User talk:Ramallite/Archive4

Arafat deletion - Pacepa

Indeed Ramallite, there is little conjecture over this part of Arafat's biography. The source is cited as Red Horizons, but of course there are numerous other accounts in Ha'aretz etc. It would be a bit anti-intellectual to continue removing this addition. Feel free to contact me to discuss.

Hello Ramallite

Dear Ramallite .... sorry if this is not a good way to communicate with you ... but You seem to have good experience on Wiki and I like to learn from you. my email is xxxxxxxxxx. can I contact you on email, or here if you please.

Thanks

Thameen Darby. Jenin

Thanks Man for ur message ....

I have been discussing with some ppl the putting of the so called Jerusalem Municiplty Emblem in the Jerusalem template. I think it is biased because the so called municiplty is a branch of the occupation adminstrative changes that are illegal in occupied lands. I know u mentioned your protest to this too. Can you plz pass by the Jerusalem template page[1]and have a look at our discussion and give ur advice, may be suggest a solution.

Thanks

-- Hello again. Thanks for ur message. I would like to write in Arabic my lovely language but I can not on this PC. I think Wikipedia is a great place for putting info specially for less advantaged ppl like the ppl in the so called 3rd world.

For a long time I dreamt of creating a free well prepared site about Palestine, and I think through wiki we can do it.

Yes as u said we need be both, on one hand neutral and respectful, but on the other hard persistant and watchful on demanding a NPOV and fighting bias.

Many ideas in my mind and I hope I do a little thing good for Palestine on this medium.

Salamat --Thameen 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exciting times

Have you seen the new-look Israel-geo-stub? Like here, for example? Hmmm! I've left a note on the template talk page, but I'm not sure what the best approach is. Palmiro | Talk 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

Thanks for providign the info on that image, I have removed the no source tag. --Martyman-(talk) 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Well, these are some of the smaller irritants currently happening. We have also acquired a number of new people apparently determined to realise Samuel Huntingdon's clash of civilisations through the means of Wikipedia: take a look at Bat Ye'or and Dhimmi and you will get an idea of what I am talking about. I am not sure whether there is any real alternative, given the bloodymindedness of the parties, but to leave them to it. God knows I have enough other things I could be doing with my time. Palmiro | Talk 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look at this gem: Eurabia:_The_Euro-Arab_Axis. Just as well I live in Syria, because if I lived in Europe I'd be on my way to becoming a dhimmi due to the evil machinations of my leaders, ever-anxious (why isn't so clear) to subordinate themselves to the nasty Arabs. Palmiro | Talk 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Territories

Hiya,

I'm currently engaged in a discussion with Humus Sapiens about the name/scope of the territories/article. Your input might help to move the process forward, as they say in my part of the world. Palmiro | Talk 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and well done. We weren't really getting anywhere. Your intervention was just what was needed. Palmiro | Talk 12:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just thanks

Thanks for the recommendation, I do appreciate it, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you ?

Post election: Are you happy ? aprehensive ? undecided ?

Most Palestinian I met are concerned.

I am quite shocked from the riots in hebron yesterday. Could not understand it.

How are you doing ? Israeli TV yesterday had a Hammas person saying he hate Europeans more than Israelis cause israel at least has respect for religion.

Have you followed Amona events ? Settlers really getting more extreme but isolated.

Best, Zeq 08:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just when you thought Ramalla is safe : http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=982

Zeq 13:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you

On everything you wrote, excpet for Dudu topaz. Can't stand him.

Don't be so sarcastic. I hope we will not have such a great show to watch after all.

Zeq 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Geo Stub icon

I didn't think it was a big deal since it dealt with Israel-related articles and wouldn't likely be used in many controversial articles. There are 2 main reasons why the 'map' includes the west bank:

So you could see the Israeli flag, taking out the west bank would make the country extremely thin
It was easier for me since I created a vector map with the WB as a part of Israel at the time (I have since added a lot to it, including Palestinian territories).

Just FYI, the Gaza Strip is not part of Israel in that image, if you look closely.

Also, I think it was rude of CG to remove the image without asking first, but I thank you for consulting me in his stead. Please get back to me (preferrably before I go back to the army) with your thoughts, and I'll prepare an image which leaves out the West Bank. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the new version at Image:Israel geostub icon.png. You can probably see what I meant by So you could see the Israeli flag, taking out the west bank would make the country extremely thin (it looks very ugly now), but it's still better IMO for the subject than simply an Israeli flag. If you agree, I'll put this new image in the template. By the way, I'm pro-peace and don't take an offense in the West Bank being shown as part of Israel (or not). I think each side has a different idea of what pro-peace means. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the flag was an issue at all. Probably misunderstood what you were saying. But now I removed the flag, you can check the new version by following the same link. I also put back the image since now I don't think there can be any POV issues. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yardeni and Al-Masri

Dear Ramallite,

As you surly know there are customes in some groups.

In the old days, even in Europe, some Ashkenazi jew were called based on the place they came from.

In old and current days many Arab people and those who came from Arabs countries are called based on their town.

So let us drop the "Yardeni" analogy - it does not address the issue. The issue is the use of names to designate origin in Arabic and Palestinian society.

As you surly know Rantisi means from rantis, Ramlawi means from Ramla, Nablusi is from nablus and an Iraqi jew like me who is called Batzri is Actually from Bazra. I know too many Al-Masri's who can trace thweir origin to a specific vilage in Egypt. Al-Masri does mean "the Egyptian" and since I sourced it let's remove the Original research and focus on what is sourced.

Zeq 17:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand I agree with You because I know Whabees (Bedouins) who came to the area not in the 1880 but in the 1600-1700 (this is what they tell me and since these are people I will trsut with everything (they are like brothers to me) I don't doubt them at all. On the other hand I want you to understand that even an immigrant that came to Nablus in the 1920s and 1930s has a right to live in Nablus. same go for Haifa (you the British brought many Syrians to build the Haifa port). I personally know, as I told you, people who came fromEgypt in the 18860s-1890s and know where they came from.

Now all that is OR and therefor out of Wikipedia.

Now the issue is what can we source ? You claim that none of these (which we both know has truth in it) has never been published anywhere except Dore Gold ?

Zeq 18:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this ?

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/046/336.html

Zeq 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy our conversation.

Ramallite,

I enjoyed meeting you. I really did, despite all the disagreements, including the unresolved ones.

I am sure you followed my "ArbCom" case. I am sure that ant person who wants to spread pro-Palestinian propaganda on the net (and by now I don't include you iin this definition) is watching the results with glee.

ArbCom is up for a surprise because I intend, at the time the case closes, to revel my identity. It would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia who did they ban from an article such as Nakba - it may bring more negative public attention to Wikipedia. Imagine they would block Einstein if he ever get into an edit war on article such as "quantum mechanics" because there would be 2-3 Bohr suppoerters and he would end up "edit waring" with them. This is entirely possible because the Wikipedia system, as it is now, is broke on articles which have a strong debate about them.

You asked me once what would I consider as NPOV on Nakba and I gave you a simple answer (it is there is talk page) that all relevant POV must be represented. I respect your POV - I know how this issue is the core of the narrative of any Palestinian. There is however, a completely different POV (at least one, maybe even two) and Wikipedia ArbCom has failed in ensuring that Wikipedia own policies on this article are respected. The bias there is clear.

I edited the Hamas article for few days. It was unstable. One moment a reader would read on a terrorist organization and the next about a welfare (Dhaewa) organization. The truth, as we know it, is that Hamas is both and Wikipedia should find a way to remove the instability from it's articles. Doing so will also cut all Vandalism. I refer to my proposal that not every edit will be immediately "published" but instead "publishing" will take place once in a while after stability is reached. All the world software is developed this way.

As I stated, I plan to take a break from Wikipedia. I did enjoy our talks. Watch when I decide to revel my identity - it would be fun. I'll give you a hint: I have the same initials as my nemesis.

Best, Zeq 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still here until the end of the ArbCom case (which is a great blessing as it would help me with this Wikipeduia addiction) anyhow Shoshana Damari just died she is of course from Damar in Yaman. btw, what do you think of this:

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21406

It seems that with the cartoons and Hamas wining the world public opinion has turned sharply against the palestinians. Also from my visits to west bank checkpoints (as part of the UN team i work with) I can tell that conditions have become much tougher (especially for North west bank residents) take care. Zeq 09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a little while. yes.

Kadima is down in polls. I expect Olmert to get tough. I hope for you it is only in retoric.

have you seen this: http://www.persianfootball.com/pfdcnews20060214403363451746.htm

Something very bad happing to the image of muslims in Europe and US (support for palestinian people is at all time low). Since I see myself as one that fights for truth I may need soon to switch sides (at least in Wikipedia:-).

Zeq 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is another way to look at the new situation:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9E942AFA-057B-4824-9CD1-561ACE922A4B.htm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060216.HAMAS16/TPStory/TPInternational/

Palestinian exodus

Could you actually go to the talk page and see the discussion there instead of just reverting? Thanks. Pecher ^Talk 18:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think it's better to focus the attention of the reader on the problem areas, instead of leaving him scratching his head and wondering what exactly these guys are disputing. Pecher ^Talk 18:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Props

Salaam. It's a relief to se someone on here that is somehwat successfully battling the ironclad control that zionist jews have on wikipedia. Allah ma3akum bi Falasteen.

I am in total agreement with you

Weisglass was Sharon #1 confidant. He need to reesbalish his position and it fits him to do it with arrogant declaratin such as the one about hunger and diat. I find this to be arrogant, stupid and also against israel own interst to say it. It olnly serve his selfish PR needs. Zeq 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bethlehem University.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bethlehem University.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. cohesion★talk 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aksari Mosque

Ramallite, Would you be able to help with an Arabic language question here: Talk:Al_Askari_Mosque. Thanks, --Ian Pitchford 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

You are correct NPOV means presenting BOTH POV (as long as both can be sourced).

I can source the one I placed. Surly you see that the one that was there is POV. If this is on your "watch list" why not work together, as the NPOV policy suggests to put BOTH versions. In fact why not do it everywhere (for example in Nakba) ?

if you read Hebrew I suggest you look at : [2]

and similar entries there. also suggest you get a book by martib Gilbert abdout the "Arab israeli conflict"

Zeq 16:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the article was grossly POV before i did the small changes I did so if you want to take care of Policy you should have fixed it long ago.

No intention of using Wikipedia as a source, just wanted to present the other POV to you although I am sure you are aware of it. In all honesty I am tired of all this nonsense: There are two views (or versions of History) and they both need to be represnted. It seems impossible to fix it in Wikipedia so all the one-sided lies that fill Wikipedia will have to be dragged outside. This process has already started. I tried to change wikipedia by participating but that does not seem to work.

Nothing in what I wrote here is directed at you personaly (except my mis-placed expecatation that if you have seen the POV before you should have fixed it) I still like you. Zeq 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine#This_apply_to_1948_war_as_well

Palestinian territories

Hi, do you think the flag belongs in that article? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your opinion. FYI, I am of the opinion that only articles that deal with political entities should carry flags. Take care! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Check out the Jaffa orange article. You can view the edit history to see the 'edit war'. The symbolic value section is fact based and sources are cited, but a certain individual keeps removing it. How can I put a stop to this.

Back me up on this one

السلام عليكم

I intend to clean up the Jihad article. I intend it to conform to NPOV standards. Even though there are numerous POVs about it, it is something very simple, a noun, an idea, and something there shouldn't be any argument about. I am worried about people reverting my edits which WILL BE NPOV, simply because they want to- and can. I'm not asking you to help me in potential votes, I do not approve of vote stacking and never ask people to vote for things. I intend to clean up the article in the next week or so, barring complications. All I ask is that you stop by some time in the next coupl'a weeks and provide a voice of reason at some point in the inevitable objection to my edits (which may not be that huge but everyone is edge at that page). Thank you. P.S. Your story about Avi moved me, I happen to be one of those bourgeoisie foreign Palestinians who have never set foot there and should only open there mouths to support the Palestinians who live there. Angrynight 23:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe..

[3] ... and maybe he's a Christian Zionist, or simply anti-Palestinian or pro-Israel; hard to tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he probably is a non-Israeli Jew; I didn't see that comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa orange

Thanks for the suggestions. You and I know the real deal about the Jaffa oranges, and their symbolic value to the Palestinians. I tried to further "NPOVize" the section, and said "what they view as their lost homeland". It's interestng that on wikipedia, Palestinians even having a homeland is "POV" when Jews are openly named on this site as descendants of ancient Israelites(this is by no means a fact). If you can be blocked for adding a factual, NPOV, and informative section to this article, then can't that other user be blocked for blatant vandalism based on racial hatred? Help me out. Roc

New Categories

I would like you to join following two categories of Muslims that have been censored by Zionista and Hindutva editors from posting your contributions.

Category:Wikipedians censored by Zionist editors
Category:Wikipedians censored by Hindutva editors

Siddiqui 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

على رأسي

No problem. Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Askari Mosque

Thanks Ramallite. That's perfectly clear now! --Ian Pitchford 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

HI, we are having an a good discussion on the issue of land ownership of Palestine here

Do you mind jumping in? Bless sins 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a supporter of Palestinian rights myself

No one deny Palestinian have legitimate rights. Howver you took an NPOV description of Said and made it POV - it is an article about Said not about palestinian rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Said&curid=3332721&diff=42552444&oldid=42548160

Zeq 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is not critical. I think "Pro-Palestinian advocate" is better but it is not a big issue. Zeq 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Anti-Arabism

Thank you for the suggestions, I appreciate that you responded. I apologize for deleting my previous posting, I assumed that you did not read it yet because you're either busy or inactive at the web site. Anyway, I'll see what I can do with the article using your advice. --Inahet 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said For example, a sentence like Iranians with anti-Arab views are usually typically anti-Islam. Many of whom are Iranian jingoists, secularists or profess a religion other than Islam..." may be construed as original research unless sourced. Well, I guess it is original research because it is based on my observations, which I know are not good enough for an encyclopedia article. However, I have not found any scholarly research or reports on anti-Arabism among Persians, so I figure that it is best to take the "proof" straight from the horses's mouth. And there is certainly a pattern (i.e. Islamophobic; nationalistic) among anti-Arab Persians, but again just because there are no scholars that declare this, this pattern is insignificant and is not worth noting.

Should I just delete the entire section because I can't find any acceptable information? Also, I can't determine if one web site is notable or not, which is another reason why I should delete the information. Tell me what you think. Also, feel free to take your time to answer. --Inahet 03:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Articles

Can you help with Dhimmi , Jizya , Rules of war in Islam , People of the Book , & now Kafir. Its one user with a severe anti-Islamic POV , who is insistent on pushing his POV . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know...

but I kinda promised to do it, once the Arbitration case was over. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenin

We must have cross-posted, Ramallite. I've left a note on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrie and Jenin

I am similarly grateful for being privileged to hear the story of your grandmother's untimely demise. That's what comes of driving bad American cars. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find an english version

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=692406

Discussion

There is a discussion going on here , in case U R interested . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could not come at better time for Olmert

On your side probably feeling shity. Here some people are "proud" . what a fucked up situation we are all in.Zeq 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

120 ; 0 ; "you"

"and the security of Israelis is enhanced by zero percent" - I agree 100%. Most IDF actions have this effect. (but not all once in while they do good).

38%-43% - well we have 120 in the Knesset so Olmer was at 38/120 and now up to 43/120 but I would not eb surprized if he now goes up more. The British could not have left at a better time.

Dont "you" me:-) we are not all the same "you". i did not liked ze'evi although he was never understood well (also by me)

feeling shitty about this whole show although I am sure the people arrested today are no saints (nither are Olmert and Sharon)

what suroprize me was how easy these people in the jail gave up and Hamas did not use any "rulling power". another day. who knows what tomorrow will bring.

btw, don't belive every headline in haaretz......

Zeq 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"National Pride"

Yediot calls yesterday "a day of national pride". made me sick.

On the other hand Hamas was proven incapabale of dealing with an orgenized Israeli military.

UK helped Olmert get at least 5 more seats.

I pray (but not religious) that some form of negoatiation will resume after the election but I fear unilatelalism is the new game in town and it will be played with bombs. Hope we get to election day without further madness from both sides. Palestinian side actually behaving very responsible toward israel since election but making big mistakes with all these kidnapping. Zeq 07:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Know. Stupidity takes over . yes, economic normality is the key. I am sure hamas will have to react to humiliation, my guess is that is what israel wants: That Hamas will go back to being only a terror organization and not a rulling party. Zeq 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial -- NY Times

As if That Fire Needed Fuel Published: March 16, 2006 Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, the players in the disaster movie that is Middle East politics didn't perform true to type? Unfortunately, the events in the Palestinian city of Jericho this week show that's a pretty far-fetched thought, so the conflict continues its never-ending run, fueled, this time, by Britain and America.

The list of misdeeds is, as usual, lengthy and widespread. The militant group Hamas should not have provoked Israel with chatter about freeing Ahmed Saadat, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who is being held in the killing of Rehavam Zeevi, the Israeli tourism minister, in 2001.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, should have thought hard before offering his support for such a boneheaded idea.

The acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, should not have allowed the desire to do some election-season muscle-flexing to push him into storming the prison in Jericho with tanks, bulldozers and helicopters. Israeli Army officials ordered inmates to strip to their underwear, which many did, marching out with clothing on their heads, an embarrassing and completely unnecessary provocation that trampled the dignity of any Palestinian watching that spectacle.

Given the humiliations that ordinary Palestinians suffer merely by trying to get through Israeli checkpoints every day, the prison raid just reinforced the already degrading reality of living under foreign occupation.

Most to blame, however, are Britain and the United States, for withdrawing their prison monitors. They cited security concerns that British and American officials maintain have existed ever since a 2002 agreement established the conditions under which Mr. Saadat and five other Palestinian prisoners would be held. "Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has never in the past four years met all its obligations under the Ramallah agreement, despite our repeated demands that they do so," the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said Tuesday.

That raises the question of why the United States and Britain waited until now to withdraw the monitors. This is an extremely tense time in both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, with Hamas working to form a cabinet after its election triumph and Israel heading for elections on March 28. There's no way the British and Americans could not have known that their withdrawal would be tantamount to throwing a match into dry kindling.

Mr. Olmert may have secured a few security points for himself and his Kadima Party in their battle with Benjamin Netanyahu over who will be elected to succeed Ariel Sharon as Israel's prime minister. But it's a sure bet that even if his prison raid helps Mr. Olmert in the elections, it will make the job of governing and steering Israelis and Palestinians toward peace even harder after the election is done. For that, he can thank his friends in Britain and America.

Palestinian territories

Hi Ramallite, how are you? Not sure what did you mean in your note to me. Sorry I was not watching the developments in that article closely. Did I miss something important? I think it is correct for us to describe the terminology in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article is about the geo. areas, but it is impossible to avoid any politics in writing article on them (some would consider that by itself a political statement). Perhaps I would emphasize geography there, but the current intro seems OK to me. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you were outnumbered. Reminds me of something some user once wrote about a "quantum encyclopaedie, where information may or may not be present depending on when you look for it"... Anyway, I have tried to restore a treatment of the area rather than of the argument over the name of the area to a slightly more prominent position, and I'm not as angry as I was over the "residential area" issue! Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord, the dreaded "is a term" is yet again being defended. Palmiro | Talk 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nativity Church.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nativity Church.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --Adam Clark ^(User_Talk) ^(email) 21:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is this what you sense as well ?

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/062/702.html

מפת דרכים

is "map of roads" (not road maps)

which may mean there is more than one road to peace.....(I am sure that is not what Condi had in mind)....

PS. I agree about the need for equality, but IMHO, israel has long recognized the right of the Palestinians for self detrmination.

Zeq 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a letter by Begin addressed to Carter as part of the peace treaty with Egypt. In any case it is a given in israel that there should be a palestinian state. Tzipi Livni and Olmert are saying this as part of their election campgain. Zeq 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Zeq 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machsom Watch

Could you have a look at my dispute with Zeq about the description of checkpoints here and possibly give an opinion? I think my version gives an objective explanation of what the checkpoints are whereas his gives one side's contention as to why they have been established - but maybe that's just me.

In other news today, I have been told - following a brief and highly satisfactory encounter (on someone else's behalf) with the Syrian public health system - to "روح لإيرلاندا وقللهن إنو سوريا أحسن". Which it clearly is, in this respect: should I be proud of Syria, or ashamed of Ireland, or both? Ho-hum... Palmiro | Talk 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Jews

Hey Rammalite, I have recently become entangled in a dispute on this article. The most recent area of contention is the inclusion of the following quote:

"In the time of Bahram II (276-293 CE), a Zoroastrian priest went so far as to declare that under Sassanid rule the "false doctrines of Ahriman and of the idols suffered great blows and lost credibility. The Jews (Yahud), Buddhists (Shaman), Hindus (Brahman), Nazarenes (Nasara), Christians (Kristiyan), Baptists (Makdag) and Manichaeans (Zandik) were smashed in the empire, their idols destroyed, and the habitations of the idols annihilated and turned into abodes and seats of the gods".[4] (see esp para. 23)"

I feel that it is inappropriate hyperbole, the editors justification is that it is neccessary to show the relgious intolerance of Sassanid Empire, but I feel that is silly because the article already adaquately explains this in a much more encyclopedic fashion. The other editor and I have agreed to accept the opinion of a neutral administrator and I was hoping you would give your thoughts, Thanks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The particular dispute over this quote has been resolved, but there are still quite a lot of other conflicts over this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abbas

Do you happen to know whether he is called Abu Mazen after his son, or is it just a nom de guerre (like Abu Anis)? Palmiro | Talk 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --Here T oHelp 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toenail clippings

Hi, Ramallite. Please don't let any part of your body be shipped to a remote Pacific island, unless it has Internet access! We need you here at Wikipedia. If you want, you could save up some toenail clippings and send those ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sisyphus

Rather than create a fourth entry on your talk page entitled Palestinian territories, this seemed more appropriate... I did notice the substitution of Arab for Palestinian (the replacement of "in the context of a ... perspective " with "from a ... point of view" I didn't particularly notice), and was somewhat put out by it (incidentally, it was by an anon, which I didn't notice at the time; I've created for my own amusement a chronology of the whole saga here ), but was busy being rather more put out by a couple of other things and decided not to comment on it; if I used the term myself, it was in deference to what was on the page, rather than because I think the Arab and Palestinian points of view are identical. The whole thing (i.e. the Palestinian territories article) is a frightful mess, and it is disgraceful that we can't (at any rate, to date it has proven unrealisable) have a proper article on the topic at its current location, but if it gets moved to West Bank and Gaza Strip it may not spend as much time being ripped apart by people who feel offended by its name. On balance, that may be worth it. That's my current view, anyway, having been through the wars on that talk page over the past couple of days... Good luck with all the paper-writing. Palmiro | Talk 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from a reader

I'm sorry for putting these comments in your user's page. I didn't notice the discussion page, which is the correct place for these, well, discussions.

I'll be glad to see your replies. --Gabi S. 14:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Checkpoints and restrictions on movement were set up immediately after the start of the first intifada in 1987, as soon as the first sign for the desire for Palestinian freedom appeared, and seven years before the first suicide bombing.

This is somewhat true. But there were countless terrorist attacks on Israeli population. The 1968 massacre in Shuk Machane Yehooda, using a refrigerator full of bombs, comes to mind.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Again, I may be called Palestinian or Donaldduckian, it doesn't change the fact that I and my ancestors lived on the land of Palestine, and nothing justifies taking away basic human rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen of the world regardless of what I am called.

Yes, but since Jewish ancestors also lived on the land of Palestine, and political actions since 1900 or so seemed to favor the Jews, we must find some way to accommodate both people here.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionists must answer for themselves if it is conceivable to remain both occupiers over another people while at the same time remain true to the Zionist ideals of the the Chalutsim.

You touch on a sensitive subject. However, I just would mention that "a land without a people for a people without a land" never caught on with Jews. I don't know who invented it, but it was never tought at schools or regarded as a truism rather than a false slogan.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keef ?

Ma Nishma ?

what do make of this: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2309 Zeq 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shukran. from gaza news it sems things are headed for a showdown between hamas and Abu Mazen. Zeq 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Idiom

Hey Ramallite just out of curiousity what does "tempest in a teapot" mean? I have never heard it before, if it means I made a big deal out of something small its because I was joking, but I guess sarcasm doesn't always show up very well in text.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added a link to the other detailed map where it can be enlarged, the text is so small that unless the person clicks on it to make it bigger it doesn't show anything that the other maps don't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that reminds me of learning spanish when we were taught idioms and phrases that didn't seem to really exist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine

Regarding the discussion on this article's talk page- I disagree with people that say the SOP is just as imaginary as the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital. I think it is strange nobody has yet to mention de facto control. There are still areas under the de facto control of Palestinians (which Palestinians is kinda difficult to say right now) so saying that Jerusalem as the capital is just as real as calling Palestine a state seems kinda erroneus. Isn't there a de-facto capital for all intents and purposes? maybe wherever most of the administrative work goes on? Then again I don't pretend to understand this stuff as much as you, so what are your thoughts on the matter?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Ramallite, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

Nakba day is not a place to fight over history. It is not a place for such edit :[5] .

Ramallite, I am not a Nakba denier. I started the nakba day article. It can be sumerized in two lines: It is a memorial to nakba and to the establishment of israel that caused the nakba.

To me this is the essence of NPOV: A day that is a celbration for the jews is a disaster for palestinians.

As someone who dos not deny the Nakba, this is for me the essence of the conflict.

I can only compare it to someone who jumped from a burning building and land on another person and wounding him. I would expect the person to say at least : "I am sorry" or even "let me compansate you for the injury I caused while landing on you when I jumped out of the burning building.

Instead we have one people celbarting (without recognizing the other people pain) and the other people mourning without relaizing that it is impossible to undo history. There must be a way to appologize, to give compensation and for both our people to move on. Maybe one day you will understand how relevant is the situation of Germans in Sudentland and poland is to Palestinians. I know you don't like the analogy. I also don't like the fact that my people ignore your people pain. Why don't we shorten this article considerably. See the quotes from Bishara and others. Zeq 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a man of honor

Thanks for your note to Tony. I am sure that if it was left to you and me the bigger conflict will be over by now and we can focus only on fighting about history:-) Zeq 05:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if I have not said so already: It was a clear mistake on my part to object your adminship and I behaved back than like an ass hole (can i insult my self ? or this is a WP:PA on me :-). Zeq

Hebron

Please cheer up Ramallite. I don't think that there is anything near international apathy or concurrence on this issue, but confess to feeling this way myself often. Some good has to come of all this angst in the end, and I feel the only way it will end well is if some friendship can seep in through the seams and replace the hatred that exists now. elizmr 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level of diplomatic support for the PA

You wrote in the State of Palestine entry discussion that some countries have a "Formal PLO office" with full diplomatic relations, some other countries have a sort of "Palestine Representative Commission" and then the US and some others have only "informal PLO offices". It would be great to have a list of all countries according to that division - each country with its "level" of diplomatic support for the so-called "State". --Gabi S. 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian National Initiative

This article states that the PNI "appears to be close to" the PPP. I don't know enough about it to dispute this remark, but since Barghouthi left the PPP taking various elements of the membership with him, it seems unlikely. Would you happen to be able to tell whether it is right or wrong? Palmiro | Talk 11:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilo (neighborhood)

Have you seen this article? Talk about a whitewash... I have tried to correct, to some extent, the wildly pro-settlement POV, but I doubt if it will stick. Palmiro | Talk 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A disgrace to Ramallah

Still haven't opened it? I don't know that I should even be talking to you. Anyway, regarding the PNI, that was pretty much what I thought. Here's some more fun: [6]! There was something else I wanted to mention to you, but I can't think what. Palmiro | Talk 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite - your talk page is waiting...

Hi,

I noticed that there are quite a few unanswered questions on your talk page, and I just added a question myself. These are not urgent issues, so please take your time to research them.

However, a user called "Incorrect" has just put some racist comments above. I'm sure you're not a racist and you'll remove them. This is urgent, I think. It's your talk page, after all.

Thanks, --Gabi S. 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debate on Naqba page

Ramallite. What have lived Palestinians for 60 years is a crime against humanity. But this is just my POV. I cannot source this. This being said do you suggest that we don't write that "Tchequoslovaquia supported Yishuv" because Staline didn't care the Jews and just wanted to weaken the British ? And maybe Sharon would not have been Prime Minister of Israel because he only cared about himself ? In May 1948, several arab armies entered in Palestine and fought against Jews. From May 15 until the first truce, one month later, 1500 arab soldiers and 1600 Jews among which 1200 soldiers were killed. That is also true that they had hidden agenda but they supported Palestinian in their war against Yishouv. If the palestinian historiography considers it is important for nation's unity to make believe that all the world is against them, this is not WK's problem. Alithien 09:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request opinion of Muslim editor

Hello. Could you please stop by Talk:Christianity and give your opinion? We are debating whether the word 'monotheism' should be included in the intro to the Christianity article. According to most dictionaries, the definition of monotheism is The dogma or belief that there is one God. Now, all Christians believe there is one God and all Christian creeds (such as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed) profess a belief in one God. The point of contention is the Holy Trinity. Christians believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit all make up one essense of God, i.e. are three parts of one God (known as hypostasis). Now, several editors think that because this is different from the Islamic view of Tawhid--and they alledge Muslims think Christians are not monotheistic, but tritheistic--we cannot say Christianity is monotheistic like is done in the Islam article. Many editors content, however, that the definition of monotheism is based solely on belief, not truth. So if Christians believe their God is one God, they are by definition monotheistic, even if they may not be right. All it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Others, however, think we can only say "Christianity is a monotheistic religion according to its followers." Again, some editors (including myself) have issue with this because it's basically like saying "Christianity believes it believes that there is one God," which of course is redundant. In my opinion, monotheism by definition is the belief! None-the-less, we would like to know from a Muslim editor: 1) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic? 2) Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic? Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of debate I had to summarize. Thanks, —Aiden 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R U OK ?

Good. take care.

btw, I was really sad about the 3 family members killed in gaza 5 days ago. Zeq 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Needed

Hi rammalite, Hope you are doing well

What can be done when you try edit an article to make it more NPOV then some one makes it the mission of his life to RV your work?

plz help,

was trying do something regarding this article Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

--Thameen 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Back

salamat dude, its great to see you back.

Ur advice is valuable and true, I did not bother myself much with that page. --Thameen 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rammalite

Now this is a thing that frustrames me. I invested some good time making an article far away from Politics and created the biodiversity in Israel Palestine. The article talk about the wild life in the geographical area of the hollyland. Now some one without even discussing it decided to re-direct it to Biodiversity in Israel. Not only is the title political, but it is wrong too, because wild life has no boundaries.

What can I do to return the article to its original title?

Thank you--Thameen 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. i'll do the explaination in the talk page

but how did u do it?

is it an adminstrator thing?

If someone re-direct a page without discussion, isn't there any penalty? or a way to protest?--Thameen 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I don't know if you know but I have been banned from "west bank barrier" because of single edit in which I corrected a pharse in hebrew by a non Hebrew speaker. This ban is an example to how carzy wikipedia has become.

You may be happy from the ban and I would not blame you, but somehow I trust your honesty, (both intelectual honesty and personal intergetity) and requesting that you would help me convince the banning editor how un-just is his move. We have worked (and argued) about this article for a long time and at the end stroke a delicate NPOV balance. I think it was in this article that I first ended up reverting someone back to your version and that you at some point did the same.

If you have an opinion on this ban please contact Tony Sidaway. Tnx. Zeq 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx

Yes, I would never intentionaly use ADL as source. Sabeel and ADL are biased not because of origin but for what they are Zeq 03:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is OK, no need for you to "judge" me or get into this mess. Always belived that israelis and palestinians can sort out their differences better if the rest of the world was not involved. same here(in wiki). Zeq 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what U think ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Bauder&diff=57678372&oldid=57585723

relationship between "State of Palestine," the PLO, and the PNA

Hi there Ramallite-

I am trying to figure out a better way to phrase the Palestine entry in the List of unrecognized countries article. I have been trying to wrap my head around the distinctions between (among?) the Palestinian National Authority, the PLO, and the State of Palestine that the PLO declared in 1988. From the discussion at the State of Palestine article you seem to know a bit about this thorny subject, so I was wondering if I could beg your indulgence to offer me a bit of a primer when you get a chance.

Some things that I wonder:

Does the 1988 "State of Palestine" have any institutions that are distinct (legally or practically) from the PLO?
Hamas now participates in the activities of the PNA, but it is still not part of the PLO, correct?
I get that the PNA was specifically created as a non-sovereign entity under Oslo, but since 2000 hasn't it started acting a bit more like a sovereign entity? I know that there are such things as Palestinian passports -- who is eligable for these? Who issues them? Who recognizes them? And don't some states have diplomatic (though I'm guessing non-ambassadorial) relatiaons with the PNA, but not with the "State of Palestine"?

Basically, I'm looking to make the entry in the List of unrecognized countries as clear as possible, while keeping things succinct. To read it now, you'd never guess that a government-esque institution had some de facto authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. I'd also like to avoid getting into an Israel vs. Palestine flamewar. I know this is an impossible thing on Wikipedia, but I hope to get points for trying. :)

Thanks in advance~

--Jfruh (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This article is biased, and your input in neutralizing the article would be appreciated.

Userpage

"Speaking of sequels, and on a more serious note, I am also considering starting a new sequel to the holy books (Bible and Quran). I have decided that the original books are outdated and detrimental to the lives of people living in modern civilization." Astaghfirullah. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank barrier and the Palestinian economy

I would say that an alternative theory is that the Palestinian economy was declining already, and the reason was already hotly disputed. The CIA factbook said it was a combination of Israeli checkpoints and travel restrictions, as well as serious mismanagement by the Palestinian leadership. So adding the qualifier is not really implying that Israel was not responsible, just that it was possible that the statistics were creating a false causation- That because of the fact that the West Bank barrier was being built at the same time that the Palestinian economy was contracting, the Barrier must have been responsible.

I feel that it was still possible that the barrier was the primary factor, but also feel it is possible that it wasn't. You are obviously an educated person, you must understand how statistics can be used like this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? What is he doing?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Terrorist categories

Hello again Rammalite, a number of editors have recently created a couple of categories that attempt to weasel around Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism policy. I do not have a real problem when people mentioning in the article's body that a group has been accused of terrorism, but when a category is added it gives the impression that the accusation is more official. The two categories that I am aware of are: Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, and Category:Designated terrorist organizations. In my mind it might be okay to place such a category in an article about an Organization that is active internationally and whose goals follow a movement more than the achievment of a single goal such as the Jewish Defense League or Al Qaeda, but I do not think the categories are appropriate in such articles like Hamas, Irgun, Hezbollah, or Lehi. Of course we really cannot create such subjective criteria so it seems to me that that the categories should be deleted as a violation of policy and for being excessvily divisive and inflammatory. What is your opinion on all of this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really think that categories have gotten out of hand. Until recently most of them seemed to have genuinely added to the article, now most new ones really do not add anything to the article other than implicit pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only apprehension would be that if we nominate it for deletion, enough people will vote for it to stay that the vote will become decisive, but I suppose that you are right, it probably is time that we make the report.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite - you do realize that Moshe is very contradictory on the topic at hand and repeatly contradicts himself. I discussed creating the cat with him before hand and he agreed. Now he disputes it and portrays my motives as base and an attempt to get around Wikipedia rules. Also above in his discussion with you he says he supports putting a group like the JDL in a terrorism cat but his actions have repeatedly proved otherwise [7], [8], [9], [10]. It does help that you made this CfD and not him, but you took him at his word as to why the cat was created and accepted his NPOV description of his views when his actions show otherwise. Moshe is frankly not reputable. --Ben Houston 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I have repeatedly made my reasons clear to you, when you first brought up the proposal for the new categories we talked about them in the limited context of the Jewish Defense League article, I felt that in very limited circumstances (like the JDL article) the category might be okay, however as soon as you created it you added the cat to a huge range of articles using weasely criteria. As soon as I reverted you on a couple of occasions you seemed to have gotten extremely offended despite the fact that I had been nothing but courteus to you in previous interactions, when I reminded you about this you simply said it was I who had started the incivility simply by reverting "your work", I must say I have found my recent experiences with you extremely disheartening and I must admit I am very offended by the fact that you continue to follow my conversations around in an apparent effort to blacken my name.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have a faulty memory because what you say above is frankly not true in a number of cases.

I did not add it to a huge number of articles but rather I moved existing articles out of the terrorism category into the "oranigazations accused of terrorism" -- thus I was not introducing accusations but rather clarifying things.
You said that I started the incivility but you just simply reverted my changes, which I though we had agreed to, with the comment "rv, this category is meaningless" (see [11], and [12]) -- not exactly the model of civility IMO.
You just accused me of following you around. Are you making reference to this conversation? I obviously followed it back from the CfD nomination made by the owner of this talk page -- and this conversation between him and you that motivated the CfD -- I can't see how you seem to think I was following you around.

--Ben Houston 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rude of us to argue on another user's talk page so I have responded on your talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rammalite, I apoligize if I ever appeared disingenuous, even if we have rarely agreed with each other I have always had great respect for you as an editor and as an administrator.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza beach blast

Hi Rammalite. I apologise for any perceived implications about the massacre. I meant that a massacre is usually characterised by the deliberate actions of individuals, rather than the impersonal mass murder of an artillery shell, for example. In any case, the event has now become known to the English speaking world as the "Gaza beach blast", as reflected in my recent change. If evidence can be produced to prove the blast was the result of an Israeli shell (which Occam's Razor suggests it was, given they'd been shelling 250m away only 10 minutes previously), the title might return to "massacre".  JEREMY 14:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

long but intresting

The (Anti-) Palestinian Authority by Joseph Massad

The real rift in Palestinian society is between those fighting to preserve the class privileges of Oslo and their opponents who uphold the essentials of the Palestinian cause, writes Joseph Massad* One of the most important measures that the Israeli and Palestinian architects of the Oslo agreement took in order to guarantee the structural survival of what came to be known as the Oslo "peace process" was the creation of structures, institutions, and classes, that would be directly connected to it, and that can survive the very collapse of the Oslo agreement itself while preserving the "process" that the agreement generated. This guarantee was enshrined in law and upheld by international funding predicated on the continuation of the "Oslo process", as long as the latter continued to serve Israeli and US interests as well as the interests of the corrupt Palestinian elite that acquiesced in it.

The five main classes that the architects of Oslo created to ensure that the "process" survives are:

- A political class, divided between those elected to serve the Oslo process, whether to the Legislative Council or the executive branch (essentially the position of president of the Palestinian Authority), and those who are appointed to serve those who are elected, whether in the ministries, or in the presidential office.

- A policing class, numbering in the tens of thousands, whose function is to defend the Oslo process against all Palestinians who try to undermine it. It is divided into a number of security and intelligence bodies competing with one another, all vying to prove that they are most adept at neutralising any threat to the Oslo process. Under Arafat's authority, members of this class inaugurated their services by shooting and killing 14 Palestinians they deemed enemies of the "process" in Gaza in 1994 -- an achievement that earned them the initial respect of the Americans and the Israelis who insisted that the policing class should use more repression than it had to be most effective.

- A bureaucratic class attached to the political class and the policing class and that constitutes an administrative body of tens of thousands who execute the orders of those elected and appointed to serve the "process".

- An NGO class: another bureaucratic and technical class whose finances fully depend on their serving the Oslo process and ensuring its success through planning and services.

- A business class composed of expatriate Palestinian businessmen as well as local businessmen -- including especially members of the political, policing and bureaucratic classes -- whose income is derived from financial investment in the Oslo process and from profit-making deals that the Palestinian Authority (PA) can make possible.

While the NGO class mostly does not receive money from the PA, being the beneficiary of foreign governmental and non-governmental financial largesse that is structurally connected to the Oslo process, the political, policing, and bureaucratic classes receive all their legitimate and illegitimate income from the PA directly. By linking the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Palestinians to the Oslo process, the architects had given them a crucial stake in its survivability, even, and especially, if it failed to produce any political results. For the Palestinian elite that took charge of the PA, the main task all along was to ensure that the Oslo process continues (regardless of whether it produced results or not) and that the elite remain in control of all the institutions that guarantee the survival of the "process". What the elite did not anticipate was that they could lose control to Hamas, a public opponent of the Oslo process that in accordance with expectations had boycotted the 1994 gerrymandered and Fatah-controlled elections. The 2006 elections, which Fatah was confident it would win, constituted an earthquake that could destroy all these structural guarantees and with them the "process" they were designed to protect.

If under the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) the "cause" was that to which Palestinians were normally dedicated, under the PA it would be the "process" to which they were urged to devote themselves. It is in this context that the financial incentives of joining one of these classes would guarantee that Palestinians remain committed to the process. The recent panic that the political, policing and bureaucratic classes of the PA are manifesting is directly related to their perception that unless they reverse the Hamas victory, their very continuation as beneficiary classes will be in the balance. Indeed even intellectuals and technicians who are members of the NGO class began to explain that the "Hamas" win was not as large as first believed, providing meticulous analysis of voting districts and the like, as well as providing advice and counsel to the three PA classes on how to undermine Hamas. The Palestinian business class itself held a meeting in London, essentially urging Hamas to support the "process".

Thus, as soon as Hamas won the elections, members of the political class began to meet openly and secretly with American and Israeli officials to plan to undermine it. These plans would soon involve neighbouring Arab countries equally as dedicated as is the PA to serving American and Israeli interests. The PA political class no longer cared if its game plan became public, hence the spectacular arrest of a Hamas official for bringing foreign donations into Gaza, an offence he would not have been arrested for had he followed the corrupt tradition of Fatah and PA officials who regularly steal Palestinian public funds and smuggle them out of Gaza, rather than into it! The policing class has been going on the rampage to reassert its power, revealing itself to be nothing less than gangs of thugs bent on repressing all Palestinians in the service of the process. The bureaucracy refused to cooperate with Hamas officials and began to threaten them and refuse them entry into their own ministerial offices. The latest attack on the prime minister's office and the Palestinian Legislative Council building in Ramallah, setting them on fire, is clear indication that these three PA-created classes will do anything and everything to ensure continued financial benefits from Oslo.

Talk of the tens of thousands of PA employees not receiving their salaries for two months would have been more moving to a Palestinian population that had a regular income. Since the majority of Palestinians have had minuscule income, if at all, since the second Intifada began, the situation of PA employees was rightly seen as not unique or more tragic than that of the rest of the Palestinians. Indeed, it is the equalisation of the Oslo- benefiting classes with the majority of the Palestinian population (who are in fact Oslo-losing classes) that seems to gall the PA classes. They are therefore determined to prevent their loss of class privilege at any cost.

Hamas's electoral victory is indeed helping to unify Fatah, which was rent with divisions and internecine fighting before the elections, so much so that as late as January there was talk among Fatah elements that if Mahmoud Abbas postponed the elections they would assassinate him. Abbas, who unlike Arafat has no popular or Fatah-based constituency, has a freer hand than the late leader in pandering to the Americans and Israelis if they would ensure the continuation of the "process". Fatah is now rallying to Abbas, just as he is rallying to Fatah. Indeed Abbas recently made peace with what is left of the PLO -- which he, like Arafat before him, had continued to dismantle -- by mending fences with Farouq Qaddumi and Suha Arafat after months of rancour. It remains unclear, however, if the PA will resume paying Suha and her daughter multi- million dollar cheques. Even the mutinous Mohamed Dahlan, who wants the whole pie to himself, is coming to the aid of Abbas.

Indeed, as he is consolidating and centralising authority in his own hands for the first time since he came to power, Abbas has recently created a Praetorian guard to ensure his safety as supreme guardian (or is it godfather?) of the "process". Israel rushed to allow weapons to enter the occupied territories to outfit the new repressive force. As is clear from Abbas's public statements, the only time he speaks out against the Israelis is when Ariel Sharon and later Ehud Olmert threaten to end the "process" with unilateral action. Otherwise, Abbas has been quite amenable to any and all Israeli and US proposals.

Hamas, on its part, is playing a game reminiscent of Salvador Allende. Like, Allende, Hamas continues to insist on the democratic game, as its thuggish and gangster opponents observe no limits on their conspiratorial and treasonous actions. It is true that the attack on Ismail Haniyeh's office is not of the magnitude of the assault on La Moneda on 11 September 1973, but the thugs are demonstrating that they are ready to go as far as Pinochet had in serving Fatah and Israeli interests. Despite all this, Hamas seems to have shown curious restraint. Hamas could, for example, arrest the entire top (and many of the mid- level) leadership of Fatah and the PA on corruption and national treason charges for which it has ample documentary proof, bringing them to open and fair trial. It could mobilise the population against these corrupt figures through demonstrations and the media. That it has not done so testifies to its commitment to preserving a semblance of the peace and not responding to the instigation of a civil war that the defeated PA elite wants to bring about as a possible way of restoring the "process".

While the PA and its benefiting classes are fighting a battle to keep the "process" alive, the Israelis have shown every indication that the "process" ended for them a long time ago. For them, the Oslo process was a necessary but historically finite step designed to co-opt the Palestinian leadership, solidify Israel's grip on stolen Palestinian lands, and normalise Israel's diplomatic status in the Arab world as well as globally. As the Israelis have achieved all these goals, the process no longer serves any purpose for them. At the moment, their continuing campaign to bomb and assassinate Palestinian civilians and pro- and anti-"process" politicians in the West Bank and Gaza has shown no sign of abating. As the Oslo process has brought calamity after calamity on the Palestinian people, its only reason for continuing is the survival of the PA classes that are its main and only beneficiaries.

Make no mistake about it, this is what the ongoing battle in the West Bank and Gaza is all about. What lies in the balance is the fate of nine million Palestinians.

The writer is associate professor of modern Arab politics and

intellectual history at Columbia University. His book, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question , was recently published by Routledge.

my analysis of this: His insight into Palestinians seems penetrating but he lacks basic understanding about what israeli public wants. best, Zeq 06:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

Hi Rammallite!

Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an uninterested party, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back. --Burgas00 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas.[reply]

Israel municipal city boxes

I have been adding Template:Infobox Israel municipality to many cities in Israel. The Hebrew name is first because that's how the template is. I am currently unaware of any Palestinian templates that would be appropriate for this information. If you give me a link to one I'll change the cities, but as of now I know of nonesuch template that exists. --PiMaster3 15:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations accused of terrorism

Greetings, sorry to disturb you but I have some questions about your CfD specifically how it might relate to Charities accused of ties to terrorism. I think there is some validity for that category but some of your points are valid. The solution for that category might be to "listify" it and make the organizations found in it listed as an article like Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Were there any organizations in the category currently that you specifically disagree with? Netscott 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: your first comment, "It is a weasel category designed to circumvent the Words to avoid policy on Terrorism." doesn't stand up when categories like Category:Terrorists and Category:Terrorism already exist and have existed for awhile. Such commentary tends to run afoul of assuming good faith relative to the category's creator. Netscott 01:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assumming good faith does not mean the person must be stupid. The category's creator purposely created criteria for it that was so open-ended and generalized that the category became virtually meaningless, he and others then went about adding it to organizations where it was needlessly inflammatory to have any such label.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moshe, you are making a derogatory reference to me (i.e. "category's creator") in the above comment. Didn't yesterday you admonism me claiming that I was doing the same thing to you? You said specifically "I would appreciate it if you could call it quits and just try to stay away from anything personal, feel free to comment on my edits but please do not comment on 'me'" (see [13].) I find you inconsistent -- you seem to feel that there are rules that others should follow but that these same rules do not apply to yourself. In your original post to Ramallite's above page you also talked specifically about the creators of the categories and how they were trying to weasle around wikipedia policies -- you did not just talk about the categories but rather about the creators and their intent (in your eyes.) My strong recommendation is that you try to treat others as how you yourself would like to be treated -- the golden rule you know. --Ben Houston 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on your talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron

There were rapes, mutilations and really horrible acts. [14] Zeq 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is FYI. I also know that from stories i trust. not for the article.

Gaza

Really sad situation. I think the soldier will die and we will plunge back into 2002. Zeq 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I can not "sit back and enjoy". I full of rage on the civilians that were killed (mostly on your side). On the soldiers wwho are pawns. On hamas unwilingness to accept israel which is exactly like the most carzy settlesr I know who refuse to give up an inch. fucken sitauition. so many will die and we will end up with more hate. The smartest thing Olmert could do now is to get out of Gaza and keep the diplomatic presure but he is held captive by his generlas and the bibis. Hanyie/abu mazen are in similar sitaution. The only fucken differnce I can see is that israel has by far more fire power. other than that all these ass holes are the same. I also hate the fact that ech of the sides tries to claim some "moral superority" - this is disgusting. 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5151718.stm

Hello Ramallite!!!

Could you please add your imput as an external opinion on the following RfC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gibnews regarding behaviour on the Gibraltar article... Thanks alot--Burgas00 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aqsa Intifada/Muhammad al-Durrah

Well actuallly there is a lot of doubt all we have is 55 seconds of video footage from one cameraman (France2) when there were three cameramen (France2,AP,Reuters) at the scene, no autopsy, police investigation, medical records, blood visible during the scene, and only two (2) richochets visible during the movie (coming from behind the cameraman's back). Read the Muhammad al-Durrah article in Wikipedia and if you still have some doubts watch the movie at this website. Mieciu K 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more neutral, if you chose the watch the movie from seconddraft.org (and it is a good practice to get know the arguments of your oponents) imagine that you are watching a movie that allegedly shows Spanish soldiers killing Basque independence supporters, would a movie with serious doubts about it's credibility be enough to justify a bloody civil war? Mieciu K 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of references on the boy's wikipedia page. Because of tehnical difficulties I was unable to add this reference to the picture's description: ref [http://www.truthnow.org/Members/webmestre/Document.2004-11-26.5413 The Mythical Martyr

By Stephane Juffa, The Wall Street Journal Europe, 2004] ref/. Its not a perfect link since it does not link directly to the Wall Street Journal, but it should be enough. I do not challenge the palestinian people's missery, I just challenge the credibility of this video, when examined closly it looks like a primitive hoax exploiting people's feelings (inclueding mine when I first saw it on TV) and it does not help the Palestinian cause. Mieciu K 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes I am fine

I was in the north when it all started last wednesday and in Haifa twice for few hours this week. was very glad to get out from there.

My family in the north decided to stay. One of my relatives the house next door got a direct hit but that family who live there left to the south so no one was hit- the house is total loss. thanks, for asking. stay safe. Zeq 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qana

Hi Ramallite. Hope all is well. If you feel like it, you might check the translation of Hebrew Haaretz that I put in Talk:2006 Qana airstrike and consider if any of it should be in the article. In my opinion it is very likely to be the correct explanation and in fact such a policy would explain dozens of incidents reported in the past weeks. --Zero^talk 05:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the UN

Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please?

86.27.55.184 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muamar family detention incident

hi Ramallite,

Just thought as someone from Palestine you might be interested in the article Muamar family detention incident. The US/UK/corporate-media seem to say a lot about Shalit and not much about the Muamar brothers, as if it's OK for Israeli soldiers to enter Gaza and detain Palestinians (whose father is apparently in Hamas, but themselves are apparently not party members), while if Palestinian soldiers enter Israel the following day and detain an Israeli soldier, then that's totally unacceptable and justifies a massive military reaction by Israel... If you have any info to add or wish to further NPOV the article, please go ahead. It's wikipedia. :) Boud 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings :) No I am not in the war zone, the closest I do is direct traffic (as the military police does) for troops going near the Gaza area, but even that is not possible now considering we have a serious shortage in personnel (more specifically, people who know about jails) and therefore I am stuck guarding prisoners. While in range of the long-range type of Kassam, our base has not been hit and there hasn't even been an alarm.

How are you doing yourself?

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments

Hello Ramallite, thank you for your comments. My edits on all articles are made from an NPOV and are accurate. I'm not bombarding any articles with anti palestinian quotes, but only referring to Katz's analysis in specific places where it is warranted. All my quotes are proved in an encyclopedic material. There are also not many quotes, like you say "endless" but rather few, concise and to the point. There is nothing "hateful" among them, and they're all being explained properly and in the NPOV manner.

As for the Western Tunnel article, Arafat never denied the incitations. He took pride in them and these are very well known facts. Amoruso 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza

I have been trying to have the gaza strip added to the List of concentration and internment camps article. There have been 2 revert wars. Could you take a look at the content I wrote and make suggestions as to how it can be improved? The latest version (with broken cite.php references) is at User:Carbonate/Sandbox. Carbonate 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

facts

You should add these facts to your list. 1987 was not before the first suicide bombing, which is irrelevant. Palestinians have been using various methods of terror since before Israel was established. I am wondering why for the 20 years Egypt and Jordan controlled the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they did not even intend to give it to their fellow Arabs. I also wonder why in 1947, the Arabs rejected a Partition Plan that would give them ALL of the West Bank and more of its surrounding territory, ALL of the Gaza Strip and more of its surrounding territory, and territory in the north. This may seem strange to you coming from an Iranian-American, but I believe facts are facts, and that your people have unfortunately ultimately been treated unjustly by your Arab neighbors, which is sad. It is also sad, however, the amount of Jews killed, had property stolen from, and driven out of their homes in Arab and Muslim countries. Keep in mind, Palestinian Arabs were encouraged to leave by their own leaders to ease the killing of Jews and destruction of Israel. I am not trying to argue as I believe both of us are men of peace. --Shamir1 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

First of all, if the first reported female suicide bomber was in 1985, it only takes common sense to know that the first suicide bombing in general would be long before 1994 like you said, so I would correct that on your profile. Secondly, European colonization? What? I want you to tell me where the current president of Israel is from. Then, you talked about partitioning their own land to European colonizers. Who says it is their own land. Jews have maintained a presence (though their numbers have shrunk due to invasions) in the region for centuries before the ancestors of today's Palestinians. You mentioned the partition of land belonging to them, that statement is ridiculous. Do you think anyone is going to give back the money and loads of property stolen from the Jews in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Iraq,... I can go on forever. I can assure you my knowledge of history is quite advanced, as I am currently a History major at one of America's most prestigious universities. So don't throw this baloney at me, that the Partition was not fair. There would not be a single Palestinian refugee, had the Arabs (including the Palestinians) accepted the plan. Jewish Palestine would consist of just a narrow strip of the coast, and the rest mostly the Negev, all of which was sand dunes and quite unpopulated. Yes, migration may have been necessary on both sides, which would not be a terrible thing. It did include modern-day Tel Aviv, which was then population 0 and was home to only sand, sand, and more sand. Please do not try to excuse the Palestinian acts of terror. 6 million Jews were slaughtered in Nazi Europe and I have not heard of a Jew blow him/herself up in a German restaurant. When it comes to hatred, hate speech is much more ubiquitous in the Arab world and Palestinian territories. Palestinian textbooks have taught math with such equations as, "If I capture 5 Jews and kill 3, how many are left?" and unfortunately use Islam as a weapon of propaganda to brainwash youth. Islam is not meant to be treated and used this way. I know you may be arguing with me right now, saying it is not true, but I will tell you I have resources, basis, and reason to back up everything that I say. You said you did not know about the Palestinians encourage to leave by Arab leaders. Here are just some quotes:

A leading Palestinian nationalist of the time, Musa Alami, revealed the attitude of the fleeing Arabs:

"The Arabs of Palestine left their homes, were scattered, and lost everything. But there remained one solid hope: The Arab armies were on the eve of their entry into Palestine to save the country and return things to their normal course, punish the aggressor, and throw oppressive Zionism with its dreams and dangers into the sea. On May 14, 1948, crowds of Arabs stood by the roads leading to the frontiers of Palestine, enthusiastically welcoming the advancing armies. Days and weeks passed, sufficient to accomplish the sacred mission, but the Arab armies did not save the country. They did nothing but let slip from their hands Acre, Sarafand, Lydda, Ramleh, Nazareth, most of the south and the rest of the north. Then hope fled (Middle East Journal, October 1949)."

"Observers feel that with proper counsel after the IsraeliEgyptian armistice, the Arab population might have advantageously remained. They state that the Israeli Government had given guarantees of security of person and property. However, no effort was made by Egypt, Transjordan or even the United Nations Palestine Conciliation Commission to advise the Faluja Arabs one way or the other (New York Times, March 4, 1949)."

The U.S. ConsulGeneral in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that “local muftidominated Arab leaders” were urging “all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so.”

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. Starting in December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these arly Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590).

The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts” (Morris, Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986). Morris also documented that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of “several dozenvillages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 592).

Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, “tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation-women and children first, the men following weeks later-occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places.”

Iraq's, who fought in many wars against Israel, for the pure and only intent to destroy Israel, Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49 (Syria also fought in many wars against Israel for the pure and only goal to destroy Israel), also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."

“The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two,” Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada alJanub (August 16, 1948). “Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem.”

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies,” according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: “The Arab government told us: 'Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.'”

“The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”

Even Jordan's King Abdullah (Jordan, again, fought many wars against Israel for the pure and only intent of destroying Israel), writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

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

I hope that was enough references for you to understand.

I would also like to add that the Jews in Palestine were quite peaceful, especially in comparison to their Arab counterparts. I know that many Jews and Muslims in Israel and elsewhere do get along very well, which makes me very happy. There are also many non-Jewish Israeli Arabs who join the Israeli military. I hope very much for peace in the Middle East. I am personally convinced that the only way most people in the Arab world would settle for this is if Israel is whiped off the face of the globe. Yes, a Partition plan would have been nice, and each time it is been accepted or offered by Israel. I cannot unfortunately say that about the opposing side. I also know that Israel has built 6 universities and 20 community colleges for Palestinians and trained Palestinian police [15]. Nothing to show that they oppose a Palestinian government or country. --Shamir1 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rolls eyes* Sure, "good Israelis, bad Palestinains", now you have taught me the truth Shamir. —Khoikhoi 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, I am glad you learned something, because it doesn't seem like you know much of anything else. "*Rolls eyes*"

Yeah, Palestinians are the most humiliated people, uh huh. I have never heard of a Palestinian forced to strip in public and scrub the streets of Vienna. Oh, have you heard about Native American Indians? Meanwhile, the Palestinians are increasing like no other. Genocide, my @#$. Ethnic cleansing, my @#$. Go read a book about what Muslims are doing to Muslims in Africa. Then tell me about "humiliation." As for Khoikhoi's "good Israelis, bad Palestinians" sarcasm--Khoikhoi, there are anti-Biblical, anti-religion, and anti-Semitic ideas and cartoons published and distributed everyday. I have never seen Israelis or Jews going on a worldwide rampage, sending death threats, etc. Hmm... What was that? Palestinians attack half a dozen churches in the West Bank and Gaza because someone said something they didn't like. How humiliating.

What is it with Muslims and history denial? Don't they see it makes us look bad? --Shamir1 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Marhaba Ramallite. I've gotten into a little dispute with a user over at the Hebron article. They want to include Category:Cities in Israel or Category:Israeli settlements to the article, both of which I argue are factually inaccurate. If he/she wants to include the first one, then why isn't Hebron at List of cities in Israel? As for the second one, the whole city of Hebron is obviously not an Israeli settlement. Anyways, I was hoping you could either join-in on the discussion or give me suggestions of what to do. Thanks.

BTW, I really liked what you said, "it is human nature for one to believe whatever rubbish or, as you call it, baloney, that are necessary to sustain one's own ideological viewpoint", along with all the other things here. I totally agree, and to be honest, am not sure why you continue to reply to this guy. If I were you I'd just ignore him. Just by reading his comments I myself got extremely annoyed. Ma al-salamah, best of luck. —Khoikhoi 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if he wants to spew hatred, it should be somewhere else. Yes, I often find compromises to be dumb, but at least they are workable, and a category in one article can't hurt too much. Ah, NPOV wording can be like that, but that's not necessarily how it has to be (as you probably know). I know all about Square One, it is actually smaller than Gaza Strip, perhaps half the size of Gaza City. Anyways, I probably won't be editing Israeli-Palestinian-related articles that much anymore, look how much a mess the edit history of Palestinian refugee is, and it's just about one little quote! I just hope things can eventually be solved (I mean the conflict), perhaps someday.

I did want to ask you one thing, that I'd really like to know. Some of my personal friends have the typical anti-Palestinian POV, and they argue that "most Palestinians want all of Israel", and "Palestinians don't want peace". Whenever they say that it gets me realy pissed. One guy said there was some recent meeting where Palestinains rejected an offer for land? I'm not sure if it's true or not, but if there was such a meeting, it sounds like a pretty crappy deal to get land in Israel but at that same time land being stollen from them in the West Bank. Anyways, it's a quesiton that I've wondered for a long time: would most Palestinians today be happy with the 1948 UN two-state solution, or do most want all of Israel? Is it 50/50? One time I said to this guy that the "whole thing" ideology sounds like an extremist point of view to me, something that Hamas supports. But then of course the same person said, "but most Palestinians support Hamas!" I know that it got elected because Abbas' gov't. was corrupt (money scandals & such), but I hadn't thought of saying that to him at the time.

I was watching on TV a couple weeks ago about the Israeli tanks that were invading northern Gaza, and I saw a man, with about 5 kids, and no electricity and the only running water being in a single location in the middle of the town. He said, "of course we need to recognize Israel, but Israel also needs to recognize us". I thought what he said was really interesting. Anyways, hopefully you can debunk some of the real myths, instead of some bullshit from a propaganda poster. Shokran for your help. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fi kill makaan...

[16] shu biddna nsawwi?

3ala ayy 7aal ana raja3t hala la-bilaadi w 3am ballish al-7ayaat al-3aadiyya min jdid... rah b3at illak email. Palmiro | Talk 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

killu tamam... taqriban... In the meantime, you might like to keep an eye on the strange goings-on affecting Rashid Khalidi, who apparently has given many people "reason to believe" that he might be <gasp> a member of the PLO. Palmiro | Talk 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

as for right now I do not have time to take about all your responses, but here is one. You say: First you say "There would not be a single Palestinian refugee, had the Arabs (including the Palestinians) accepted the plan", then you say Yes, migration may have been necessary on both sides, which would not be a terrible thing." Pick one, which is it? Either way, partition based on racial or religious superiority is just not proper. They tried it in South Africa, and it failed. Now the Israeli Arabs, according to recent polls reported by Haaretz, are still considered a "demographic threat" by Israeli Jews. Migration does not make someone a refugee, and the partition was not based on religious or racial superiority, especially when the Jews got the sand dunes. And as for the other claims you dismiss, you cannot deny the hate speech and religious indoctrination of their children among Palestinians and other Arabs alike. Nothing compares. And I also find it funny when I hear you disregard Brigitte Gabriel or Wafa Sultan, when they were both born and raised in Arab-Islamic countries. --Shamir1 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Freedman

Is an apologist for israeli crimes who tries to cover it up by making semi-compassionate remarks about the palestinians! Sorry, saw it the name on your page... try Robert Fisk :p Rm uk 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank Article and offshoots

Let's put politics aside for a moment. I am interested in making the West Bank article as informative and interesting as possible. For one, we should also make it as neutral as possible. With that said, I have noticed that there are many offshoots to the article that are just non-sense and uninformative and I think we should try to merge as many of those onto the West Bank page. For example, merge the Judea and Samaria article in. The History of the West Bank, Geography of the West Bank, Demographics of the West Bank are all articles that aren't strong enough on their own. Let's work together and make this article as all inclusive as possible. Please respond if you are with me on this effort.David Betesh

I am unfamiliar with the genre of music that you were talking about, though since it took place in the Ashkenazic world, I would speculate that it is similar to Pizmonim. They were probably parallel yet unrelated developments. Pizmonim were developed in the Middle Eastern Islamic world whereas the other type of music was in the Eastern European world.

On another note, the talk page on the West Bank needs to be shortened. There is a lot of back and forth fighting on the page and it got to the point where it would be unbearable to read all of it. David Betesh

Marwan Barghouti: captured or arrested?

Marwan Barghouti was "arrested" in Ramalla by the Israelis. Isn't the correct term "captured"? because the territories are occupied by israel and israel has no right of arrest.

Also an alternative viewpoint is that the PA has policing powers in Ramalla (as stated by Oslo) and hence the Israelis had no right of arrest there. I change it to capture but then people change it to "arrest".

I would appreciate you stating your opinion on the Barghouti talk page. Rm uk 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't worry

Can you imagine what any other country in the world would have done in Israel's place ? Imagine what Jordan would have done to Palestinians if 1000's of its citizens were killed in terrorist acts ? Imagine the PA allowing Zionist members of its parliament to travel to enemy states and talk badly about Arafat and the Palestinians ? To allow its high court of justice to deny its army the right of deporting/breaking houses/using neighbours to warn suspects and so on... If I were a Palestinian, I'd be happy Israel is such a sucker-state that actually allows all this to happen. You're living in paradise and you know it man. It's the Israelis that should be worried if they don't wake up. Amoruso 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering...

...if you ever saw my questions to you from awhile back. Eh? —Khoikhoi 01:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramallite, thank you very much (sorry for the late reply). I don't think I'll be able to respond as I'm really busy right now, but thank you again. —Khoi khoi 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

أهلآ, كيف حالك

Hello Ramallite, I like your style and comments through out wikipedia; I hope we can collaborate on enhancing the reader’s experience. Palestine48 ^(talk) 22:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

أخوك من فلسطين

you once told me

that you won't be interesed in having Jordan as your country (renamed to Palestine) because basically it's shit compared to the western side. How about if we divided it horizontally or diagonally in some way giving each side half and throwing out the hashemeite regime ? I'm seriously asking - will you accept it ? We can divide it in squigly lines as well, but the basic idea sounds fine to you or do you object to it ? Amoruso 07:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and what would the New Year be without an innovative peace plan from none other than Amoruso! And what a New Year it is, apparently, with the kind of plan that would have even Katz rolling in his grave (despite the fact that he's still alive). I read your comments on the Palestine talk page and of course, I can easily refute them all (as I'm sure you will refute my refutation) but we can leave that for another day. But I must say that your statement about Palestinian love being for the land and not the nation - and therefore we can live in an autonomy in any state, is extremely puzzling logic. Yes, it's the attachment to the land that happens to be where our history and heritage lies that made us what modern times call us 'Palestinian', but you are missing the point. The Palestinians are asking for the same thing every human being deserves: right to freedom and determination on our own land. Not somebody else's land, not some other country, but our own land. So yes, I will be happy to have freedom and not see a single foreign soldier telling me where I can and cannot go in my own land. No, mere 'autonomy' is not the same as 'self determination', because that means you are not free to have your own full human rights, it means another power can build a wall around me and an 18-year old metumtam in uniform can control the entry and exit of my family and prevent me from living with my spouse if he/she does not have an Israeli-issued Palestinian ta'odat zehut. Sovereignty is what every human being deserves, and when an Israeli insists that I should be satisfied with anything less than sovereignty and freedom in my own land, the Israeli does not see me as a human being, which is actually the essence of the conflict (and why so many people on both sides no longer act like human beings after years of this conflict, unfortunately). If you would not accept anything less than sovereignty and freedom in your own land, do not ask anything less of us; you are not superior to us in any way as fellow human beings.

Nobody is denying your right of belonging to a nation but just not in this particular geographic area. It's a question of fairness in the end. Since my view is that Palestinians are offsprings of the same Arabians and the proper homeland for the Arabs is Arabia, then I think it's not fair they will divide themselves into so many sub categories. If you really had an automous existence not connected to the Arab states I will be more satisified but like I explained to you, for me it's obvious that you don't. With 80 % Palestinians in Jordan, there's no justification to have 2 countries ! Essentially since there are many Palestinians in Israel too, what Palestinians are asking is not 2 states for 2 peoples but 3 states for 1 people, when all 3 belong to the same people. Note this is not even connected to the 22 countries issue. Now I must say that Autonomy does not inflict on any human rights - most people these days don't demand more than that. China will certainly won't allow even autonomy to the Tibetans for instance ! Greenland and Faroes etc are all very happy with autonomy. Hell, even Scotland and Wales aren't political entites. Essentially it only means the question of National Security, an issue that Israel will be committing suicide if it allows it, so an autonomy is also an issue of formality but not anything in practice either than security issue in the broad sense. The reason for the checkups is only the current situation, with a peaceful autonomy there'll be no problem. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So to answer your question, no it wouldn't work. First of all, whether Jordan is shit or not is immaterial; the bottom line is that it's not our country. Why? Because (as I've told you before) our collective cities, our lands, and our roots are not in the land presently known as Jordan. They happen to be in the land that you and I are both fighting over, you because you believe you have a divine right to it and I have no business being there because I'm of the 'wrong religion', and me because I regard it as my one and only ancestral homeland (with all the customs, traditions, and costumes that come with that) and I don't accept anybody's religious beliefs forced on me, especially when it results in racist and inhumane policies against me.

It's not about religion. Anyway, I didn't suggest giving it to you since you didn't want, I said giving half of it so it'll be fair. You do realise the Jordanian population is Jordanian correct ? and you do realise Arafat already tried to take over this country ? Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, how do you divide the land between the sea and Iraq 'diagonally' or with 'squiggly' lines? If I understand you correctly, Israel will end up getting some parts of Jordan and Palestine will end up comprising some parts of Jordan and Israel.

Exactly. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Jordan would you like? And what part of Israel would have to go?

I asked in principle first ! Negotiations later :)

If a Hebronite will have to leave Hebron, it wouldn't work. If a Nablusite will have to leave Nablus, it wouldn't work.

Hopefully most won't leave. But some will leave I guess when it's impossible to divide it. Why is that bad ? Jews were just forced to leave gush katif in thousands. People move all the time, it's sad but it's for a better future. It will be in agreement. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the traditional areas built up by your chalutsim? Can you imagine a zig-zag or diagonal arrangement where Rishon Letzion is in Palestine?

I'll give you Rishon if you want, meaningless. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no, we will not take Bnei Brak, sorry, nice try, but you're stuck with it.

LOL. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is you cannot get peace if you insist that people leave their own homelands. This is the old BS about "they have other countries they can live in" - no, because they are not our countries, and it really doesn't matter if you think they are, you're free to think whatever makes you sleep better at night.

But dude, this is the concept of compromise. That's the problem here - you're never willing to compromise. You know how many immigrations, transfers happened in history ? So many People adapt. People move all the time because they realise that they need to live so not every mm is something you can keep dying on and we're in the 21st century. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in the end, since your country holds the absolute power, you're going to have to think of something soon, and something better than diagonal or zig-zag lines between Rosh Hanikra and Aqaba and better than inventing imaginary homelands for the non-Jews of Palestine. Even Hamas doesn't really talk about kicking Jews out of the region (for that, refer to the nutcase Ahmadinejad), they speak of one man one vote and don't recognize the legitimacy of a state that doesn't give non-Jews equal rights. Perhaps if Eshkol had annexed the West Bank and Gaza, there would never have been intifadas and Arafat and conflict. Who knows? But if I were an Israeli I'd be thinking of real ways to make peace and not imaginary myths that will cause bloodshed in the fake name of peace. On that note, Shana Tova and hope you have a good holiday. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , Happy new year etc. You know, I think Israel has tried just about anything. I'm not sure what country in the world would go for something insane like Oslo Accords brininging here persons who swore to kill them, to violate the agreements and violated every article with arming more troops, incitement, not arresting "terrorists" and so on... giving them so many areas etc. This comes after "Israel" accepted the UN Partition Plan , Israel conquered and given away now the Sinai peninsula or parts of it 4 different times , Israel has agreed to give water sources to Jordan, to the PNA, Israel is even willing to give the Golan after being a source of attackbase of Syria... it seems to me Israel is willing to do just about anything even to the point of stepping on the cliff and risking total annihilation. Anyway, you're one good cookie, because for instance for the way you refer to MA, for the way you're not fanatic and for the way you're really willing to make peace and to live happily as a 21st century person. If you kick out those people that shoot in the air, burn flags and walk in parades holding coffins in the streets, those fathers and mothers who say they're happy their kids have died in suicide attacks because they're in heaven, those children in kindergartens making shows about martyrs and wearing fake explosive belts, the whole ideology which makes you close to Syria and Iran..... if you're really seperate, if you're the red haired blonde people you mentioned, and you're actually western civilized and amiable like yourself - then peace would have been long established. We would have found a way to share. I can't believe you don't see being the intelligent person you are that the problem lies with the fanatic attitude... you should blame Arafat for not agreeing to end the dispute. I'm sure deep in your heart you know that it was entirely his fault for not ending the conflict. Amoruso 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can argue that Israel got it wrong: It did everything to end the friction, but nothing to build the peace. The former requires politics, the latter requires respect. As long as the attitude remained seeing us as nothing more than a "demographic problem", it just wasn't going to work. And with respect to fanatics, hey you have your own also, those people dancing on settlements and chanting "death to the Arabs" while shooting at Palestinian olive farmers and throwing acid at Israeli police, not to mention placing Pulsa diNura spells on prime ministers. I tried the Pulsa diNura myself once (with some friends of mine) on the Energizer Bunny, but it didn't work. Come to think of it, has anyone seen the bunny lately? Ramallite ^(talk) 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, Ramallite, whenever I happen by your talk page, I never know whether to cry or laugh! Meanwhile I was just beginning to wonder about that bunny, now I know... You might consider keeping a tally on your user page of the number of times people ask you how amenable you are to subjecting yourself to ethnic cleansing. Somehow that just doesn't seem to me like it will be the proper answer to this whole thing... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself the number of mosques , universities and others which was built during the israeli "occupation". I suppose they all were used for peace, rather than inciting death to jews to hundreds of thousands and preaching about suicide bombers in grand campus exhibitions. I suppose this is the punishment Israel deserves for doing the civil measures that Jordan would never have done, nor any Arab state. Amoruso 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Built during the Israeli occupation is very different from built by the Israeli occupation. The Jordanians didn't allow it, the Israelis allowed it but then shut them down forcefully, sometimes for years on end. It certainly doesn't help when students are constantly harassed and detained on their way to campus, they are often prevented, many are shot, some are killed, and the whole student population of Gaza isn't even allowed to get to campus since the late 90s. And as to what the universities are used for, unless you've been to any, I suggest you keep your speculations private, because otherwise you sound like my great uncle Ahmad Steinberg the 2nd, who was always gloating over how lovely Arkansas is. He always told people what a beautiful place it is and how everybody should go there and visit, often with tears in his eyes. When I asked him what particularly he liked about Arkansas, he responded "Oh, I've never been there, that's just what people say". Ramallite ^(talk) 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my observation over the exhibitions in the university had something to do with this :[17]. Isn't it strange though that Israel allowed these to be established ? You'd think if they had genocide in their minds they would atleast be as cruel as the Jordanians. Something not adding up you have to admit it. What exactly happened in the "late 90's" - let's think... what exactly makes Israel do unpleasant things - could it be some basic helpless survival instinct ? Amoruso 01:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramallite

Hi Ramallite. thanks for your input on the text which i added to the Palestinian People article. I understand the point which you made. I will try to add some citations, and address the points which you made. thanks. Sm8900 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramallite. Thanks for your helpful reply to me. I appreciate your saying that...thanks. Your comments were very helpful, and I hope to read the articles which you cited. Hope to provide some new/revised material at some point. Thanks again. See you. --Sm8900 13:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Quiet Deportation" source

The source you linked to is a summary of this http://www.btselem.org/Download/199704_Quiet_Deportation_Eng.doc . I actually found the full article to be much more interesting and nuanced than the summary. The summary put me off because of its clear agenda, but the article itself made me think. Earlier when the argument was in full swing over at West Bank I decided to include the full article as a source alongside the summary. Dasondas 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank

Silly me, I thought you were smarter than that. None of my comments were "holy assertions" rather it is simple history. And as for the "movie quote", you and I both know it is a true feeling. I don't know what Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, or Egypt have had against Palestinian Arabs, but that's not Israel's problem or fault. They started it, they should clean it up. As for the reason I did not add citations, that was because those were not the only sources that say such a thing. That is why I had it all clarified on the talk page, which included several sites, passages from published authors (I added the ISBN) and personal e-mails from a prominent historian. If you want his e-mail address, I can give it to you. --Shamir1 00:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be appreciated

There is a debate, and something of an edit-war that I'm hoping to end, going on right now at the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. The dispute is really a NPOV problem, but I think this "timeline" is getting absurd as well, stretching well beyond the bounds of what a real "timeline" ought to be and contain.

If you have a chance, check out the page and the discussion there, thanks.

A student of history 06:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StandWithUs (I)

Thanks for helping out by suggesting the StandWithUs addition be removed. The best way to do this is by stating reasons based on the content of the text ("the text seems to violate X policy", "the text does not add anything new") rather than stating reasons based on character or perceived intention of the author ("I would hardly call [Shamir1]... 'well-meaning'"). Ad hominem attacks are not effective. SeattliteTungsten 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this propaganda or considered fair to include in EL sections?

Palestinians Deserve Better - Comparison of Palestinian life under Israeli/Palestinian jurisdiction. User:Shamir1 has been adding it. --Ben Houston 05:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StandWithUs (II)

You argue you are merely declaring "one's edits (and not personalities)" are not well-intentioned but "edits" are not animate and do not have intentions. It can only be an attack on a person. You further argue that this is somehow okay because you have had enough experience and your characterization is right. OK, you may be right but this is not the point. It would be better to rise above making a personal attack on someone, even if true, because it is not effective and it is not in the best Wikipedia spirit. Just stick to explaining the text changes you make (or want) based on the content of the text changes, not the content of someone else's character or perceived intentions. SeattliteTungsten 03:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just thought of passing by and saying hi. I have not been very active lately though I did work a bit on some pages. Have fun --Thameen 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StandWithUs (III) / ad hominem attacks

Yes, obviously there does appear to be a misunderstanding because you seem to argue that calling someone's edits not "well-meaning" is not an ad hominem attack (it is -- "edits" are not animate, so it is the person who is being called not "well-meaning"), or that it is okay because it was addressed to me and not to the person being characterized as not "well-meaning" (this does not make it okay), or that it is a constructive and well-mannered behavior on Wikipedia to make ad hominem attacks on other people (it is not).

To answer your three questions about "why me?", it is mainly because your post was a direct response (agreeing with my suggestion) to something I wrote. Had your comment been somewhere like the Transylvania page I probably would never have noticed it. Also, you seem to be generally polite so I assumed it was just an oversight and I thought maybe you didn't want to sound like you were attacking other people, rather than just focusing on the content of the text. In addition, as an administrator you should be held to a higher standard. Finally, if you are still wondering "why me?" notice that you are the only person, ever, who has posted anything on my user page. SeattliteTungsten 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of your tireless efforts

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		for highlighting issues of basic human rights with the utmost grace and fairness Tiamut 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your edits in articles and talk pages and admired your civility and persistance for some time now. It was the way you handled the latest discussion with User:Zeq on the Israeli West Bank Barrier that clinched it for me. Even when obstructed by vandalism and incivility on the part of those who prefer that such facts never see the light of day, you keep striving for the truth, without hyperbole or judgement. Excellent work! Tiamut 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Dome of the Rock article and al-Aqsa Mosque article

Dear Ramallite, I need someone who understands Arabic and English. Please have a look at Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque disputes. Almaqdisi 06:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation box for Palestine related things

Have created a template for Palestinian related stuff Template:Palestine. Hopefully it will connect a lot of the articles out there and make it easier to navigate. Please help! See talk page Template_talk:Palestine Pockets23 15:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]