User talk:GHcool/Archive 4

Be civil

A lot of people would consider what you said to me here at worst personal attacks and at least incivility. Whatever the case is, stop it. I will not tolerate such language, if you don't cease at once then I will have to report you. Your fear of getting outside opinion really speaks volumes on how you view your edit, perhaps you believe it is a policy violation. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool, your tone in this conversation is has not been at all civil and is wholly inappropriate humor. Please refrain from commenting on the actions of other editors, and concentrate on totally neutral statements about the content of articles. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I promise to moderate my tone. I expect that from now Falastine fee Qalby will acknowledge when he/she is incorrect or when/if the outcome of the debate is to keep the edit. --GHcool (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I found your userpage to be very informative. Thanks for the history, man!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad somebody likes it. Lately I've been getting nothing but criticism and requests to take it down or censor it!

But seriously, thanks for the positive feedback. :) --GHcool (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it a lot. I know a *little* bit on the overall situation and conditions, but with so many opinions and "experts" it's hard to take things seriously. Is it true the Palestinian camp didn't consider the settlement issue to be such an important factor like it has been conveyed in the media? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my user page, the settlement issue is an important factor that creates tension between Israel and the Arabs, but not, the opinion of several experts, an obstacle to peace. Israel is able and willing to dismantle all of the settlements tomorrow if they felt that the Palestinians were able and willing to provide a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict. The anti-Israel side of the debate claim that the settlements are an "obstacle" to peace, implying that if Israel got rid of the settlements, there would be peace (or at least one step closer to peace). This logic was proven false when Israel got rid of all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip and got thousands of daily rocket attacks on its civilians in return. After the violent response to Israel's gesture toward peace, it became clear to most Israelis that the settlement issue is just an excuse for what essentially amounts to Jew hatred and genocidal desires.

As an aside, I myself am against the current Israeli policy regarding the settlements. If I had my way, development of the settlements would cease in accordance with the Road map for peace. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030400287.html?wprss=rss_world/mideast Hilary Clinton issued a similar statement on her trip to the region this week. --GHcool (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Palestinian leadership will never agree to a peace deal without unreasonable conditions, such as: removing settlements, releasing fighters, and ending blockades, or any other x demand or face unstoppable collective militancy; why should Israel discourage settlements? If we've gotten to a point where the people who represent the Palestinians don't want to play the game, why should Israel continue to appeal? I have another question: I know a lot of people believe the Palestinian problem was solved during the colonial-return of Jordan to the Arab populous, do you hold this POV? Jordan is more than 4 times the size of Israel. I've always tried to maintain a neutral, albeit realistic perspective but it's becoming extremely difficult to see the Palestinians be given chance after chance only to throw it away. The refugees in Sudan (5 mil), Iraq (5 mil), Sri Lanka (1 mil+) and everywhere else don't receive half the financial, political, or emotional support as the Palestinians, yet seem to avoid killing those who don't tolerate their angry and/or submit to the people. And what bothers me even more is that continually generations considered refugees by the international community, whereas most refugees camps outside of the Middle East are nomadic in nature and people eventually find sanctuary. But the Palestinians choose to fight, accept "occupancy" yet are still allowed to claim refugee status - even when half of them have citizenship in Jordan. The amount of money and aid given to the Palestinians should have created an efficient way for citizens to pursue a better livelihood elsewhere, specifically Europe and East Asia. Just thinking out loud I guess, thoughts? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jordan is Palestine" solution was an appealing idea for a time, but for whatever reason, that idea is not really on the table. I'm not exactly sure why to be completely honest. My guess is that the moderate Jordanians are not interested in harboring a Hamas within its borders; I can't say that I blame them. Personally, I'm for any solution that gets the Palestinians out of Israel's hair as long as it does not violate Israel's high moral standards. --GHcool (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest major revamping to the "Historical outline" section

As I wrote in the discussion page, I've been working on an improved summarized historical outline section for days now. I tried really hard to create a balanced article which would refrain from making any judgment or concealing the truth and bring the facts - I really do not want the text to be biased towards one party. Please go back and check my initial major work on the article and you’ll see for yourself.

I was really sad to see that you have decided for now to delete it all based probably mostly on Ashley Kennedy's latest additions to the text (which seem to me to be unbalanced and one sided).

We need to somehow reach a consensus upon a more informative summarized balanced version than the current short unbalanced version. The best way to do so usually, according to my understanding, would be by letting the users discuss the changes while they are being made, rather than deleting it all and insisting that the discussion should only be made before making any major changes.

Maybe instead of that, in this case the best way to reach a consensus on a more informative summarized balanced version would be if I would only make a few changes once in a while, in order to not get the biased users all jacked up to immediately re-write the whole thing in a unbalanced one sided way sparking a major editing war? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For lack of a better metaphor, Wikipedia works best through evolution and not intelligent design. A series of corrections and minor improvements to an already accepted text is my preferred solution to the Ashley Kennedy problem (and other similar problems on Wikipedia). Major unilateral overhauls of long sections that had been accepted for months need to be discussed first if they are done at all. --GHcool (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the important tip! I'll keep that in my in my future additions to Wikipedia.

Another thing which I wanted to point out is that it seems to me that this article is not on many users’ watchlist - I expected much more involvement from many more users after I did my recent major revamping, but rather most of the activity was done by one user whom managed to re-write most of my work without any interference. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon 1948

Hi GHcool,
I have just discovered the "trouble" around this topic. Gelber explains that "by the end of the war it was hardly possible to distinguish between the variety of forces (Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, North-African volunteers and ALA troopers of various origins)" (Palestine 1948, p.140).
He also says that it is not the Lebanese army that fought at Malkiya but an ALA's regiment headed by Shishakli. (Palestine 1948, p.139)
I think that this parly explains why people have always believed Lebanon actively participated to the war.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GHcool,

You didn't answer...

Anyway, you can read David Tal, War in Palestine 1948, chapter 14.

his CV.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, following an AK's demand. Ceedjee (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't own any of Morris's books at home, that's why I haven't cited him yet. --GHcool (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]