Clarification due to a couple incidents where editors discussed not content, but misguided perceived intentions. A reminder to all to verify what the other person is really saying, rather than automatically tar and feather them.
One must be careful when presenting factual notes about various aspects of the Palestinian muqawama or the Israeli occupation. Mainstream muqawama sources in Arabic do not suggest territorial compromise (putting it mildly). Mainstream Israeli settler sources are also against territorial compromise. Thus, what one views as a simple call for national liberation, can be viewed by another as a call to wipe a country off the map.[1] Discussing the various issues, e.g. discussing sources that show there is general public support to attack civilian targets, can lead to misplaced allegations that you have clear intentions to portray one side or the other as evil. To remind, there's a war going on for a century. If you have no insight into Hebrew or Arabic, you should accept that you might have a shallow understanding of the "unspoken". e.g. a pro-Palestinian cartoon depicting a crying-Jew or a lovable villainous Jew is not necessarily racially motivated even if it uses stereotypes. Use of exaggerations, selling stories and folk tales, making repeated allegations of widespread massacre, nasty propaganda like the very recent genocide claim by Mahmud Abbas at a United Nations Conference, are politically motivated, not racially motivated. Recorded facts can upset both sides of the dispute as "one sided", "Israelocentric" or "Pallywood". Many varying opinions exist to true value of every testimony or "fact". Most of these actions and facts are a natural part of the Muqawama (Palestinian "resistance")/Geulat Adamot (Jewish settlements in "Judea and Samaria") - a struggle for national liberation on a territory occupied by another national identity. On point. Please discuss content, not misguided perceived intentions. v2.00 MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
