was off-limits. I asked him why so, and his response was point-blank: "Because I am a Jew, and you are an Arab". I assume that you, also, hold the same ideals regarding who has rights to the land, although I don't know if it is more a nationalistic or religious background that inspires you. But I remain curious about "how" you can reconcile such views with the current era? In the 21st century, not many can garner respect when they betray such ideologies as that high-schooler. How do you see the conflict solved? Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 7 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

Thanks for your highly informative remarks. I am glad that you responded, and I appreciate your honesty. I doubt that I can write anything to make you look at the problem in a different light than you do now, because as you said, convictions are self-taught and formulated in one's mind over a period of time based on experiences and exposure to many different stimuli. However, I hope I can at least inform you of some aspects that, at least in my mind, are misconceptions that you may carry when thinking about Palestinians. (Everything I write, unless specified, is from a perspective of a Palestinian living in 1986, prior to any intifadas, violence, or peace processes.) You asked whether I was a nationalist - the thing about Palestinians (especially those living in Palestine - and also those living under oppressive Arab regimes) as that we are collectively forced to be 'nationalistic' just based on our circumstances. For those of us inside Palestine, you and I share something common in that we were born under conditions where the fact that we are different was staring us in the face. Contrary to you, however, my plight exists because I am not Jewish. Everything a normal person living in the free world takes for granted, like stating an opinion, giving a speech, opening a business, applying for documents to travel, getting a driver's license, purchasing land, building a house, or building an extension to a house, were all controlled and severely restricted by people who didn't speak our language and subjugated us for the sole reason that we are not Jewish. Our being 'not Jewish' is a direct threat to those who believe that the only way they can live in 'security' is to control non-Jews as strictly as possible. In that sense, you may have a point in that the two peoples can not live in peace, although I am more optimistic than you are in that sense. As I've emphasized elsewhere on some Wikipedia talk: sites, the key here is humiliation everywhere we go. We couldn't even say "Palestine" when asked abroad where we are from for fear of lengthy interrogation, and even now, when filling out a web form, the pulldown menus never have "Palestine" or even "West Bank" or anything having to do with us. Having our national identity stolen so obviously sort of turns us collectively into 'nationalists' - not the same as patriots mind you. But we all have a deep sense of belonging to the Palestinian nation, if for nothing else, for our shared misery (although there are plenty of other reasons, including historical, cultural, lingual, and deep ties to the land).

Another simple example is somebody like yourself, who was born in a foreign country, grew up in another foreign country, but will automatically come and legally reside on land that was forcefully confiscated from us after the '67 war - again, because you are Jewish and we are not. When foreign tourists come to Israel/Palestine, even they have more rights in my homeland than I do. I can't describe in words what that can do (and has done) to the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.

But let's leave the typical sob story aside, here are some of my other thoughts:

A lot of your ideals actually will put you in a conflict that has very little to do with us. As you know, the majority of Israelis are secular, and there is always a rising and ebbing tide of resentment among Israel's majority to the religious minority who would like to take the country to places they consider "off-track". This is how Shinui beat the party of Israel's founders, the Labor Party, to hold the second most seats in the Knesset. So even if Palestinians didn't exist, there would be a struggle for you to be happy in Eretz Yisrael in the way you envision it. The current official establishment wouldn't even dream of touching the Dome of the Rock. Besides, looking back at ancient Jewish history, there is a pattern of strife among the people of Israel from which lessons must be learned before a more succcessful Jewish Kingdom can be established. Right now, the ingredients for more internal strife are prevalent.

You mention what is considered by us a very critical misconception: there are 17 states we can go to. That's the old argument that the Jews have only one state while the Arabs have 22. To us, that would sound like the US taking over Spain and telling Spaniards that they have all those other Latin American states they can go to. The reality is very different. Like Spain and Latin America, the only thing we Palestinians have in common with the rest of those regimes is pretty much language (though we have our own dialect) and religion - hardly enough to claim that we are one people. The reality is very different - the people and culture (and even religions) of Palestine are incredibly unique, and there is absolutely no basis to the claim that we belong or fit in anywhere else. The other Arabic speaking countries are sovereign dictatorships that have nothing to do with us whatsoever (even when they claim to support the Palestinians - do you know that a Palestinian needs a (hard-to obtain) visa to go to Egypt, an Israeli does not? Do you seriously believe that all those states attacked Israel in 1948 to 'liberate Palestine for the Palestinians'?) While our ties to Palestine might not match the criteria of a religious Jew, it matches our own as much as a Swede's matches his own or a Briton's her own (neither of which is based on biblical prophecies nor should they be necessarily). Imposition of religion on another nation is not a 21st century concept, and the secular majority of Israelis would probably agree with this notion too.

Jordan - ah Jordan, the only country to (at one point) grant Palestinians citizenship (not anymore)- I've had the displeasure of having to go to Jordan to travel since it is the only outlet for Palestinians, there is no other way we can leave the country except through Jordan. I can tell you that Jordan might as well be called ZombieLand. True there are many people there of Palestinian origin, but for what it's worth, Palestinians in Jordan will never be an integral part of the Jordanian establishment, as the indigenous people of that country have a firm "Hashemite" grip on their sovereignty. Traveling through Jordan, one quickly realizes that it is a "society in waiting" - people are waiting for something - deliverance of some sort, it's so depressing. Most Palestinians I've talked to would return to Palestine, even the West Bank and Gaza, to get out of the twilight zone that is Jordan. And the non-Palestinians almost beat me up when they found out where I was from. Anyway, that's besides the point. Jordan is not, and cannot be, Palestine. It is an Arabic speaking country that has very little to do with us despite what politicians like to believe. Any transfer of Palestinians there, as you probably are aware, will have to be forced, and even then, I don't think Israel can survive from a moral standpoint with so many Palestinians striving for justice right at their doorstep. No, the 'demographic problem' you speak of cannot be solved through Jordan, I think most Palestinians would rather live under Israeli occupation than live in Jordan (as demonstrated from '67 to '88 when all West Bank Palestinians had the right to Jordanian citizenship; very very few moved there).

If Israel does to Palestinians what Kuwait did to Palestinians, that would equate the moral authorities of an oil-rich dictatorship like Kuwait to a supposed parliamentary democracy like Israel. That would reverberate in Israeli society for years to come, and I don't know if today's Israelis are willing to pay that price.

Ramallite ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Shabbat Shalom - Thanks for your latest response, as I said earlier I appreciate your honesty and even though I have heard your ideals before in documentaries and such, I'm glad to have the opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion, and I'm sure many on Wikipedia may also benefit from this exchange, even though it's not meant to be a debate site. Your last post contained many claims that, as a Palestinian, I find that I naturally disagree with from an intellectual point of view. I disagree that the fact that I'm not Jewish is only a partial reason why my plight exists. I believe it is a major reason. I should point out that I consider myself to represent a majority in Palestinians in my ideals, but a minority in my vocalizing of them. This strange and seemingly nonsense concept has a lot to do with a key power I've mentioned before: humiliation. I'd venture to say that a majority of Palestinians, even while conciliatory at heart, cannot bring themselves to come across as such because of the deep sense of humiliation that prevents many of us to want to sound even remotely conciliatory to those causing it. Again, I know that I cannot argue with you about certain ideals that you have set in stone, because that is a part of who you are. But I hope at least to convey some thoughts I hope you'll consider when you form your opinions of us. A lot of your last post contained what many on my side regard as falsification and exaggeration in order to justify actions by Israel. It has long been held by Israelis in general that given the chance, Palestinians would throw Israelis into the sea. I don't think this is the case at all and am convinced it's a method of dehumanization to justify the current actions against Palestinians. Despite a plethora of documented speeches and incidents where a number of Palestinian individuals (I really couldn't care less about most non-Palestinian Arabic speakers, with their current regimes they deserve to be part of a colonial empire) have said pretty inflammatory things to say the least, these were almost always said from a position of weakness. There's something in Palestinian culture that places great emphasis on one's honor and integrity, and given that we are one of the most humiliated people in modern history, inflammatory words are not uncommon even though there are only rarely followed through. But Israel "needs" us to be hostile in order to justify holding onto the territories, otherwise, it would be much more difficult to do so. Of course, if I were an Israeli Jew, chances are my response to this would be "Well, I have no desire to risk finding out if that's true or not". But considering Israel is the occupying power right now, and looking from a CE historical viewpoint, almost never has an occupied people taken revenge on their former occupiers once they were freed. In the 20th and 21st centuries, most former African colonies have relatively good relations with their former European colonists, as do India and the UK, Japan and China, Germany and France, etc. Even considering deeper atrocities such as genocide, the Armenians did not declare war against Turkey, the Hutu-Tootsi people have not reverted to genocide, and yes, even the State of Israel had full diplomatic relations with Germany within less than a decade after the Holocaust. All acts of genocide are usually justified by rhetoric that dehumanizes the other party by stating false claims about how the other party is a hostile nation who "will take over our jobs and our land if we let them thrive", as the Nazis did and the Hutus did and as did many others. This is why it's insulting to a lot of Palestinians, who have frankly suffered enough, to be accused of being the genocidal maniacs. Long before either you are I were born, Palestine was a model for inter-faith cohabitation. I've talked to my grandparents about this. My grandmother, who lived in Haifa until she was expelled, had different childhood friends who "happened to be" Jewish, Muslim, Christian, whatever - nobody cared. And that is the story of most people her age (almost 90 now). A certain Ms. Solovis (an Israeli Jew) visited my grandparents regularly in Ramallah up until the intifada. The Zionist movement changed everything, and yes, there was great resentment that foreign Jews were coming to Palestine to set up a national Jewish homeland when many non-Jewish Palestinians (forget other Arabs, whose motives were questionable) wondered why that was necessary in the first place. In one way, it was imposition of religion (the promised land concept) which just didn't happen to be the belief of Muslim and Christian Palestinians living there. In another (more prevalent) point of view, it was punishing the non-Jews of Palestine for the atrocities and anti-Semitism of Europe, culminating with the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with us. Anti-Semitism is historically a European problem and not a middle eastern one, so why should we pay the price? Now many of us are left wondering if we are next- because forced expulsion will very likely mean a genocide on some scale. (BTW I disagree with your assessment that most Palestinians would leave if offered enough money, first of all you would be surprised how many Palestinian Americans have returned to build villas and businesses in the Ramallah/Bireh area even though they made their fortunes in the US - and secondly, the only group so far that has shown precedence to leave when offered money are some of the Jewish settlers in Gaza). There are many articles right now regarding Israeli soldiers at checkpoints who are "programmed" that Palestinians are not human - there was one story (may have been Ha'aretz - I don't remember) about a Palestinian getting beaten up because he wished the soldier a "good morning" - the soldier apparently couldn't handle that this non-human should utter a friendly - and very human - sentiment. These are ingredients for a mass atrocity of some sort cooking against us. And more than a few Palestinians I've talked to speculate that it may actually come to this. Unfortunately, the fact that many Israelis believe that we collectively are non-human genocidal maniacs (very recently reinforced by those lunatic suicide bombers) is one critical clue for the certainty of a coming atrocity against us. I don't believe we are genocidal, even after everything I've lived through - because the majority (although no longer vast majority thanks to the brutal tactics of recent years) still believe in a two-state solution inside Palestine, and a growing number of others believe that a single bi-national state makes much more sense. But very few - probably less than the percentage of the Jewish ideologues who would want to get rid of us, would want to forcibly expel Jews.

A few more points:

• Language such as "Moshe Dayan should have finished the job" etc is eerily reminiscent of past historical sentiments that promote dehumanization and hatred by one race of people against another, eventually leading to some sort of atrocity.

• You claimed that our leadership asks Jews to give up Jerusalem as your eternal capital. The official Palestinian position has always been to share Jerusalem (especially now that Arafat is gone, but even when he was alive although I can certainly understand why he was untrustworthy and can't argue about that). As a Palestinian (and this is a personal POV), Palestine wouldn't be Palestine without Jews and the Kotel. I would not wish that your right to claim Jerusalem be taken away from you, but nor would I wish mine to be taken away either. Whatever Jerusalem means to me does not pre-empt or lessen in any way what Jerusalem means - and should mean - to you.

• You claim that we lack legitimacy to claim national or political rights, or even ties to the land, because we only became a nation in the last 40 years (actually, by your definition, it's more like 90) and that there was never a state of Palestine so the land isn't ours. That actually makes no sense to me. On one hand, we became a nation (or rather, nationalistic) precisely when everybody else in the area became so: when we needed to (which is the case for most nations throughout history). Before the 1900s, the world was colonies and empires, and before that there were kingdoms and caliphates, but we have always been in the middle east. When circumstances required that we come together to defend what we saw as a threat to our way of life - on the land where we live that life - then our nationalism grew. We might as well have been called the "cucumberites", it doesn't matter - it was the land of our forefathers and the land we were born in. Second, that we were never an independent state, and therefore have no claim to the land and should move to Jordan, makes even less sense, partly for the reasons above in this paragraph. But also, since when has a peoples' attachment and roots in a land been defined as to the political status of the territory? Should the Kurds be moved to Antarctica? If you combine the total years where Palestine was under some sort of sovereign independent Arab rule versus Jewish rule, Arab rule cumulatively lasted centuries longer than Jewish rule - but none of that matters. Ramallah is the town of my ancestry, my roots, my forefathers, etc regardless of whether there was a State of Palestine, a Jesuit Kingdom of Potatoland, or a People's Republic of Tea and Sugar as the political entity of the region. I also fail to see how you claim that the "land was vacant". When we arrive in the 21st century and realize that we do not have the basic right to self-determination in our land like virtually the whole planet does, because of an occupying power whoever that may be, we fight for it, but we don't up and leave.

• I think it is well established that the reason Arab rulers keep us in squalid refugee camps is not to use us as a weapon (we're not some regimented computerized army but regular human beings who just want to feed our families and live freely). The reason those Arab regimes keep us in camps is to simply guarantee that the problem of Palestine remains alive, thus reminding their people of the scapegoat (Israel) to deflect attention from their own miserable rule and lack of democracy.

• Jordan, again, is not our ancestral homeland and is nothing compared to the beauty and richness of Palestine. Jordan is actually the only Arabic-speaking country that never had an indigenous Jewish population. As you mentioned, the PLO did try to take over Jordan, but not to have it become a substitute Palestinian state but to have a firmer launching ground to try to "liberate Palestine" as they saw it. I'm not sure if you will be able to see that a Palestinian living in Jordan would not feel at home there. It's kind of like Israel taking over Lebanon, which it did, and occupied the southern portion for a long time. But it wasn't home - and eventually they left with no tears shed. So why don't we revolt in Jordan? Let's just say that I have as much interest in taking over Jordan as I do in developing a rectal prolapse - and leave it at that. Visit it, and you will understand.

• You wrote "The fact that Palestinian Arabs, if given the choice to move to Israel or gain PA "citizenship," most would choose Israeli citizenship is a dangerous sign" - Polls suggest just the opposite, the refugees would move back to a new Palestinian State (as opposed to the PA, which they see as a shameful puppet institution), but not Israel. As a matter of fact, Israel already annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 and offered Palestinians there citizenship - very very few took it, and then mostly to be able to hold an Israeli passport which makes it easier to travel (you can go almost anywhere without the need for a visa).

• What kind of government do you see Israel having after your predicted social upheaval? I'm curious since most Israelis (at least today) would rather have the parliament system remain intact....

Best, Ramallite ^(talk) 05:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that is it important to hear viewpoints from the other side, because ideological stagnation is prevalent among extremists on both sides of our conflict, unfortunately, as we saw yesterday in Netanya and a few days ago in Gaza. I do want to say something about my representing of a majority of Palestinian thought. My argument is not about what past terrorist actions by both sides have brought about, but my belief in that most of the reasons that precipitate such actions will be removed with the removal of occupation. In other words, while you believe that removal of the Israeli presence in the occupied territories will present a mortal danger to Israel, I believe (and also believe that most Palestinians believe) that the result of that will be to repair the damage of the last 40 years of occupation and move on as a fully functioning and progressively democratic society (although that will take more time than I would like). We will be busy taking care of our own problems and rebuilding our society and won't have the desire or the reason to go after yours. And I also argued that there is tremendous historical precedence for this. However, as I said last time, if I were in Israeli I wouldn't believe this myself either, due to the demonization of the Israeli side of us (and at some points, deservedly so as demonstrated today). But by and large, if the root cause of the conflict as we see it now - occupation - is removed, the symptoms (terror, anarchy, vitriol, etc) will be removed as well. I can tell you that the majority of my compatriots believe this, but that same majority is unwilling at this moment to concede this because, as I said before, we are in a humiliating position of weakness. Unfortunately, circumstances have made it so that Israel would not attempt to test this. The Oslo sham was supposed to see if it will work, but Israel maintained so much control over everything even after the establishment of the PA that the whole thing backfired. The Oslo interim process was supposed to be a period where the Palestinians took over, and the final status talks were supposed to be about Israel leaving. What happened is that the PA came in, but Israel demonstrated no desire to leave, building more settlements and carving up the territory while confiscating more land. So everything became a double-burocreacy. We thought that Oslo was designed, in Tom Friedman's words, to make it safe for Israel to leave, but Israel behaved like Oslo was designed to make it safe for it to stay. The result is as you see it over the past couple of years.

You make a good point about history, and in some ways I couldn't agree with you more. When 8 year old Ahmed is standing on a balcony in his parents' flat in Ramallah and is shot in the head and killed by an IDF soldier because it's a curfew (as what happened in Ramallah during Defensive Shield), it's of no consolation to his 6 year old sister Rania that the reason her brother was killed is because in 1948, long before even her parents were born, some non-Palestinian dude named Abdullah and another named Farouq decided that they hated Yitzhak and David and decided to attack them. Similarly, when a suicide bomber kills a 15 year old teenager named Ya'el on a bus in Jerusalem, it serves no purpose to argue that since 1952 the Arabs (whatever "the Arabs" means) have wanted to throw Jews into the sea. The reality is now - the situation between the river and the sea - that is the situation that needs remedying without recourse to largely irrelevant rhetoric that involves more slurs against non-Palestinians (i.e. other Arabic speaking peoples) than against us. So your statement that humiliation is a result of historical Arab actions against Israel is of absolutely no consequence to a 10-year old Palestinian girl who has to watch soldiers come in the middle of the night to her shack in the refugee camp and forcefully drag her father and older brother away for interrogation. What the new generation of Palestinians have seen is subjugation and humiliation simply because we are controlled by a people who believe that we are bent on their extermination, when we believe that we are victims of a Jewish occupation because of the fact that we are not Jewish. My own father, a respected university professor with no affiliation with any Palestinian group whatsoever, was dragged away by Israeli soldiers who surrounded our house and banged on our door in the middle of the night when I was 11 years old (that was before even the first intifada - just as I was coming of age). And all that humiliation just so he could be dragged to the university campus to unlock a door for them - at 3 am. Try telling me back then that we were a threat to these armed soldiers, and try telling little Rania above that her brother Ahmed was a threat. It just won't work. To my generation, the question is why are these soldiers still here? How can they be interested in peace when, during the Oslo years, all they did was try to make it safe for them to stay?

Therefore, it is incredibly naive (and also factually incorrect) to state that Palestinians are "indoctrinated" in their textbooks to hate Israel, as many have claimed. Not only has this never been demonstrated since none of the accusers speak Arabic, and not only have these allegations been refuted, including by a US congressional commission [3], [4], but Palestinian children don't even "need" incitement in schools. Everything they need to know, they experience daily on their way to and from school. Again, the Israeli army presence there is the major reason for all of this, nobody really cares about historical reasons of "why" the army is there, but everybody suffers because of the fact that they are. I'm not going to defend this, because 1) it is more than deplorable and 2) I can also refer you to pictures such as this, this, and this (note - the pictures in those pages were taken from our Arabic language dailies as they happened, the rhetoric on these websites were written afterwards and I don't want to emphasize them, because it's the pictures that are important; the sites are the only online compilation I could find in English). And there is plenty of vile coming out of the other side too, with a single example being this, or that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has called us vermin or cancer or snakes or whatever. So what does this tell me? That for whatever accusation levied against us (barabarism, incitement, brutality, etc), there is no less of the same coming from the other side (and we experience a lot more in Palestine than the Western press lets out). BUT, as Israel is in the position of power, it is much better at delivering their side of the story across the world than we are. Also, it is inconceivable to me that, given all of this, the threat of a Palestinian genocide towards Israelis is greater than the opposite. In the list below, Israelis had already reached #6 by the 1970s and 80s... we had different colored ID cards than Israelis to make it easier for checkpoint soldiers to differentiate "them" from "us" , our car license plates were of a different color for the same reason, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship were discriminated against in that they could not study certain majors in Israeli universities, and could not own land except in certain small Arab-only areas. The wall being built around us now is shifting Israel to #7, because as Israel realizes that it cannot "cage" another nation as will be evident in the coming years, the next step will be either recognition of Palestinian rights, or extermination by deportation which will almost certainly have a genocide of some scale involved. I fear the latter, especially since, as you say, a lot of Israelis would like to be rid of us. However, I cannot agree with you that we Palestinians are between 5-6 and Israel is between 2-3, wouldn't it seem absurd for the UN to sound out a genocide alert that the Palestinians are about to exterminate Israelis right now?

1. Classification: people are divided into "us and them". "The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."

2. Symbolization: "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups... To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden… as can hate speech."

3. Dehumanization: "Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder."

4. Organization: "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed... To combat this stage, membership in these militias should be outlawed."

5. Polarization: "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda... Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups..."

6. Identification: "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity... At this stage, a Genocide Alert must be called..."

7. Extermination: "At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."

8. Denial: "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes... The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts."

To answer your comments,

• I don't believe there is such a thing as a "humane" transfer, since this is referred to in 2005 as ethnic cleansing. Besides, hounding us away from our homeland and dumping us in the desert will not necessarily bring Israel security.

• I used to envision a two-state solution although I couldn't morally accept that both peoples must be separated based on religion. (Incidentally, unlike yourself, I view religion as one of the biggest reasons for misery and death throughout the current era. I don't have much faith in religion and do not take a religious label for myself - in this, I am a minority among Palestinians, who are largely observant - though not necessarily fundamentalist - Muslims or Christians). Although I believe that separation of Palestinian Muslims and Christians from lands in favor or Jews is a form of racism, I believed it was the only chance for peace. I don't see that anymore though, because since the last 2 years there is a cage being built around us with Israeli soldiers (again) controlling entry and exit. When a nation is under siege like that, ugly things tend to happen. And that is what I am afraid of. In the future I want to see removal of walls and removal of occupation, because there is so much to learn from each other and so many creative ways to share the land without having to compromise each others' rights to it. But right now there is no room for two states while, as a PLO official once said, while we are still negotiating over a pizza, you keep eating it and are almost done eating the last wedge.

• About Jordan. That the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians (for better or for worse) was proclaimed at the so-called "Arab Summit" in 1974, after which Jordan never again claimed that right. Jordan probably did still have ambitions for the West Bank, but severed all ties with the West Bank and withdrew citizenship from Palestinians there in 1988, after the first intifada started but long before there was anything called the Oslo accord. The page you referred me to had a lot of quotes by Jordanian officials about Jordan being Palestine or whatnot, and I didn't know from the context if they meant literally or were just being morally supportive (as in "Today we are all American") or what, but these quotes were all from Jordanians, none from Palestinians, and as such have as much impact on us as a wooden-legged Buddhist Nepalese sherpa insisting on having a Bar Mitzvah in Ashkelon performed in Gaelic would have on you.

Do you realize that you will have a large majority of the Jewish Israeli public, as it stands today, very much against the constitutional theocracy you envision? How do you go about reconciling that?

Regards, Ramallite ^(talk) 03:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Palestinian textbooks,the June 2004 follow-up report to the Congress sponsored study notes a number of deficiencies in the curriculum. It states "The practice of “appropriating” sites, areas, localities, geographic regions, etc. inside the territory of the State of Israel as Palestine/Palestinian observed in our previous review, remains a feature of the newly published textbooks (4th and 9th Grade) laying substantive grounds to the contention that the Palestinian Authority did not in fact recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people." It also notes, regarding maps, that "A good number... show Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographic entity (without demarcation lines or differentiated colorings). Historically Palestinian cities (e.g., Akka, Yafa, Haifa, Safad, al-Lid, Ar-Ramla, Beer As-sabe’) are included in some maps that lump together the areas controlled by the PA with those inside the State of Israel. No map of the region bears the name of “Israel” in its pre-1967 borders. In addition, Israeli towns with a predominantly Jewish population are not represented on these maps." The Summary also states that the curriculum asserts a historically dubious ancient Arab presence in the region, while ignoring any Jewish connection: "The Jewish connection to the region, in general, and the Holy Land, in particular, is virtually missing. This lack of reference is perceived as tantamount to a denial of such a connection, although no direct evidence is found for such a denial." It also notes that "terms and passages used to describe some historical events are sometimes offensive in nature and could be construed as reflecting hatred of and discrimination against Jews and Judaism." [5] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we want to compare, that same organization did a report on Israeli textbooks and also found that, although not necessarily mentioning the accusations of racism and hatred in Israeli textbooks as illustrated here, the Israeli textbooks were biased, like the Palestinian ones, for what they omitted rather than what they included. Israeli textbooks apparently do not mention the 1967 borders and refer to the occupied territories as "Judea and Samaria" in effect denying any Palestinian presence there, according to Akiva Eldar of Ha'aretz [6]. As I've written before, the Israelis forced on us Jordanian or Egyptian textbooks written in the 60s up until the 90s, where the PA books took over and according to reports, are nowhere near as inciting as propagandists would claim. Furthermore, most objectionable material in current Palestinian textbooks are simply statements of fact (such as Israel confiscating land, etc) which are not false. Details of biased reporting are illustrated in this article by a Birzeit University professor. If nothing else, this should show, once again, that Israelis are no less guilty themselves of what they accuse us of, I guess. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I was just refuting your claim, because it wasn't really true - I wasn't claiming Israeli textbooks are perfect. Second, the criticisms of the Israeli textbooks are not nearly as serious as those of Palestinian textbooks, and the study I linked to was hardly done by "propagandists". Third, the textbooks studies were all new ones written under the P.A. And finally the "Judea and Samaria" argument is rather weak; those are simply the Hebrew words for the territories. I assume we're talking about Hebrew textbooks here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean the claim that Palestinian kids are not "indoctrinated?" No that is quite true as a matter of fact; they are not indoctrinated by textbooks. Whether action outside schools (such as being chased and shot at like what happened to me in the past) leads to "indoctrination" is another matter, but I think the evidence shows that the problems with the textbooks are not as serious as many claim. Second, I wasn't referring to IPCRI as the propagandists, but to those sources that claimed what the IPCRI refuted. Third, I don't care if they are called "Judea and Samaria", "Tom and Jerry", or "Land of Moshe and Mahmoud", as long as the presence and rights of the Palestinian people are acknowledged - and that is what is missing. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Again, your honesty in your replies is appreciated, especially as, in my opinion, one major problem is that the majority of Israeli society has yet to reconcile in their minds how to establish a successful and peaceful state (the Zionist dream) while maintaining as much control over the occupied territories while keeping us effectively caged. You are one of the few who have reconciled that, although your concept of the final solution is to seal my doom (which is how I interpret your ideas of transfer). So while I can't argue with you ideologically because your coming from a religious standpoint is irreconcilable with my anti-religious standpoint (precisely because I see religious fundamentalism as a major cause for misery throughout history and is born usually out of fear), let me respond to some items in your post. You touched on a lot of topics that I felt had to be counter-addressed. I'll try to take items point by point in order to keep it tidy.

What caught my attention most was your response to my assertion that historical detail is insignificant to the families of those killed here and now. Your response was that a Palestinian mother will indeed not stop to think that the cause of her innocent child's death is because, according to you, "she lives in a society where mass murderers are idolized in the media". If you really believe what you wrote, I can start to see why maybe I should begin to share your pessimism about our two peoples living peacefully. The little child, and many like him, were not shot because Palestinian mass murderers are idolized in the media. He was killed because a foreign Israeli army was in his town, a member of whom pointed a gun at him and shot him, period. Had the Israeli army not been in Ramallah, he would still be alive. Your response might be "well if Palestinians had not behaved the way they did, we wouldn't have had to come back in". But the reality is, you never left!! Since 1967, Israel has controlled every single aspects of our lives without mercy, and even tried to impose a powerless "Palestinian Authority" (with a number of thugs from Tunis) that was largely seen as a puppet institution throughout the nineties. What I have been trying to explain is that the whole status quo, the occupation, the misery, has created an unbearable situation for both sides, and all the ones with the power - Israel - can do is provide useless band-aid patches to an enormous problem (the latest being that despicable cage). We can go back and forth on this for a long time, but stating what a lot of Israelis do, which is in effect "we kill you because you deserve it" (and citing despicable claims like we want our children to die), does not bode well at all. There were no mass murders (suicide bombings) before the 90s, but the army was still there - I forget what their excuse was back then, but is was equally offensive. The pictures are not those of a surgery, but of targeted Israeli killings. When the Israeli air force drops a one-ton bomb on an entire apartment complex to target one "suspected" terrorist and ends up killing 50 other people (including kids in their beds), that's pretty damn deliberate. Or when that baby was hit by shrapnel after fire by an Israeli tank, again, she is dead because the Israeli army was there in her neighborhood and they deliberately fired, nobody slipped on a banana and accidentally landed on the trigger.

You may be right about a Palestinian state in the territories being impoverished were it to be established (but corrupt and dictatorial is a POV I don't accept because it again assumes the Palestinians are something we are not). I still maintain that it is in Israel's interest to ensure that we are unable to stand up on our feet, which is why it is very offensive to a lot of pro-occupation Israelis when we exhibit any sign of intellect (of which we have plenty), and very delightful when few perform despicable acts because that provides the ultimate (and grossly exaggerated) example of how Palestinians are gleeful savages that love to kill (when the reality couldn't be further from the truth). A Palestinian state cannot be successful without proper sovereignty and more importantly, democracy. There was a lot of corruption which is only natural for a people under siege (although I won't defend it), but dictatorial? You need somebody in control to be dictatorial, and that has never happened. Even Arafat was never truly in control even if he was able to pretend like he was. Most of our TV stations are independent (we actually only have one PA-sponsored TV station), and our media outlets are mostly based in Jerusalem, outside the PA's control. So there is very little, if any, control the PA can have on the media. And again, remember that the PA doesn't even have most resources for effective control, nor would the Legislative Council let it if it could. But remember that 40 years of occupation has taught us to be rebellious against tyranny, which is more than I can say for most Arabic-speaking nations. Palestinian society will not tolerate a dictatorship. Hamas, on the other hand, is the ideological equivalent to the Israeli far right. NOT by methodology (because Israelis don't need to be), but by ideology. As such, it is a fundamentalist organization born out of fear. When reasons for fear subsides, so will the support for it. I expect they will be integrated into a future Palestine much like far right Jewish movements were forced to be integrated after Israel's founding.

You mentioned that the Oslo accords were not about granting the Palestinians a state, and how right you are. They were an interim stage meant to "transition" between occupation and statehood. They turned out to be an attempted permanent agreement that denies statehood but cements the occupation, and as Shimon Peres said in the mid 90s, it would be dangerous for the PA to remain as it is for too long. And how prophetic his words were.

You also asked why must Jews live with Arabs when Arab states kick Jews out? I agree with you, Arab states that kick people out just based on religious background need to go the way of Iraq (but not by Americans, they are not morally qualified). The Palestinian basic laws, draft constitution, explicitly states that there will be no compromise of the rights of any residents, including Jews, of Palestine. That's as far as I am interested in. Other states, I'm not.

I'm really interested in understanding further if you really believe what you say about this "monstrosity" of Palestinians, or is it something you are not sure of but read on web sites and such.

Best, Ramallite ^(talk) 04:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Falafel in Nablus Part 2

I felt it better to divide the correspondence into a new section because the first was getting a bit long. I appreciate that you see these conversations as aimed to understand each other, as I do the same. I think I ought to mention that I try my best to build on ideas from my previous posts as opposed to starting brand new arguments. As such, I constantly try to make sure I am speaking from a pre-1987 (first intifada) point of view when speaking generally about our grievances, except where noted of course. You disagreed that the Israelis "never left" because mukhtars ruled villages and everybody lived as they did. This is true, but the "lived as they did" part is the problem. Before 1987, Israel tried to impose its rule by attempting to hand select mayors to run our town and villages, and even tried to assassinate the ones we had elected ourselves (including Ramallah's own Karim Khalaf, who lost parts of his limbs in a foiled assassination attempt). Moreover, the way we lived was, to be sure, horrible. We had a lot of freedom of movement compared to now, but that's about it. Examples: We weren't allowed to have banks. We were frequently handed military orders that asked us to leave our farmlands because it was being confiscated by the State, with no legal recourse. We weren't allowed to have freedom of press, or of opinion, as any anti-occupation sentiment would land one in jail. If we left the country, we had to surrender our Israeli-issued ID cards (our only document that allows us to live here) and had one year to return and reclaim them - if some were gone for over a year (as many students were), they lost the ID card. I could go on, but the situation was such that many Palestinian intellectuals assumed that sooner or later the Palestinian people would snap, and demand the same rights as Israelis (a marriage), while others would demand independence (a divorce). In 1987, the process of divorce erupted, and has gone on ever since. I also don't believe that what you call "collateral damage" is not deliberate - when a shell is fired, people die, whether the shell as aimed at them directly or not. And people die because the shell was fired by an army who has no respect for human dignity or else they would not fire at children in a residential area in a crowded refugee camp and then call some of the children terrorists and the rest "collateral damage". Or worse, invent ridiculous language like calling the children deliberate "human shields" when the area is too small for kids to actually be able to go and hide anywhere else. The point I make is that, again, it's the presence of the army itself that is the problem, not why or how they are there. In your previous posts, you had mentioned various reasons for the Israeli army's presence there, but the most recent reason in your last post may be the most believable: that without this presence Israel has what Abba Eban called Auschwitz borders. The problem with this notion is something I've mentioned in the past: wrongly blaming us Palestinians for a classically European problem, anti-semitism, but ignoring the fact that, prior to recent history, Jews were a vibrant culture in Palestine. You also continued to state that it would be insane to trust enemies with the security of Israel. I would have to say it would be equally insane to insist on creating enemies at Israel's doorstep, which Israel's policies have been very successful at doing. Here's a little known fact: when the first intifada started, Israel immediately outlawed the Palestinian Unified Leadership, the grouping of PLO factions that organized and scheduled demonstrations, civil disobedience, and independence rally events in Palestine back then. Hamas formed itself in those same years, but Israel did not outlaw it, instead preferring to let it flourish in order to (hopefully for Israel) compete with the Unified Leadership and lessen its impact. This is a well-established and acknowledged fact among us. Israel didn't outlaw Hamas until well into the 90s when they started attacking Israeli civilians. These days, Israel's actions do nothing to lessen resentment and anger, quite the contrary, it's almost as if they deliberately inflame the situation, which goes back to a previous point I made that Israel needs the conflict to stay alive (why do you think they never killed or expelled Arafat? They needed the scapegoat), because the currently envisioned peace is completely against Israel's interests or even desires, although they don't acknowledge this like you yourself do. This is why I've told you in the past that I appreciate that you are being blatantly honest.

When I posted some websites about Palestinian casualties I was hoping inside of me that, if you were to respond, you wouldn't use Itamar Marcus's group as an example to refute any of my claims (none of which were fabricated). There are at least three problems with using Palestinian Media Watch as evidence. First, Marcus, the head of the group, is a settler and obviously has his own agenda. I have heard him state outright and easily refutable lies in interviews on TV, and therefore, anything on that website is suspect, and probably has a lot of fabricated claims. Second, and leaving #1 aside, believing what PMW has to say about Palestinians is making the assumption that Palestinians are some sort of collectively retarded species that get their computerized commands from the TV or newspapers, like we are collectively brainwashed or something. Given that we are one of the most educated of probably all Arabic-speaking peoples (according to some stats in the 80s and 90s we have more PhDs than any other of those countries per capita, maybe even surpassing Israel), and that, as I said before, we don't need media or TV to "incite" us since our usual daily lives are bad enough, it is a bit condescending to believe PMW's claims that we are "indoctrinated" this way. Recent studies showed that around 40% of kids have post-traumatic stress disorder in Palestine (and also some in Israel), and believe me, it's not from watching subliminal messages in a TV music video, or whatever that site claims. Thirdly, here's a little secret for you: You know the little group of employees at PMW that sit around the TV recording Palestinian broadcasts and documenting everything? Those that are actually paid to do what they are doing? Those 2-3 people most likely make up 60% of the viewer-ship of the Palestine TV channel. The quality of that channel is so poor, and the programs so unprofessional and boring, that you'd have to be banged on the head 40 times with a sledgehammer, given opium intravenously, and placed in a strait jacket to actually have the desire to sit there and watch it. Believe me, the clincher for me was watching their "News in English", it was like fingernails on a chalkboard. Satellite TV is much more popular throughout all of Palestine, and even refugee camps are getting it, making channels from Lebanon and Europe the most-watched TV. Next come local channels or channels from neighboring countries that air entertainment programs, and also al-Jazeera. But Palestine TV? I honestly am not aware of anybody who watches it (not to say that nobody does, but barely anybody).

Let me also tell you what I meant by thugs. The first intifada caught the PLO people in Tunis by surprise, because while our anger in Palestine at continued occupation was reaching a boiling point, they had no clue, instead sitting in their offices and pretending to be more important to the cause than they really were. One mistake the local Palestinian leadership made, although they had no way of knowing at the time, is to entrust the Tunis PLO people with more credit than they were worth. So after Oslo, while 80% of the employees of the Palestinian Authority were local Palestinians and did a phenomenal job in reconstructing the infrastructure, the "famous" Tunis people retained many of the PA's top spots. These people were incapable of running a diplomatic entity, because they were guerilla leaders used to bribing and manipulating, and not statesmen. To put it simply, they were miserably unqualified for the jobs they were in (which is partly why the world rejoiced when the most recent PA cabinet was sworn in last February, because for the first time most cabinet members were local Palestinians "and" were experts in their fields). That's why I refer to some of those PLO people as thugs. They are not thugs for the reason that Israel calls them thugs, because Israel asked for the unthinkable: Israel expected the PA to take over its dirty work by asking the PA to "control" its population. Many Israeli negotiators complained to Rabin in the early 90s that the agreements were giving the PA too much of an autocratic nature, but Rabin insisted that this be the case because a "dictatorship" as he saw it would make the population easier to control. It didn't work. First, Israel has to realize that, as long as the occupation exists, chaos theory will guarantee that there will be a constant leaning to resistance, whatever the political conditions are. Therefore, the PA will never be able to "rein in militants" because the militants are the ordinary civilians who see an approaching IDF tank and instinctively grab a gun to shoot at it. This is not the Altalena affair, because back then, Israel had been established and it held the keys; the Irgun had to join up or get out. Many in Israel naively claim that Palestinians need their own Altalena, which I agree with, but only when we hold the keys will that be possible. As long as Israel holds the keys to our cages, any demand that we "rein in our militants" will not only be useless, they will be arrogant and faceless, because if they still hold the keys at the end of the day, resistance will have to continue. The desire for freedom is greater than the need to appease an occupying force, especially when (as I always point out) humiliation is a huge factor in the equation. As for the 2 billion, they are not sent directly to the PA, and a lot of new infrastructure has been built using it, but the Israeli closure and the wall being built have rendered any such improvement useless. What's the point of a new MRI machine in Jenin if 80% of the people it is intended for can't get to the hospital to use it? The Gaza port was destroyed before it was even opened, etc etc.

Lastly, you asked why the Palestinians insist that Jewish "pioneers" leave the territories. A lot of informal peace proposals (those that don't get in the news) have frequently pointed out that most settlers would be welcome in Palestine as Palestinian citizens, but not as militant extremists. The problem with much of the Jewish settlers in Palestine is not that they are Jewish, but they are militant people who believe it is their G_d-given right to suppress and even kill any Palestinian who interferes with their desire to take over the land. This is not good citizenry. All Palestinian official documents, including the infamous PLO charter, do not differentiate between the original inhabitants of the land based on religion, and only take issue with Zionists, whose aim was to make Jewish presence dominant and exclusive instead of shared. For all their bad moves and faulty decision-making, the Palestinian elders (including some in the PLO) still have one advantage, they can still remember a time in Palestine when Jews, Christians, and Muslims were normal next-door neighbors, not divided by nationalism but united in their love for the land. I've known some Israeli Jews who knew these times as well. Just like creationism versus evolution need not be mutually exclusive, Palestine being a promised land and the reality of the 21st century not be mutually exclusive either. I hope enough people still have enough sense to realize that on both sides. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WTF???

What's to be done about these: Creedmoorer, Thoraziner Chassidism? --Briangotts 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They were joke sites, Jayjg took them down. "Thoraziner Chassidim" from the antipsychotic drug... probably a Purim prank or something. --Briangotts 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Reagan

can you please stop adding stuff that tries to excuse all of Reagan's missteps as someone else's fault. you can combat edits from the Left without making the article into a Reagan defense. J. Parker Stone 02:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Zionazi

The links you provided aren't really good enough to prove that everybody who employs this epithet is an anti-semite, considering that you yourself have often referred to Indymedia as unreliable (I agree; open publishing does not work for news media), I don't think it's a good idea to cite an article from there. Whilst I agree that the termt is certainly used by anti-semites in the same way the term 'zionist' is used as an insulting synonym for 'Jew', that does not prove a tautological relationship. Criticism of zionism (no matter how outlandish) is not the same thing as anti-semitism. I'm not going to revert the article, but edit it accordingly.illWill 18:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It is hotly-disputed, but with all of the proponents lined up in predictable configurations. I can't see anybody that isn't a Zionist claiming that all criticism of Zionism equals anti-semitism. Writers such as Daniel Pipes and Natan Sharansky don't count as neutral because a) they explicitly identify as Zionists and b) they are criticised from the other side (a position I do not necessarily support) for being strongly anti-muslim. It's fair to say that people who employ the term 'Zionazi' are probably supporters of Islam, the Palestinians, or both - but it still does not constitute a tautological relationship. There is simply not enough evidence to make a factual assertion that the term is only employed by anti-semites - that is the point of having an article on political epithets, it deals with controversy.

Also, I've read through (and edited) new Anti-semitism for a while, and I dispute that the debate has reached anything like consensus. If all the proponents of one opinion can be grouped so easliy under one ideology, and all the opponents under another, then a statement asserting uncontested fact cannot be inserted anywhere in Wikipedia. It would be fine to put 'Supporters of Zionism assert that the term 'Zionazi' is a slur; the vast majority of Jews would regard it as deeply offensive' - but that is a world away from 'anybody who uses this term is aan anti-semite', which requires a higer level of proof that , as of yet, you seem unable to supply.illWill 19:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

EDIT CONFlICT you were messaging me as I was messaging you - fine, we'll leave it at that definition. I should point out that I do agree that the term 'Zionazi' is explicitly designed to be offensive, and is crude and counterproductive. I just don't think that this constitutes racism.illWill 19:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your point - 'vitriolic' is something of a subjective term, though, and vitriol can be motivated by many things. I would say that anybody using the term 'Zionazi' is being either unwise, offensive or historically insensitive - any or none of which may be motivated by racism. I would personally question the wisdom of ever evoking a comparison which compares a group to an ideology which attempted to exterminate them, but people tend to say stupid things when debates get heated. Of course, some of them are just racist, but there you go.illWill 21:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

For what it's worth, the quotes regarding botulism and bloodbaths are accurate, and I found contemporary cites for them in about three minutes of googling. See the talk page for specifics. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Three reverts

As an experienced editor you know that reverts are not helpful. Four reverts may be "illegal", but even three reverts are only tolerated. Please try to work towards consensus and avoid making personal comments and petty jabs. The other editors may indeed be stupid jerks, but treating them that way only antagonizes them. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've been told that you had a complaint about violating the 3RR here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Guy Montag. Is that an accurate assessment? -Willmcw 06:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded I assume it's true. You know the rules as well as anyone. For that and for using a harsh term in a edit summary [7], you also have earned a block. Please be more patient dealing with other editors. You know that good faith edits are not vandalism. Reverting is not the best solution. If you have to keep reverting ask for protection, or find another way. -Willmcw 20:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Slave Trade 1

User:Heraclius has been doing the silent POVing thing there; perhaps you could take a look. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Klonimus/AINB

Howdy, I'm setting up an anti-idiotarian notice board in order to coordinate the efforts of wikipedian's concerned about the infiltration of POV and apologetics into wikipedia. I'd be honored if you would add this page to your watch list. Klonimus 05:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Howdy, there is a very interesting article from "Shmeul Katz" over at Jpost. You might be interested, it might have some good content to add to the Altalena, article.

Don't invoke the 'Altalena'

Klonimus 00:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

List of political epithets

Please take a look at List of political epithets - User:Liftarn persists in inserting POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have requested mediation for List of political epithets to prevent an edit war, and resolve the disputed definitions/terms. Could you please go to WP:RFM and state if you accept mediation or not. // Liftarn

Slave Trade

Why not refer to the "Christian world"? Or "Christian-controlled Europe", or "pagan-controlled areas of Africa and Asia"? And an even stranger choice of language in your edit summary.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I have been nominated for adminship. Hope you will weigh in at [8]. --Briangotts (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!! --Briangotts (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Resh Lakish

Resh Lakish - Started another of those articles-from-the-Jewish-Encyclopedia-that's-been-heavily-modified-and-wikified-but-could-probably-use-more-work. Feel free to weigh in ;-) --Briangotts (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

Again I have to complain about you throwing good edits out along with those you disagree with. You may not have noticed this, but my revision stopped the introduction from duplicating half of the article, organized a whole load of 2004/2005 events which were scattered all over the article with no sense at all, and even added a reference or two. All of this is separate from the silly kidnapping argument, which I have been mainly trying to avoid, and all of it was thrown away when you reverted by a day and a half. This is very bad behaviour, please be more careful. – Smyth\^talk 09:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You (or someone) happened to erase important information about his motives in the introduction. The quote from the BBC which I painstakingly had to fight to be included over 3 months ago. I personally found nothing wrong with the article as it was, but I will watch closely for any negative changes.

Guy Montag 18:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not erase the information, I moved it to elsewhere in the article, where it remains. – Smyth\^talk 19:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I would like to apologize that we keep catching ourselves at a time when I revert your edits. I am a little bit off edge in wikipedia in the last month.

Regards,

Guy Montag 19:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Guy Montag. I'm not trying to get into the middle of the Vanunu edit wars but on the "Jewish state" question, this article has some more of the quote, which seems to imply that he thinks a Jewish state is unnecessary. [9] The other article seems to have dropped some of the other things he said on that topic and made his meaning a bit more ambiguous (whether on purpose or not, I won't speculate). Hope that is helpful to you. --Fastfission 22:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice compromise on "Zionist terrorism' article. Coqsportif 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Was around during summer 2003, back now, so I feel new yes, but remember a few things. Coqsportif 00:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

If possible, would you mind taking a look at my current disagreement with AladdinSE there? Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing editor

I've blocked him for 3RR violation; I tried reasoning with him on e-mail, as you can't really get in touch with multiple IP addresses, and requested that he stop doing this, but no response. Also, I can't figure out why he keeps going on about about me reverting his use of the word "militant"; I've never reverted his use of the word "militant". Also, just to let you know, it's not likely he is User:Alberuni. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian city

Hi - I noticed that you objected to "Palestinian city" in Bethlehem as well. I'm sure you realize that, to other editors (and I assume the vast majority unless I'm mistaken), the fact that these cities are "Palestinian" is not under dispute. The dispute is, and in a way has always been, the right of native Palestinians to self-determination and sovereignty, not the actual Palestinian-hood of the cities themselves. That is why Israel is building a wall around those cities. So granted that there is a slim minority who, like yourself, believe that all the territory is Jewish, but I hope you will agree that this minority view is not significant enough to remove what the vast majority of the world agrees to, that these are Palestinian cities. The Jewish cities of Shechem and Ein Gannim are long gone, just like the countless Arab villages inside Israel itself. That these cities are "disputed" as you say, is not actually true in the Wikipedia policy sense (which dictates common English language usage and perception, or something like that). I know what your ideologies are, but these cities are now all "Palestinian cities" unless/until things change. You are causing some bitterness among other editors by pushing this very unusual claim, and I hope that you will agree to leave this issue alone until such a time that the status changes. Shabbat shalom Ramallite ^(talk) 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. You have chosen a very politicized view of what "Palestinian city" means. It is nothing about "sovereignty" or "peace process", all it means is that the city is Palestinian, meaning exclusively Palestinian residents, institutions, culture, religion, newspapers, etc. That's all. I think more people would agree with me than with you. If you believe that it shouldn't be called "Palestinian" because of the conflict, you're inviting the same argument to be made of Acre, Beersheva, Ashkelon, Haifa, etc, that they shouldn't be called Israeli, because there are certainly a lot of people who believe that the conflict applies to the entire land of Palestine as well. I repeat, nowhere in the "peace process" was there a dispute as to the "identity" of these cities and who lived there, and the current government is very aware of this, otherwise it would not be building a wall around the cities. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobic in Incest

Hi,

You removed a section about Islamic view on first cousins marriage stating that it is islamophobic. Can you explain it (if possible on Talk:Incest) why do you think so? I am asking because here in Poland and as I understand in most European countries marriage between first cousins is not considered incestous. In consequence this can not be islamophobic, since permission to marriage first cousins is neutral. On the contrary, treating first cousins marriage as incestous, is from my point of view, sign of a backwardness. Przepla 21:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, see what you think about article. Thanks. User:Klonimus/AINB Klonimus 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD Campaign against books critical to Islam

Recently I've been filling out the category Category:Books critical of Islam with articles about a contemporary books that are critical of Islam. One would think that documenting a verifiyable sub genre of books would not cause offense. But sadly this is not the case. I urge all wikipedian's concerned with having an encyclopedic encyclopedia to look at the following articles and their VfD's. Klonimus 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism
• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

why have you reverted my move?

I moved "Palestinian Terrorism" to "Palestinian terrorism and militancy". The reason I gave at the time was that the article (in part) discussed some activities that notable parties (such as the UN and many academics) would say do not fit the definition of terrorism. The article "Palestinian Terrorism" is currently being worked on by me - I merged the list of militants into the article, and unless you can establish from a neutral point of view that they are ALL terrorists, I think my new title is less POV-prone.

It is quite frustrating to be disrupted just as I was finishing the (VERY LONG) task of correcting double-redirects that end in Palestinian terrorism and militancy. My long term aim with the many, disparate, often poor quality/biased articles on Israeli and Palestinian terrorism is to consolidate duplicated or spread out information, cite sources, and remove bias (including in article titles). Yours, --afterword 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a powder

Yo, Guy. I know dealing with Islamosympathists, and terrorist apologists is annoying and frustrating. Did you see Commentary's article on Anti-semetism as mental illness? Essentially the same thing is operating in this case.

The revert fighting on zionist terrorism is stupid, save your ammo for better battles. A simple explanation that all the new "zionist" terrorists have nothing to do the Irgun, and that they are all a bunch of lone wolf crazies is all that's needed. Frankly I'm concerned about about you getting blocked by the Arabist Admins if RfAr Yuber passes. you need to get cracking on that. Klonimus 08:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yah, it's kind of sneaky, I'd get focused on on that RfAr if I were you. Alot of people on WP like to use policy to force things as they like. Lots of wiki-arabists/court jews/Islamosympathists are twats, nothing you can do about it. Truth and Rightiousness will always be a minority till the arival of Moshiach, so don't sweat it and do the best you can. Alot of times, you want to get down to a compromise, let the thing cool off, and then make needed fixes.

As for your RfAr, my best advice is to get as many people involved as possible. Of course I will vouch for you.

I don't know if you are involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which is a project to keep islamic articles secular. You might be interested. Klonimus 08:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Edom

Thought you might be interested; I've done a major revision of the article Edom, including the latest research. --Briangotts (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's sockpuppets

Would you please place any accounts or ip which you believe to be Yuber's sockpuppets on the evidence page of his arbitration case. Fred Bauder 17:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Kazan et al

I received the following query from a Tatar editor with whom I've worked on some articles:

Hi! Could you start a stub Hebrew edition of Kazan and Tatars articles. Some my friends are studing Hebrew, but thel level of knowlege isn't advanced as well... Please, note, that Semitic 'q' should be used in word 'Qazan'! Thank you, --Untifler 13:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to help him out but I don't have a Hebrew-typing program and I don't have the knowledge of Unicode necessary to do this efficiently; in any case my knowledge of day-to-day conversational Hebrew will probably not help much in a scholarly encyclopedia piece. Would you be interested in helping out and/or do you know anyone who would be interested? --Briangotts (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Territories under Israeli control

Guy, would you mind taking a look at the Territories under Israeli control article? I'd like to ensure that the right-wing Israeli perspective is properly represented, and, as you try to ensure that perspective is fairly heard, I thought you'd be a good candidate for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

You insist on removing factual descriptions of the JDL and their activities. To wit: a) they are listed by both the FBI and the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization; b) they have been under constant surveillance by the FBI for over thirty years; c) they have a documented history of extensive terrorist violence within the United States; d) many members of the JDL have been prosecuted and convicted (sometimes after extradition) for terrorist activities including murder, bomb-plots, and harassment.

Your editorial choices are obviously biased, and need either justification or a recusal from the topic at hand.

Arbitration case involving you

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber has closed. As a result of this:

• Both you and Yuber are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either you be banned from an article where you are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify you here. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including yourself, at the end of the ban. If you edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
• You are banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ban extension

Due to an edit to an article involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict your ban is extended on day, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_2. I have not blocked you but could have. Fred Bauder 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sup,

File:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg

Zeev Jabotinsky

Well Guy, look on the bright side of things. It's only for three months. I'm sorry that things turned out badly, but you and I both know how much how much sinat hinam there is in the world, and so it's just something you have to live with, even if it the decree is harsh and unjust.

The moral of all of this is I think, to relax and to keep your nose clean. If there is anything you think needs attention, please tell me about it. Now might be a good time to start filling out material on other areas.

Happy new year. Klonimus 02:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Appeal

You can appeal the arbitration decision to User:Jimmy Wales Fred Bauder 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA you might be interested in

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

Klonimus 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ammon (nation)

I've made substantial revisions to this article, adding a lot of material from Jewish Encyclopedia and elsewhere. It still needs a lot of work and I will add more archaeological stuff when I have time. Thought you might be interested though. --Briangotts (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New articles

I've started a few articles I thought you might have an interest in. Right now they are largely pastes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I've wikified them and made some edits. I plan to do more in the future but I'd be glad for any help you choose to give:

• Talmudic Academies in Babylonia
• Nehardea
• Dosetai
• Anilai and Asinai

Briangotts (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

YA RfA you might be interested in

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite Klonimus 03:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

your support there is puzzeling. have you bothered reading the whole discussion ? Zeq 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the comments and vote in this

[10]

Ramallite RfA

Please take another look at it. He is a nice guy and generaly a good editor. But in tough issues his POV comes out and it is hard to work with him on some of these subjects. Thanks. Zeq 05:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA (and don't take my user page too seriously!). I greatly appreciate it. I haven't seen you around much lately, and since we may not always agree on mideast-related articles, don't hesitate to let me know if you need any help editing non-contentious (between us) articles. Thanks again for your support! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I am sorry about this arbitration committee thing; I hope this doesn't mean you can't edit articles on the middle east at all for this period. In any case, don't get too bogged down about it, and hope to see you around soon! Ramallite ^(talk) 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Qana

Guy, regarding your edit today to Qana, [11] this is arguably a violation of the arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_banned_from_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. It's borderline, and all you did was remove a link, so I'm not going to block you, but it's sailing close to the wind, and another admin may interpret it differently in future. Please stay away from any article that could be viewed as concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until the three months is up. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism_(term)

You might be interested in this VfD. Cheers Klonimus 20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Radhanite

I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• The discussion and vote page are here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radhanite Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Golan heights map.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Golan heights map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Eldadpointing.gif

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Eldadpointing.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

You have uploaded a large number of other images without sources too, pleace go over your image contributions and make sure they are all properly sourced and tagged, not just this image. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move of Qana

Hi Guy. I have proposed moving Qana to Shelling of Qana. I don't know if you are still around, but I am notifying people who were engaged in the earlier talk page discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

I just noticed. Welcome! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto here! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, its good to be back. Guy Montag 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto from me too. It's good to see your name again. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Defence League 2

Guy, I've just made some changes to the Baruch Goldstein section of the Jewish Defence League article. Probably of most interest to you is that I've changed the description of the location of Hebron (which you changed very recently) from Israel to the West Bank. My view is that it is indisputable that the town is in the area known as the West Bank whereas, to say that is part of Israel is highly contentious. If you don't like my change, I would suggest that we just remove any reference to where the town is located. Otherwise, the changes I have made are to put in links to other articles. ZScarpia 05:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev

Can you take a look at this AFD, and vote or comment as you see fit? Seems to me like deletionism run amok, esp. in light of my additions to the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Historical distortion and POV"

These are strong words, which are unpleasant for me to hear as your colleague at this project. Please assume good faith, per WP:FAITH. We have discussed several of these issues on the talk page. I moved the text on the right wing reaction to the assassination article, since it is a reaction to the assassination in the context of Oslo, not so much specific to Yigal Amir. I personally find all this right wing apologetics unnecessary and attacks on right wingers for the action of 1 to 3 persons disgusting. You never asked before you mass reverted my individually explained edits, but used stong words instead. Lets cooperate better and get rid of the POV together. gidonb 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yigal Amir

pls watch this article. User:Gidonb is adding his PoV to this article over and over again. --Haham hanuka 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the type of discussion we should all attempt to stand above. It also conflicts with our policies no personal attacks and assume good faith. gidonb 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Lapin

Guy - you deleted a bunch of stuff - mostly DIRECT QUOTES from Daniel Lapin. I don't believe quoting someone is LIBEL (the word you used in your edit). I have reversed your changes to the article. If you still feel these deletions are appropriate, please post something on the talk/discussion page of the article, explaining why you want to do the deletions.

Also, you added a sentence that is simply speculation - why something might have happened. That's generally not appropriate for wikipedia, I believe. John Broughton 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Category_talk:Midian#Vote

Please take a look and weigh in with your opinion.

Palestinian exodus

Thanks for helping out. That guy seems to be a rather nasty piece of work. Palmiro | Talk 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Palestinian exodus

I suggest you look up the palestinians exodus from Quwait where in one week 300K were kicked out. Zeq 04:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Hey Guy I'm glad to see your back, I thought you might like to know of this page. I feel in its current form it is almost entirely devoted to criticism of the organization. Much of the criticism is written in a very underhanded manner, for example, in its short "Supporters" section here is a quote: "AIPAC plays valuable roles in expanding the pro-Israel communities in the United States, and in putting them in touch with those who influence the direction of American foreign policy". This excerpt fits in with what appears to be the writer's goal of showing that the group is basically a way for Israel to control America's Mid East foreign Policy by proxy. Despite all of this one of the page's editors is determined to bully any new editor who has the audacity to in his words "censor" their work.

To go along with this the same editor has decided it is his duty to make the Paul Findley article seem like Findley is a saint whose only critics are evil Zionists who control the U.S. Government, and only he has the courage to speak out. This editor systematically deletes anything that suggests Findley is anything else besides a respected former congressmen. I used an interview Findley gave to a leftist website (those are only websites that actually listen to him) as a source, and this editor first said it was propaganda and not applicable, then I suppose when he realized that any interview of an article's subject is applicable he claimed it was a forgery and Findley never really gave the interview. Anyways, If you had the time I would really appreciate it if you could look at these article. This guys tendency towards hyperbole and pretentiousness is quite tedious so beware.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yakir Yerushalayim

Just started this article. If you have any further info on the award or any recipients, please update. Thanks! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

More recently added articles that may interest you

And to which you may be able to contribute...

• Malachi ben Jacob
• Hezekiah Gaon
• Moses ben Hanoch
• Isaac ben Ezra
• Menahem ben Saruq
• Abraham Prochownik (this was the subject of a little tif between me and Ghirlandajo)
• Abraham of Aragon
• Bebai ben Abaye

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Hello. Please do not revert my edits in Nikola Tesla randomly. The page is undergoing an edit war between an admin and his opinions of the page, and everyone else. Check the history and note that he refuses to find a consensus with others in TALK. Thanks. 68.215.52.35 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

JDL

It is very POV to remove the terrorism and anti-Arabism categories from this article. Did you even read the second sentence of the article that says the ADL "has been classifed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a terrorist organization and is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center." I think that relying on the FBI's opinion and a major anti-hate group's opinion is preferred. --Ben Houston 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is very pov to include the category, there exists no policy that the position of the FBI is automatically the position of wikipedia. It really doesn't matter who supports their assertion, what matters is that it is disputed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Qana shelling

Hi, I noticed that you had significantly edited this piece. Would you mind taking a look at the last few edits? There is a dispute as to how to characterise the reference as "Qana massacre." Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad marked for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#.5B.5B:Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad.5D.5D --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Such edits count as vandalism, so please refrain from such behavior in the future, as it is detrimental to the project. Ulritz 11:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Media query

Hi Guy, I'm a journalist doing a story on Wikipedia's coverage of Middle East-related articles. I'd love to talk (or failing that, e-mail) with you. If you're willing, you can contact me via the "e-mail this user" function on my user page. Thanks, Krinkle99 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

May I know why you deleted my references

About the policy of Bismarck towards Poles and consequences of that policy ? --Molobo 21:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck and Poles

Bismarck said that Poles are wolves that one shoots if one can. How can that be described not as hostility ? I welcome your offer to cooperate on the article on Polish question in Bismarck's policies, as I have much resources on that. --Molobo 21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No blanking. Just added sources tag which was too big. Sonofzion 21:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use manipulation. I can use the same method: Strike the Poles in such a way that they will despair of their lives; I have every sympathy for their situation, but if we want to exist we can't do anything else other than exterminate them . The wolf, too, is not responsible being for what God has made it, nevertheless we kill it if we can. Context is very important.

And If you believe Austrotten means suppres perhaps you should look at this explanation: [12]

How Native German Speakers Read "Ausrotten" While looking at the meaning of the word "ausrotten" (or "Ausrottung"), it is useful to see how Germans use the word themselves. I urge you to read the rest of the text to know what austrotten means. --Molobo 22:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies to your historical interest, but lets do our best to improve the article instead of pushing narrow points of view. What exactly are you arguing ? That policies of Bismarck towards Poles were friendly ? Didn't exist ? Or that he didn't express hostility to Poles ? Could you explain what exactly are you trying to tell ? In Polish culture Bismack is known as Devourer of Poles btw. --Molobo 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The policies of Bismarck definetelly weren't friendly, but he had no special emnity towards them than any other perceived enemy of Prussia. I presented source where it clearly states he held anti-Polish beliefs and comperes Poles to animals, "that one shots if one can". If you have sources claiming that this quote is false, feel free to present it. but I don't believe that he Bismarck was the "Devourer of the Poles" anymore than he was an enemy of Catholic, Socialist, Liberal influence. Feel free to present such sources. I have sources proving otherwise. --Molobo 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to comment on meaning of ausrotten ? --Molobo 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no literal meaning the phrase, it was simple bombast. Can you provide a source for that ?

Without context nothing we say or do makes any sense and can and often is misunderstood Well no matter what can be understoond one thing is certain, speaking that Poles are animals tha one shoots as one can, certainly doesn't speak about friendship or love, in fact I don't think we can describe such attitude as anything else as hostility. --Molobo 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the quote again, he never said the Poles are animals, he was alluding to their state as similiar to the state of the wolf, that while it was not their fault that they wanted freedom, much it is not the fault of wolves to want to eat sheep, we (meaning Prussians) should suppress their uprising to protect Prussia, just as we shoot wolves to protect our livestock. Thats the allagorical meaning of the quote. This is your interpretation.All sources I have seen atribute this to his anti-Polish views. Unless you have source supporting your opinion, it is irrelevant. As for sources about his bombast, I have plenty. I am not asking for that but about sources supporting your claims that he wasn't hostile to Poles, right now we have a clear quote in which he comperes Poles to animals that one kills if one can. If you believe that isn't hostitility then I really don't know what to say Saying that a national group aren't humans but animals that one must kill certainly can't be described any other as hostitlity. We also have explanation that ausrotten always means exterminate. And finally even if your interpatation was right it still means he was hostile to Poles since they formed no threat with their meager numbers and lack of any state to Prussia, unless you seriously believe that Prussia with its army, industry needed "protection" from people that only wanted to be allowed to stay Poles. The only threat that constituted was to German imperialist and nationalist ideology. --Molobo 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

if they somehow in their eyes changed to be beneficial, his hostility would have immediately changed Again this are your personal speculations that find no confirmation in real facts. But I see that in that sentence you confirm that he indeed was hostile to Poles. --Molobo 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fierce hostility of Bismarck: [13] To quote the book: "He expressed his fierce hostility to Poles" A History of Modern Germany, Volume 3: 1840-1945,by Hajo Holborn. So we now have direct source confirming that this was an expression of his particular hostility towards Poles. --Molobo 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look I appreciate you want to talk to me about your personal views and opinions what you believe, but I would prefer solid scholary sources contradicting exact information I provided. --Molobo 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask for sources. As to history I am currently ending studies on International Relations where for five years I have studied the history of XIX Europe and Poland. --Molobo 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Baruch Goldstein

Dear Guy

As you can see I have slightly changed what you wrote about Dr. Goldstein and a pre-emptive strike. I feel that material brought in the proceedings of the Shamgar Commission is more authoritative than that brought by Kach.

Here is a letter I sent to Gidonb (who had deleted some material I had written on the subject) on the Talk page of the "Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre":

Dear Gidonb

You are basing your deletion solely on the fact that the material that I restored to the article "was not the background to the massacre as the research committee [Shamgar Commission] concluded."

Unfortunately, the way this Commission conducted its activities has much to be desired. Although the Israeli law on "Commissions of Inquiry" clearly states that should a situation arise where the name and honour of a deceased person could be harmed by the results of such an Inquiry, then the relatives of such a person have to be informed and given the opportunity to put forward a defence, including the right to cross examine witnesses [(Israel) Commissions of Inquiry Law 5729-1968 para.15 and amendment no.2 5739-1979 para.3] Despite this law, the members of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's family were NEVER given such an opportunity.

It also goes without say that judges or members of a Commission of Inquiry may not decide on the guilt of a person until they have heard all the evidence. Yet, in this Commission of Inquiry, the majority of its members were already calling Dr. Baruch Goldstein a "murderer" before they had heard all the evidence. One of its members, Judge Abed el-Rahman Zouabi, who is a professional judge of the State of Israel, used this term from the FIRST DAY of the hearings and in the course of the hearings used it no fewer than 17 times in just the open sessions. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes (Commission member Judge Zouabi) pp.100, 124, 188, 335, 436, 465, 574, 607, 789, 869, 1151, 1164, 1173, 1202, 1367, 1425, 1675; (Commission member Lieutenant General (res.) Moshe Levy) pp.370, 482, 719, 1679, 1715, 1782; (Commission member Professor Menachem Ya'ari) pp.1295, 1296]

A parallel to this would be a person being brought to trial for murder, not being allowed to present his defence, and, in addition, most (or indeed even one) of the judges calling him a "murderer" before hearing all the evidence. It goes without say that a Higher Court would immediately disqualify such a hearing by the Lower Court.

Thus in the act of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, we have to look at ALL the activities going on in Hebron at that period and then decide whether they are relevant to Baruch Goldstein's actions.

Here are the facts with their sources:

1) No fewer than NINE OFFICERS of the Israel defence establishment gave evidence under oath to the Shamgar Commission of an impending attack by Arabs against the Jews in Hebron at that period. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes pp.69-70, 83-84, 125, 136, 198-99, 242, 453, 926-27, 2010-11, 2052]

2) Ruthie Moshe gave evidence under oath in a court case that when she told a Hebron Arab worker (who at the time was working in her house), that she was going to be in the CAVE OF MACHPELAH on PURIM, he replied "Don't go to the Cave of Machpelah. Go to Kiryat Arba. It is safer." [Baruch Ha-Gever trial, Jerusalem Magistrates Court, 1997, Minutes p.57]

3) Three days before Purim, a meeting was called at a few hours' notice by Major General Shaul Mofaz, Commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, for the Mayor and Councillors of Kiryat Arba. At this meeting Mofaz informed them that a terrorist organisation was planning to execute a serious attack during the coming days. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 217 aleph p.6, 678]

4) The cry "Itbach al-Yahood" ("Slaughter the Jews") by a multitude of Arabs was heard on several occasions in the Cave of Machpelah in the days preceding Purim. [Shamgar Commission: Minutes pp.1653, 1712-13]

5) The Arabs had distributed a leaflet in Hebron saying that on Purim or the day after - the stress being on Purim - an Arab terrorist attack would take place in Hebron. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibits, Reports from Logs of Operation Rooms of 2 separate Israeli Army units] The existence of this leaflet was also reported in the Shamgar Report. [Shamgar Commission: Report pp.79, 223]

6) At that period, the Arab residents of Hebron were notified by means of leaflets, loudspeakers and inscriptions on walls to stock up with food in anticipation of a long curfew which would follow a gigantic attack against the Jews of Hebron by the Hamas. [Shamgar Commission: Exhibit 680] This warning was also broadcast over the local Mosques' loud speaker system.[Shamgar Commission: Exhibits 1137(42)]

7) Warnings were given to the Israeli guards at the Cave of Machpelah that on the days immediately before Purim, the Arabs might try and smuggle explosives into that place.[Shamgar Commission: Report p.28; Minutes pp.518-19]

8) Almost all the 800 Arabs that Purim morning entered the Cave of Machpelah by the East Gate where they knew that the metal detector [which would detect smuggled weapons] was broken, although there was nothing to stop them from going through the Main Gate. [Shamgar Commission: Report p.15; Minutes pp.203 bet-gimmel]

9) Because of the unprecedented large number of Arabs, very few of the men and none of the women were searched. In fact the regulations forbade the searching of women, even by women soldiers. [Shamgar Commission: Report p.18; Minutes p.203 gimmel] On this the Shamgar Report stated: "No-one was authorised to waive the inspection of individuals entering the Cave [of Machpelah] especially at a time when a warning of a possible Hamas attack had been issued." [Shamgar Commission: Report p.229]

10) There were various reports of finding weapons in the Cave of Machpelah in the Hall where the Arabs had been.(A check showed that they did not belong to Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the soldiers or Jews then present in the Cave of Machpelah.)[Shamgar Commission: Report pp.46, 59-60, 223; Exhibits 1137(1), 1137(52)]

11) There is also other material but since it could be considered as hearsay, I won't bring it here.

In view of all the above, it would be an amazing coincidence for these facts to be unconnected with Dr. Baruch Goldstein's actions!

I should like to hear the opinions of other users on the above. Thank you.

Simonschaim 11:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have written a book on this subject. It includes over 700 references, almost all of them primary references. This book appears in its entirety online: www.geocities.com/chaimsimons/baruchgoldstein.html

Incidentally, my paternal grandfather's family came from Beltsy in Moldova over 100 years ago. Most of the family went to England. However my great great grandfather went at the time to Eretz Israel, and I trying to locate his grave.

With best wishes

Simonschaim 07:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Baruch Goldstein - further message

Dear Guy

Thank you for your kind message.

As you suggested I have put much of the material in the last message I sent you, in the Article "Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre."

Best wishes

Simonschaim 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Baruch Goldstein - deletion by Gidonb

As you can see, within just over an hour, my addition about Dr. Baruch Goldstein was deleted - by Gidonb.

Simonschaim 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Baruch Goldstein - my reply to Gidonb

Recommended by whom and where? All responses to this item above are mine. An extremely selective choice of materials supporting conspiracy does not work well with the Wikipedia policies cited above, however you turn it. Perhaps you misunderstood someone's polite answer again for support? gidonb 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the letter I received from Guy Montag: Baruch Goldstein Thank you for the wonderful letter. I suggest you add it to the page itself. I am not well versed on the Baruch Goldstein incident, but I did hear that a commission collaborated on the evidence given by Kach. I hope to visit Israel within the next year. Best Regards, Guy Montag 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonschaim" The "wonderful letter" he refers to is a copy of the above letter which I sent you on 19 June.

If you consider my material to be "extremely selective" you are welcome to ADD yours and I undertake not to delete it. However I feel you have no right to delete (and other users use much stronger term for your "deletions" - and this is not only of my material but of numerous other contributors) material which you do not like.

Simonschaim 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have again replaced my material in this Article.

Simonschaim 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)