User talk:Ramallite/Archive3

Adminship[edit]

Cheers! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Your nomination provoked a great deal of discussion, with a large plurality of voters supporting you. I am sure that this support will prove well placed. And remember, it's no big deal! Best wishes, Warofdreams talk 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Ramallite!! I've poured you a gin and tonic only because we don't seem to have any pictures of Valium. Maybe someone's swallowed them! Have a look at the admins' reading list and how-to guide while you're calming down. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fir e Fo x RFA[edit]

Ramallite/Archive3

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

Fir e Fo x 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ...[edit]

... on being made an admin. You clearly have a solid record of edits and of an objective, fair-minded approach to WP. You certainly deserved the support you got. Looking forward to working with you, despite our evident disagreement on such topics as the advisability of rewriting the Qur'an for the twenty-first century! :)

I think I'll pass on the gin and tonic, but I'm certainly hoisting a cup of tea in your direction. Peace to you and yours. BrandonYusufToropov 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, keep up the good work. Cheers from Zero 21:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Congratulations. Knew you would make it. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on adminship Dlyons493 Talk 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the land of the constant blizzard. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. It was good to see cooler heads prevail. --Rogerd 04:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My support vote was based on you being, to my estimation, a valuable member of the community. Best Jkelly 04:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Congrats. From what I've seen, you deserve this. You are very welcome for my vote, and I welcome you to the ranks of administrator. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from the other side of the fence! I was serious about humor :P. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 04:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Akhi. Maybe you can bring more balance to the WikiWikipedia. --Juan Muslim 04:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity will become as though he was a bosom friend. Congratulations! Use the admin options wisely. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 07:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second what the others have said. Congrats! :) -- Ynhockey || Talk 08:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mazal tov. :-) It's been a while since I've seen Spanish in Hebrew letters... Thanks for the smile, and keep up the good work. (Yes, overall, I'm doing alright...just been insanely busy lately...) Tom e r ^TALK 09:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I'd received a request to weigh in on your adminship -- but, unfortunately it slipped my mind until just now. I see that your nomination has been successful. I would have felt terrible if it had failed. Your perspective is a sorely needed counterbalance here. deeceevoice 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I´m sure you will make a fine admin.! Regards,Huldra 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleased to see that the RfA was successful!! Congrats!!!!!! Dearlove Menzies 15:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

مبروك! I go to Aleppo for three days and come back to find out peace and harmony breaking out on Wikipedia! Well, maybe it'll even last a while... Palmiro | Talk 20:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo congrats! I missed the opportunity to vote for you, but I would have. I dig your sense of humor and think your background and experiences are a definite plus; I'd hope that rather than trying to be a "counterbalance" to perceived inbalances, you aim to be a "neutral-balance" against any POV warriors. Use your new super-abilities wisely; as Peter Parker says, "With great power, comes great responsibility." — LeFlyman 18:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again on you your adminship. I regret that I was away from Wikipedia at the time of the vote and missed the chance to offer my strong support. I think it's a credit to Slim, Jay, Guy, and Humus that they backed you so strongly. Brian Tvedt 13:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Heh, I was talking to SlimVirgin about it on MSN. If I recall correctly you were like 42/18/0 at the time... Slim asked me how much you'd need to pass, I said about 90 supports, so you can guess her reaction. I then looked around, especially at the people opposing, and tossed in some support, somehow you got a few waves of the most respected editors at wikipedia supporting, and you passed. You won quite the battlefield. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out. And I'm glad that ordeal is over! All that bluster over who gets the mop! Anyway, congratulations, and have fun! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! -- Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on adminship! And I'm glad you're going to visit the "outer reaches" of WP- there's a lot of weird stuff there. It's great to have more non-American/European admins, makes WP quite a bit more balanced. Though I voted oppose, I wish you the best. Borisblue 04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mabruk ya zalame Itamar 10:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed, I thought your case was lost, but congratulations! I am sure you will make a great admin! dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You fully deserve it. [[Sam Korn]] 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, you deserve it. All the best. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I told you to trust the community? :) Fadix 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!! It was a lively run, and the successful result is well deserved!! Congratulations!! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi. You don't know me, and given that my areas of interest don't coincide much with your apparent own, I expect we aren't likely to run into each other on the wiki all that often. I noticed your recent RfA too late to cast a vote on the matter, but I would like to offer my congratulations on your successful appointment and admiration for the patience, coolness, and good humor you exercised throughout the whole affair. It was really quite impressive, and your numerous supporters testify well to it being an attitude you practice in your contributions to the project as well. So, thanks, yet another congratulations, and please continue with the good work. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Arabism[edit]

Hey Ramallite, congrats on your RFA. I have a request for you. There are some extraordinarily difficult editors editing this article that I just can't work with. They have removed an entire anti-Arab quotes section because they felt it reflected too badly on Israelis/Jews, even though further down in the article the fact that Jewish groups are also working against anti-Arabism is also mentioned. They also removed an image of anti-arab graffiti that was sprayed in Hebron because they say it comes from a bad source, the Christian Peacemaker Team website, as if they would forge images. Your input would be appreciated. Yuber^(talk)

Hello![edit]

I don't think we have met each other on Wikipedia before, but I wanted to drop by and congratulate you on your RfA! I just found out about it now. If you ever need a hand, please feel free to let me know. See you around the Wiki :-) --HappyCamper 03:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using the tools already?[edit]

Beware the seductive power of the revert button... ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Sorry I couldn't vote on your RfA, I have to lay wiki-low for a while and I didn't catch it on time. I am very happy that a guy like you got promoted, and I know you'll be a great admin. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wishes, we need more people like you around here. Is not easy to keep your head cool when tempers flare but you seem to be doing a good job. Keep it up! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome[edit]

Think nothing of it. Apropos of nothing, I hope you don't mind my sharing a couple of responses to your user page. Personally, I think the problem with the Bible (and I assume the same goes for the Qu'ran, but only on principle; I do not know enough to speak to particulars) is not what the text says, but rather how people read it (I think this is true of all texts: they can be read in many different ways, and some ways of reading lead to desctruction, and others lead to enlightenment or pleasure or peace. But I place responsibility in the reader, not the text. Write anything you want — an improved Bible or Qu'ran or just your user page, and some will read it in a way that to them will justify anger, and others will read it in a way that to them will justify honor or love). For example (as a fellow descendent of Ibrahim the Great) how I wish that the Zionists used as their founding text Genesis 32 and 33 (although I suspect that even if you understand what I mean by this/why I believe it, you will, like others, think me naive). Anyway, congratulations — and good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fearing revenge but obtaining forgiveness ... because Esau is strong enough to forgive, and because Israel approached Esau with humility. As you note, the Palestinians are the most humiliated people in modern history (personally I hate absolute claims but I don't think anyone could argue against the claim that they are among the most humiliated). What would have happened – what would the outcome have been – had the Palestinians been strong and proud and the Zionists approached them with humility? Moreover, I believe very strongly that the Bible, the Hebrew Bible at least, is a heavily ironic document and anyone who does not read it ironically is misreading it. "Edom," the nation descended from Esau, functions tropically in Jewish literature as "the other" — for the most part, either "Romans" or "Christians," but it has also functioned to represent "Arabs." And yet Esau and Israel are brothers. The point of the Bible is not that Esau, or Ishmael (who is also often identified as the ancestor of the Arabs), or Judah (most definitely, in Jewish mythology, the ancestor of the Jews) were evil. Some may claim this, because according to the Bible Ishmael persecuted Isaac, Esau persecuted Jacob, and Judah sold Joseph into slavery. But to claim therefore that Ishmael, Esau, and Judah are evil, or their progeny are evil, is to miss the point — to miss the pattern. In each of these cases, an older brother persecutes a younger one. Taken together these stories make two points: there is always strife between brothers (true enough in my experience) and fathers often favor the younger son (also true enough in my experience). Some people may read the Bible as saying that Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were all favored by God (meaning: Ishmael, Esau, and Judah were not). But the way I read it, the author of these stories is saying that Isaac, Jacob, and Judah were brats. And there are many more ironies (for example, Joseph is sold into slavery and becomes vizier of Egypt; Moses is the literary opposite, born a prince of Egypt he becomes a fugitive). In any event, my point was that the story of Jacob and Esau provides an important lesson that most modern Jews (especially the first Zionists, who were rabidly secular) did not get: Jacob became heir to Isaac (and this is as you may know the source of the Jewish claim that the land of Canaan is the birthright of Jacob – of Israel) — but that is only the smallest part of the story. Jacob got this birthright through trickery (Genesis 27), only to become the victim of trickery himself (Genesis 29); after tricking his father and older brother, Jacob endures 14+ years of servitude to a man who tricks him into marrying a woman he does not love. The story of Jacob is the story of a haughty spoiled brat who is over time taught (by God) humility. Even when he wrestles with God the night before meeting his estranged brother (an event that echoes the way Esau and Jacob wrestled in the womb, an event that may psychologically reflect Jacob's fear of Essau), and in effect defeats God and is given the name Israel, God tears the sinew of Jacob/Israel's hip, so that, when Israel approaches Esau, he is limping – he is humbled in spirit and body. This is a very complex story not only of the violent relationships between brothers, but the complex ways God favors his children, for while Israel has the birthright, God has clearly favored Esau too (just as he favored Ishmael). Many people look to the Bible to explain or justify events going on in Israel/Palestine. And to my way of thinking, most of these people are entirely missing the point of the Bible, selecting the few verses that they like and thus destroying the integrity of the text, which tells a far more complicated story about life than simply "God promised this land to the Jews." So what would have happened, if the Zionists returned to Palestine at a time when the Palestinians, like Esau, were wealthy and proud, aware that God has favored them, and if the Zionists approached the Palestinians not so much (or at least, not just) with fear but with humility, and a desire, deeply repressed out of shame, to be loved by their older brothers? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I haven't posted this sooner, but I wanted you to know I think the quote from the Qu'ran is beautiful. One of the main poiints of the Bible – at least, to my way of thinking – is that it recognizes that hope is meaningful, indeed possible, only in a world of strife. Perhaps the Qu'ran makes the same acknowledgement. I have not read Armstrong's book but very much appreciate the recommendation. I am sorry to say I have never read the Qu'ran either; would you be able to recommend a particular translation/edition? It is my understanding that the meaning of the Qu'ran is intimately tied up with the language in which it is written. I don't realistically think I will ever learn Arabic, so I want to chose a translation carefully (it seems that the most popular is by A.J. Arberry). Thanks, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 20:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your attention requested[edit]

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tom e r ^TALK 06:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hate ? I don't see any.[edit]

Ramallite,

What you describe as "hate" is just facts. I suggest you look into what was left of the Gaza synagogues (which you describe as "slightly damaged". The whole world knows the truth as so should you. Educate yourself on this subject and add your finding to the Gaza article.

The article is about the barrier. I suggest you look for the words: "fence" "Barrier" and "wall" which appear there over a dozen times. AS clearly said in it, this is a blog of a soldier who is station near Tul Karem and manning a gate in the barrier. It is a view point not seen on the main stream media and as such should be of interest to people looking for additional sources on the subject. It is in the appropriate section of the article. Zeq 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us start by trying to see if the barrier is oris not covered by this blog and is the assignmnet of the soldier is at a gate in the barrier ? why you think he is staioned "far from the barrier" ? Zeq 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next, let's see about the gaza synagouge - what shape are they now ? and about my support for peace : assume good faith. Zeq 06:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another call for your attention - non-violent resistance[edit]

Thanks for your quick attention to Palestinian nationalism. You might also be interested in the Palestine-related section of Non-violent resistance, where I have attracted the angry attentions of a nameless quadruped. You may be able to improve the coverage.

By the way, the page also featured my favourite yet failure of an editor to quite get what NPOV is all about:

Norway's teachers, in spite of great suffering, successfully prevented the Nazification of Norway's educational system and society. "You teachers have ruined everything for me," wailed the repugnant Vidkun Quisling.Palmiro | Talk 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am after making a small edit myself (their lost lands --> Palestine) for similar reasons; although the original phrase clearly refers to how the Palestinians viewed things, you never know how things might be picked up! Palmiro | Talk 18:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel security[edit]

Good suggestion. I'll work on it. Zeq 15:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old user page[edit]

Hi Ramallite, congratulations on your adminship. I was hoping you might be able to help me out by deleting my old userpage for User:Julian Diamond. It is probably obvious but I decided I no longer want to edit under my real name in case someone from my real life finds it. My current username is my old username's nickname so it is obvious I am not trying to use this as a disguise or a sockpuppet. If there is anything I need to do for verifacation you can contact me on my talk page or at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx whichever is more convenient for you. Thank you very much Ram.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have completed all the instructions you left for me, if there is anything I have forgotten, or have done wrong don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks again Ramallite.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your Adminship[edit]

Like I said, you are a good editor, and you work toward consensus. I don't have to like your political views, I just have to have a feeling that you are a good, sensible person. And you are.

I hope you do not dissapoint as an administrator and wish us both fruitful discussions in controversial articles, either in opposition to each other (and sometimes support), and to help wikipedia develop a better understanding of the conflict.

The reason for my absense is due to what I feel was an unjust ruling against me by the arbitration committee. So I am taking a temporary break (get my bearings back) until I can edit unimpeded again.

Best,

Guy Montag 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenin_Palestine.jpg[edit]

I'm guessing you took this picture - would you be able to add Source and Copyright info to it? (or condsider uploading it to commons). At the moment its at a state where it could be speedily deleted. Cheers, Agnte 15:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hi Ramallite,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, Joann e B 15:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your best call here[edit]

[1] 23:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

arabic sound files[edit]

Hiya

just wondering how one can listen to the Arabic sound recordings you've put on many pages? I don't seem to be able to get them to play on realplayer or windows media player. Palmiro | Talk 14:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and congratulate you on your recent promotion. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I noticed you wrote in edit summary you notified Aldo that "deleting sourced information is vandalism" - I wondtred about that myself few times but could not find any policy that state that. In fact i was told by other admin that it is not. can you point me to which policy made you think that "deleting sourced information is vandalism" ? Thanks, Zeq 15:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Initially I thought the same as you but someone ( I forgot who) told me it is not. Zeq 16:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah[edit]

Wondered what are your thoughts about the opening of rafah crossing. Is this a great day for you ? For me I welcome any progress toward Palestinian independence. Zeq 20:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sadden me[edit]

Thanks for your note. I need to study it more but one quick note:

You need to trust that I want peace. I want the Palestinian people to be free like any other pople. I know that your situation is not normal, far from it , it is humiliating as well. At the same time, I don't accept things like ROR, I don't think that the Nakba is in any way unique to what took place in the 1940s. More Germans were kicked out of Czechoslovakia, Poland etc than Palestinians who left Israel. Europe would not be what it is today unless Germans gave up their ROR demand (this is Yoshke Fisher words not mine)

In short my point is: get over the victim complex. Focus on building a society instead of trying to take revenge in Israel. No one is "right" in this conflict. (My side did horrible things and in some cases continues to violate human rights on large scale like the checkpoints) Your side is also doing very stupid and immoral things. We both have to focus on the the future and not the past. The stiff resistance I am getting on the Nakba article is an example of that. I started my edit on Wikipedai in that article and saw that it is hopeless so I left it. Now that I come back to it I again notice that the nakba issue is the most important part of your heritage. For me, neither the holocaust, nor the arab Jews exodus are that important the present and future are. Maybe this is the biggest difference in our mentality and maybe this difference is what makes living side by side impossible. I sure hope not. Good luck with more substantive aspects of independence.

BTW, I am puzzeled why you don't edit biology subjects. ....

PS I just heard Kadura fares on israeli army radio. he thinks the occupation is nearing it's end. I agree . There is a real change in Israeli politics. Zeq 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intifadat or Intifaadat?[edit]

How you say in Arabic, Intifadat Al-Aqsa or Intifaadat Al-Aqsa? Toya 09:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

try this[edit]

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320 - I think we will score very similar. Zeq 16:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine topics and Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Ramallite,

Thank you warmly for your many efforts to have the Palestinian people and their history fully represented in Wikipedia. As a Jew who favors a democratic and binational solution in Palestine/Israel based on equal citizenship and nationality rights for both peoples, and on full implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return within the Green Line, I am concerned about NPOV issues on some pages where others have also raised serious concerns.

Please let me candidly admit that I am tempted to invite your assistance as a kind of informal mentor, since I know that I feel very strongly about these issues, and thus might use the guidance of a more experienced user and administrator as to what kind of edit or intervention, and when, might serve to provide better coverage of Palestinian topics while carefully adhering to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Why don't I mention two pages where I have attempted cautious interventions by offering discussion comments without (yet) attempting edits, and also some items relating to Palestinian history which might be added or elaborated?

The Binational solution article equates binationalism with a one-state solution, but as I remarked in a comment, binationalism often favors but does not necessarily require a single state in all of Palestine/Israel, at least in the short term. A better definition would be that binationalism requires that any state formed or maintained in historical Palestine or Palestine/Israel is based on equal citizenship and recognized nationality rights for both peoples. See, for example, this Palestinian proposal for a confederation of two states both based on equal citizenship:

Binational proposal for two states

Also, the Binational solution page might add information about binationalism as a recent and current position supported by many Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, as well as such exponents as the scholar Edward Said.

As others have already pointed out, the Right of return page has serious POV problems, detailing the case for negative "impacts on Israel" but not offering an equal presentation of the case for the great benefits that full implementation of al-Awda could have for both peoples, bringing about a richer and multiethnic democracy for Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews alike. Also, the legal arguments for the right of return (a right recognized by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) could use fuller presentation. If it might help, I might try to find some more published sources for these arguments.

Two "small" but significant points. If the Palestinian town of Iqrit captured by the IDF in 1948 is the same as the famous town near the Lebanese border which has ever since been a symbol of al-Nakba with the displacement of its people as "present absentees" and their struggle to return, then maybe the Iqrit article could be expanded. There is an excellent account of the history in the early 1950's in an article which I recall in Journal of Palestine Studies that I need to locate -- or maybe that article is about the related struggle regarding Kfar Birim, if that's the right spelling. The story helps document the brutal nature of Military Rule in the period 1948-1966: after the Israeli Supreme Court had ruled against demolition of a village, the military declared a special "security area" and carried out the demolition under its powers deemed unreviewable by the civil courts.

Also, searching for the name of the Palestinian town of Beisan (also sometimes spelled Baysan), one site where residents were formally expelled during al-Nakba, I found an entry under the newer Hebrew name Bet She'an which does not discuss the events of 1948. There is an account, which I must find and cite, given by the Israeli Jewish human rights activist Israel Shahak in an article where he quotes a Hebrew book called in English translation And the Fund Still Lives by an agent of the Jewish National Fund who was in Beisan in 1948. This agent of the JNF described how, after an expulsion order was given to the Palestinians without any credible military reason, an Israeli plane flew near and bombed peaceful civilians in order to give more force to the expulsion order.

You have made two comments which I find especially moving as a Jew who struggles to express and make more visible the viewpoint that a Jew should be against discrimination and "demographic" quotas, and in favor of refugee rights -- not least for the Palestinian Arabs.

First, you very rightly observed that the biggest issue of 1948 is not that Palestinians were displaced -- as can happen to many people in many kinds of natural and other humanitarian disasters -- but that they were denied the right of return as guaranteed by international law and reaffirmed by United Nations General Resolution 194, enacted on December 11 1948, the very day after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

More specifically, the events of 15-16 June 1948 are of critical signicance. A letter of Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, describing the Palestinian exodus as offering "a lasting and radical solution" to the question of the Palestinian Arab minority within the "Jewish state," was followed by a Cabinet meeting at which it was decided that "They shall not return." I need to gather appropropriate documentation on this, but if there were an international tribunal considering the crime of involuntary transfer, this would surely be relevant and persuasive evidence as to intent to make the displacement retroactively an effective act of ethnic cleansing.

Your comment is thus directly to the point, and might be tied in with the fact that the right of return is a based part of international humanitarian and refugee law which does not seek to judge the rights or wrongs of an armed conflict, but impartially protects civilians who are caught up in the tragedy of war.

Your other remark which especially caught my attention and imagination was a reply to a question as to how the Palestinian Arabs might have responded if European Jews had approached them with friendship and humility. You expressed the possibility that things might have been very different, and I agree! The famous Palestinian hospitality, and of course also the presence already of Jews in Palestine (the "Old Yishuv") would have favored a cordial understanding. I wonder whether the immigrant Palestinian Jews, like the Jews of Ireland, for example, might have played an important role in the Arab struggle for independence.

Tragically, as early as 1891, the Hebrew writer Ahad Ha'am himself observed how the new Zionist Jews from places such as his own Russia were oppressing the Palestinian Arabs as they had once been oppressed. I must join both with the person who asked you the question, and with you in your reply -- if only it had been different!

What especially interests me is seeking a solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict from a civil rights perspective. Here are two of my articles from 2003, both definitely POV:

    [2]
    [3]

The second article sketches out a two-state binational solution not because this is necessarily the best approach -- a single state with cantons or federal districts seems to me simpler and more efficient -- but to show what kind of a two-state plan could meet the basic requirements of international law and the United Nations resolutions. Unfortunately, a typical "two-state solution" is intended to avoid rather than implement these requirements of full equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel in "a state of all its citizens" and full implementation of the right of return within the Green Line.

Again, it is easy for me to write these words living in the U.S.A., as opposed to living the Palestinian experience as you have and do. Please let me express my admiration, and welcome your advice.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter Margo 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer[edit]

1. I hope you realize that the Palestinian refugee problem is more on our minds than other stories because it is still ongoing, these refugees are still refugees. Part of their tragedy is that they lost their belongings, and the other part is that they didn't end up in Europe of America, they ended up among the most corrupt and retarded regimes on earth (non Palestinian Arab countries).

Of course I understand this must be solved. I think Israel should help financialy. You must realize that there are in the Arab world resources for this it is just that they were not used, not allocated or misused. 300,000 Palestinians were kicked out of Quwait in 1991 – do you see any web site on that issue ?

2. I also hope you realize that we are trying hard to "Focus on building a society instead of trying to take revenge in Israel". But you don't seem to know how impossible it is. If Israel didn't even let Christmas trees donated from Norway to come to Bethlehem, or to allow new telephone equipment to be released from the Ashdod port in order to expand Jawwal, and it built a wall and checkpoints to choke the economy, how do you think we can get anything done? Then when Hamas started terrorising Israel, the first thing Barak (then Sharon) did was bomb the PA police, not Hamas. And now they want the PA police to be responsible for security of Israelis, when they can't even be responsible for security of their own shampoo. But I fear you do not comprehend the real problems we have. In fact, in my conversations with Israelis, very few of you guys really know.

I agree with nearly 100% on this. Israel's control over the palestinian lives is deplorable. It is way way beyond the excuse of "security" and it has other motives. The checkpoints inside Palestine are bad. Between israel and Palestine (I.e. most of the wall gates they are not so bad. Kalandia and Al-Ram are bad and should be moved to the green-line or near it .

3. Don't worry too much about ROR, you guys are making too much of it, because polls show that most Pals would not want to return to Israel anyway. I think the main issue is 'recognition' of the right, not actual return of the people. (Not that I expect you to be convinced of this after you have been convinced otherwise by successive governments).

The thing is there no such "right" and we fear that if we recognize it one day it will lead to demands that would destroy israel as the Jewish homeland. In arecent poll Israelis were asked to say what does "ROR" mean to them. 5 % said "Justice" and 95% "destruction of Israel".

4. I have edited some biology articles, and am even preparing some figures to upload, but I normally come to WP to get away from science. What do you think I'm writing when I'm not on Wikipedia? I have 3 science articles to write this month for my work (big ones, not short WP ones). Why are you so concerned?

It would be intersting to see. I still don't know if you really are a biologist, most people would want to contrbute in their area of expertize.

5. The problem with our conflict is not really Israeli-Palestinian (well it is, but there is another dimension), it's also within Israel itself. As I say on my talk page, Israelis still have not faced reality: In order for there to be proper peace, there will have to be full integration of the two peoples (not 'disengagement', which has been your mentality because you think the word 'ערבי' is a bad word). This logic of 'disengagement' will not lead to peace, the two communities have to be supportive and 'wanting' to be full partners in order to succeed (if nothing else, economically). This is the problem that every Israeli knows, but nobody admits: Full peace = full engagement, not 'disengagement'. But full engagement will create the scenario of the two states becoming more like a single state 'de facto'. Even though there will be two states, in order to survive fully in peace, they will have to be so symbiotic that it will become a de facto single state. And this is what Israel is terrified of, which is why they prefer keeping 'ערבים' behind a wall. But the wall won't work (I know you think it will, but I think it won't, and one of us is right). So Israel has to really ask the question of what kind of state it wants to be. Will Israelis be more open to 'engagement' even at the risk of losing some of its 'uniquness'? Or will it transfer all the Palestinians to Iran (which we all fear even more than you fear the 'right of return', but I'm sure you don't know about that). Then imagine if there are no Palestinians anymore - the world is changing, and there was talk recently of Israel becoming a member of the EU in the future. This means that any EU citizen (including French Muslims) would be able to live and work legally in Israel. What then? How long can Israel keep up this fear of 'ערבים'? And if not the EU, who knows what will come up? What kind of country do Israelis want Israel to be? (A very good Israeli friend of mine once said that if the Palestinian 'problem' disappears, Israel would probably self-implode. I don't know if I agree, but it's interesting).

I think you need to look at Poland and how it made sure that although it is part of the EU germans will not be able to migrtae there. But anyway we are generations away. Omly when the Palestinians will stop exploding or terrorizing israel can we talk on peace. I am sure Sharon will put a new offer on the table withina year, otherwise he would not have left the Likud. I hope on your side, with 30% Hammas there would still be what to talk about. When did you last read the hammas covenenet ? they want to destroy israel.

6. I took that test a while ago, I saw it on Ian Pitchford's page. I came out strongly "Post-Modernist" :)

so we are no similar. Sigh of releif…..

I, somewhat to my own surprise, am very strongly an existentialist... Palmiro | Talk 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7. They say it in southern China as well: פי אמל

Zeq 15:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suggsted reading[edit]

Expulsion of Germans after World War II Yoshke fisher once said that If his family and other Geran refugees would insist on ROR Europe would not be th open border it is today...

[4] Zeq 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

In an article about hebron I found this article: [5]

It is a very important refernce for me I was looking for something like this for a long time. Thanks.Zeq 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you missed the point[edit]

"kicked out of a foreign country " - no. It was their country. They lived there for ages and ages. Look up some history of Europe. It is very applicabale (ask Fisher not me or avinery) and please drop the sarcasm - it is any jew (or German) fault that Lebanon kept the refugees in camps and out of most jobs. Zeq 15:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Germans (if it was their country why were they still called 'Germans')? " Because this is what the are. They are germans, they lived in the sudet since the 1300 hundreds see Sudentenland there were similar germans who lived in other areas that Germany claimed but were not part of Germany. See the events of 1934 : Neville_Chamberlain#European_policy and Appeasement#Peace_in_our_Time These events (which are relevant to the German exodus) are nowhere to be mentined on that article.... Wikipedia is very funny sometimes.

In anycase as someone who operate in good faith I am sure one day you will realize how POV is the whole Pal exodus article. Best, Zeq 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can take a look at this[edit]

[[6]] BrandonYusufToropov 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting change[edit]

Do you know enough about the Sabra and Shatila massacre to be able to comment on this change? Tom e r^TALK 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti[edit]

according to yasar arafat the Mufti participted in the 1948 war and directed military activities from there. Arafat claimed to be "one of his soldiers" in that war . The Mufti has been in Egypt cause he ran away to avoid war crimes charges on his colobioration with the nazis.

The Mufti ties to the Nazis have cause great damage to the palestinian cause and his fellow Arab leaders (especially abadalla) have constntaly reminded him of that . Yet he particiapeted in the Arab leaders meetings in which they decide on the invation to Israel.

It is all sourced. I am glad you are taking such a good look at the relvancy issue. My expectation is that it does not need to be me who will make the exodus article NPOV. maybe you can ? Zeq 15:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help on something[edit]

Spirited discussion on the motion to delete American terrorism yielded a "no consensus to delete" decision -- yet the admin who certified that result is protecting vandals who insist on moving the page around. The whole point was that it is a notable (and controversial) term, and I think if you review the AfD you'll see that that was the reason there was no consensus to delete. There certainly was no consensus to redirect.

I have a feeling that if I were to start moving, say Suicide bombing around indiscriminately right after it had survived a VfD, so as to keep people from reading it, that might cause a bit of a ruckus. Would you mind taking a look at this situation and sharing your thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pal exodus[edit]

I noticed you follow up closly on this article.

These edits are examples of Personal attaack and WP:POINT that should be prevented (and reverted).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=29809593&oldid=29809335

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_exodus&diff=29806739&oldid=29790481

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APalestinian_exodus&diff=29688303&oldid=29688208

Zeq 15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so what did you as an admin did about this ? Zeq 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for The West Wing (television)[edit]

I have put The West Wing article up as a candidate for featured article status. I appreciate your help in this article's peer review. Your input and support in the FAC located here would be appreciated! Thanks! -Scm83x 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti[edit]

Herzel died 45 years before the Nakba.

according to yasar arafat the Mufti participted in the 1948 war and directed military activities from Kairo. Arafat claimed to be "one of his soldiers" in that war . The Mufti has been in Egypt cause he ran away to avoid war crimes charges on his colobioration with the nazis.

The Mufti ties to the Nazis have cause great damage to the palestinian cause and his fellow Arab leaders (especially abadalla) have constntaly reminded him of that . Yet he particiapeted in the Arab leaders meetings in which they decide on the invation to Israel.

It is all sourced. I am glad you are taking such a good look at the relvancy issue. My expectation is that it does not need to be me who will make the exodus article NPOV. maybe you can ?

I am disapponinted that you are again hammering this point instead of seeing what is wrong in the Nakba article and in the behaviour of other editors there. Could it be that your POV is blindsiding you? naaaa.. can't be. Zeq 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann's RfA[edit]

Hi, Ramallite! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. I look forward to working with you as a fellow admin. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shwarma in a lafa for you, on me[edit]

Hey Ramallite/Archive3! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tom e r ^talk

RfC[edit]

But I have explained myself, in detail, on the RfC page. I already explained what I meant and that it wasn't meant to sound anti-Semetic. --Anittas 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On that page there were a lot of Anti-Romanian remarks don't forget Ramallite this made by a pro-soviet guy. Anti-Romanian and anti-semitic remarks are not good. Anittas's phrase was not anti-semitic. Please read what Izehar very well said. And Izehar is from Israel. -- Bonaparte talk 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at Palestinian Arabic[edit]

Question you might be able to respond to here. Tom e r ^talk 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Problems[edit]

Hi Ramallite,

I am a newbie here, and came to wiki following a trail of articles on and by Shamir. So I am a one issue editor with all that that implies. Bearing in mind my status, I have adopted a policy of trying to reach consensus on any edits I do; with plenty of mishaps along the way, I might add. To my mind, agree or disagree with Israel Shamir's views, he is being set up for imprisonment for thought crimes - anti-Semitism, fascism et al. An entire laundry list of charges are being hurled at him.

I followed the links to Israel Shamir's article on Wikipedia, and discovered a person that had been abandoned to his fate, and the most pernicious charges against him being reported as unvarnished fact. I have been attempting to clean up what even anti-Shamir advocates concede is a completely biased presentation.

Yet, every attempt at editing has been twarted, reverted by administrators and my attempts at discussion on the talk page seems to be a solo effort. I am talking to myself.

I need the assistance of a administrator that would, at the very least, uphold the NPOV and OR guidelines at wiki.

Can you have a look? Talk:Israel_Shamir JohD 03:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing is now FA[edit]

Thanks to your comments and constructive criticism, The West Wing has now reached featured article status. Thank you again so much for your input! -Scm83x 05:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A blueprint for international instability[edit]

A blueprint for international instability - - -by Shlomo Avineri (2003)

The atmosphere could not have been more tranquil: a former royal castle in the rolling hills of the Taunus region near Frankfurt, hosting an annual meeting, sponsored by a German foundation, of statesmen and politicians dealing with Middle Eastern problems. Europeans and Americans, Israelis and Iranians, Egyptians and Turks, Palestinians and Tunisians rubbed shoulders.

This year there was a novelty: representatives from post-Saddam Iraq, among them an official from the Kurdish Regional Government as well as a high-ranking Shi'ite representative.

The new situation in Iraq, as well as the Middle East road map, were naturally at the center of attention, and were most knowingly addressed on the opening night by a senior German government minister, himself deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs, with great sensitivity to Israeli as well as Palestinian concerns. The evening proceeded along the expected trajectory, until a Lebanese academic raised the issue of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. The senior German minister listened attentively, and then said: "This is an issue with which we in Germany are familiar; may I ask my German colleagues in the audience to raise their hand if they, or their families, were refugees from Eastern Europe?" There was a moment of silence - the issue is embarrassing in Germany, fraught with political and moral landmines. Slowly, hands were raised: by my count, more than half the Germans present (government officials, journalists, businessmen) raised a hand: they, or their families, had been Vertriebene, expelled from their ancestral homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia after World War II. It is estimated that up to 10 million were expelled; with their descendants today they make up almost double that number - almost one in four Germans. Amid the hush the German senior minister continued: He himself was born in Eastern Europe and his family was expelled in the wake of the anti-German atmosphere after 1945. "But," he added, "neither I nor any of my colleagues claim the right to go back. "It is precisely because of that that I can now visit my ancestral hometown and talk to the people who live in the house in which I was born - because they do not feel threatened, because they know I don't want to displace them or take their house." The minister went on to explain that peace in Europe is today embedded in this realization. Had Eastern European countries thought that millions of ethnic Germans would like to return, "the Iron Curtain would have never come down." It was a highly emotional response, one that Arab representatives chose later on to ignore. But it was just one more expression of the context in which the issue of the 1948 Palestinian refugees has to be addressed. AS THE German senior minister reminded the audience, there are numerous parallels in recent history to the Palestinian refugee problem. Anyone who now argues that the 1948 Palestinian refugees have a claim, in principle, to return to Israel, has to confront the question: Why not the millions of German post-1945 expellees from Eastern Europe? The German minister supplied the answer. Moreover: Had a German government insisted in talks about reunification in 1990 that all German expellees from Poland and Czechoslovakia have, in principle, a right to return to these countries, it would have been clear that what West Germany had in mind was not reunification, but undoing the consequences of Nazi Germany's defeat in 1945. This is exactly the meaning of the Palestinian demand for the right of return. The Palestinians' insistence on it at Camp David and Taba in 2000 made clear to most Israelis that what they have in mind is not undoing the consequences of 1967 - but undoing the consequences of their defeat in 1948. At that time, it should be recalled, Palestinian Arabs and four Arab members of the UN went to war - not only against Israel, but against international legitimacy and the UN plan for a two-state solution. There is no other example of member countries going to war against UN decisions; this is what the Arab countries - and the Palestinians - did. Obviously they prefer to forget it. Clearly there is a serious humanitarian issue involved. That the Palestinians' plight has been compounded by Arab use of the refugees as political pawns for half a century is a measure of the cynicism and immorality of Arab politics. Nonetheless, the humanitarian issue remains - and the German senior minister referred to it explicitly, both with regard to the Palestinians and to the German expellees. But for him the political consequences were clear: A return of refugees - in the German as well as the Palestinian case - is a call for instability, if not war.

Zeq 05:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you real[edit]

Look, Iactaully like you until make a comment that show you totaly don't bother to understand. Geramns, lived as Germans in those countries for centories. This was their home as much as Magdal was Ahmed Yassin's home and as much as Bardad is my father home town. I wonder if now you get the parallel ?

Zeq 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I see Palestinians as a distict nationality.

The point is NOT what my father though or told me. Thye point that you still refuse to understand that people who are german (by ancestary and languge and culture and idenity) lived in many areas in europe, ares that Germany claimed (as much Hamas claim Israel). Those aras were annexed to Germany. At the end of ww-2 When the soviregnty on this areas was taken from Germany who lost war the long time residents were kicked out. Do you see why these people have the same claim as palestinians hav for Magdal ? Even if you don't skip to his final observation (the minister BTW is Yoshke Fisher) - that for peace some claims must be compromised and given up.

I, for one, think that Jews should give up a claim to Hebron. Yes it is a city that include Jewish owned propery (from the days of Abraham but also in out time). Yes, jews were cleansed from there but for peace all that jews who had property in Hebron should get is the fair value of the proerty they left. (same for Palestinians from Magdal) .Zeq 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Arab conflict[edit]

Have you seen this article? It is up for deletion here, yet most people seem to want to keep it. How could anyone take an "encyclopaedia" that includes such nonsense seriously? Palmiro | Talk 15:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

206.106.75.163[edit]

206.106.75.163 has continued to vandalize, and as you're an admin (and one who's warned this user thrice), I figured you'd be a good person to ask to block him.

Discussion from Zeq's talk page[edit]

Hi! You probably didn't notice my answer on Zeq's talk page, I just copy it here. -- Heptor _talk 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to reading your answer

Heptor 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question of Palestinian identity has been discussed at length by academics as well as by Palestinian intellectuals and political activists. Of course there have always been different opinions on whether Palestinians were a nationality, or a distinct part of the Arab nation, or part of the Ottoman-Islamic nation at an earlier stage. I strongly recommend Rashid Khalidi's book "Palestinian Identity" as an introduction to this question, focussed on the earlier part of the twentieth century. One of the most important points he makes is that the tendency of outsiders to try and analyse identity as something that had to be unidimensional and unambiguous is bound to lead to a misreading of the position. Of course it's easy for people from France or the United States or Russia, who've grown up in countries where "nationality" was a straightforward question, to expect the same to be the case in other countries, but the historic and social background in the modern Middle East is rather different. Even in Europe, modern concepts of "nation" and "nationalism: are just that - modern concepts, not expressions of age-old immutable social realities. Palmiro | Talk 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I indeed did not see that you had responded on Zeq's page. I see two general ways to respond to your questions (and thanks for your interest by the way). One response is to refer you to what Palmiro wrote, and to second his recommendation of "Palestinian Identity". Here is a short review of that book that brings home the main points, which I pretty much agree with. The other response is to your statement that you are trying to understand my viewpoint, so it's on a more personal note: I don't agree with those who bring up historical incidents in order to deny a modern concept such as human rights. I was born in a land where my ancestry can be traced at least as far back as the next nation, and actually much further back than that, under Israeli rule without Israeli citizenship. I was told that I must subject myself to humiliating checkpoints, and need special military permission from a foreign power to obtain travel documents, identity cards, go to high school, travel to college, visit relatives living only 10 miles away, or buy my iBook abroad and bring it back with me, simply because I am not Jewish. This is one of the main forces that created the recent generations' nationalism. What some UMF called Haj Amin did or said decades before I was born is completely inconsequential to me - I wasn't there and would very probably have advocated his hanging had I been, right along with leaders of other warmongers and supremacists from all sides. The only thing to harp on about the past is that this notion of "a land without a people for a people without a land" turned out to be a complete myth (as is pretty obvious otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion). Of course, you will hear things like "well, Palestine was never an independent country" or "there were never any 'Palestinian Arabs' before the 1940s". Again, to my generation, this is offensive. Our nationalism rose right there with the rest of the region's (Zionism included), and my generation's nationalism is specifically in response to the denial of my generation's rights (regardless of whether we were called "Palestinian" or whatever, but 'Palestinian' just happened to become our modern name for whatever reason). The "right to self-determination" was the common mantra among Palestinians and remains the essence of the conflict: regardless of what we are called, or whether each and every one of us can successfully trace our ancestry to some una-browed bearded guy who took Abraham's order for a cappuccino at Cafe Jebediah near Shechem a few millennia ago, we believe that we have the right to determine our own future in our own land (by the same standards of 'own land' as that applied to any other human being on earth. I truly don't believe that George Bush needs to trace his ancestry to Pocahontas' third-oldest uncle (twice removed) to be an American - but incidentally, enough of us believe that we can at trace (at least some of) our ancestry to pre-Islamic or even pre-Jesus era tribes, and I wouldn't bet against my own family having Jewish ancestry and neither can most people I've asked, and that's the truth). But it's humiliating to be the only people on earth to have to be subjected to a genetic test in order to qualify for the right to call a place we've lived for (long enough) 'home'. So as usual, in my effort to make a long story even longer, we became a 'nation' in the modern definition precisely when we had to, but that doesn't mean that not being a nation before the 20th century (again in the modern definition) automatically negates our right to live in the only land most of us and our ancestors have ever known. Before 'nations' there were 'empires', and before then there were 'tribes', but in each case, the ties between individual/clan and land have remained, regardless. On a personal note, I always bristle when people don't want to discuss Israel/Palestine because they don't want to get into 'politics', because I see the conflict more as a humanitarian crisis rather than a political one. You're welcome to email me or post more queries should you have any, but I hope I've answered your questions adequately. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was an adequate, and interesting answer, Ramallite. As far as I know, Israelis usually use "Palestinian" now, and not "Arab" as they used to in eighties and before. This seems to be approximately consistent with when Palestinians rose as a nation.

But what is the relationship to the today's events? What solutions to the conflict would be feasible? Zionists from first half of the previous century did not anticipate Palestinian nationalism, so to them it would sound reasonable that large portions of the Arab population would move if they got jobs elsewhere. I don't believe Israelis actually planned the exodus of 1948, and I do not know how much control they had over it. But, from the Israeli POV, if the refugees were allowed to return now, they would create a danger to the state. And, to be frank, I do think Hamas would be dangerous if allowed to establish inside Israel. Their logo is a map of what could be easily perceived as their territorial ambitions, and they were involved in attacks intentionally targeted at civilians.

So what are the solutions? Would you accept a two-state solution with Israeli border going approximately at the green line, and a compensation paid to those not allowed to return? It seems to me that those are the main problems, with others springing out of them. I can hardly see Israelis keeping the checkpoints and military passes and even hinder people from buying iBooks when a peace agreement is signed, and Palestinian Government takes measures to stop attacks against Israel. What do you think about this solution? Green line, compensation to the rest of the refugees, Pal. government counters terrorism, naturally no checkpoints or other military intervention from Israelis, Palestinians allowed to work in Israel et al?

Heptor _talk 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian name of the West Bank[edit]

In the article Israeli settlement it is written that the Palestinians refer to the West Bank as "Palestine". Do you really call to the West Bank "Palestine", despite that that Palestine includes also the Gaza Strip? Or you call it the "West Bank"? If you don't know, don't be ashamed to write it! Toya 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Said[edit]

Hi. Maybe you can help with the image caption at Edward Said; see the last few edit summaries. --Zero 11:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al or El?[edit]

Is the transliteration of al-Aqsa, al-Qaeda, and the like should be in fact with "el" instead of with "al"? And another thing - do you sure that you pronounce it "al-Aqsa" and not "al-Aqtsa"? Toya 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new noticeboard[edit]

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Beam me up, Scotty"[edit]

Hi, Ramallite. I noticed your comment on the RfAr page, and I just wanted to add to the little list of famous phrases never actually uttered by the person to whom they are attributed. In Star Trek, Captain Kirk never, ever said "Beam me up, Scotty". It was created out of whole cloth, attributed to him endlessly, and is now his most famous quote, even though he never said it. Regards! Babajobu 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator syndrom[edit]

Yesterday was like in an elevator: Everyone lower their gaze, look to the ground, focus inward, not say a word. People are still very sad. As someone who really never liked Sharon (that is an understatment) there is a great sense of loss that surprize me. Those who did like him are very sad. Today, already the realization sink in: Israel will have to move on without the person that in the last 5 years was the 'father of the nation" (I am sure you know this feeling). I never liked Ulmert, especially when he was younger but I have good friends who know him personally and have high esteem for him. Israel survived the Rabin assasination so it will survive this as well. I just hope we are not going to get Netanthu again. If I know Ulmert he will have to look tough, very tough so I would not be surprized if in the next 3 months you will suffer more than you would if Sharon was in power. I am sure Hamas and Jihad will give him the excuse to look tough. My friends who know him say that he was one of the main factors that pushed Sharon for the Gaza withdrawal. Indeed, it was Ulmert speech in Ben Gurion yearly memorial 3 years ago that the word "Gaza disengagement" was first throwon into the air. Zeq 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your congrats. And don't worry about the vote. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confined to the south ?[edit]

Ramallite,

you know what the situation in Gaza so why do you pretend ?

Zeq 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I love Zeq's candor. Aiden 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munich[edit]

Just curious: Have you seen Munich yet, and if so, what did you think of it? Aiden 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the film attempted to present a balanced view of the issues, but I had a few grievances with how it went about it. The point Spielberg attempts to make is that violence begets violence and so on--a very agreeable concept in its basic form. But the film illustrated it in the context of a Palestinian attack provoking an Israeli response, which provokes another Palestinian attack, and another Israeli response, and so forth. The issue I had with this was that the film begins this cycle with the Munich massacre; and in my mind, such an event, regardless of previous provocation, is murder. And thus, as the film shows, the cycle begins with the massacre and subsequent Israeli assassinations. But by illustrating this cycle as a tit-for-tat scenario, I was considerably put off that terrorist attacks on civilians in the film are equated as basically the same as the retaliations against those terrorists, when to me one is justified and the other is not. Each time the Israelis kill a terrorist he is replaced with a harsher one, and Spielberg dwells on this cycle throughout the film. So what is his point? That Israel should have taken Munich on the chin, not have retaliated, and that would even the score and peace would be achieved? I didn't find the film pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. I found it naive. Aiden 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quote[edit]

"The dilemma for Israel and the peace process is not that Mr Sharon cannot continue to serve as Prime Minister. It is that there is no equivalent to Mr Sharon in the Arab world. There is no one willing to acknowledge publicly that the Palestinians cannot have all that they might want, just as Israelis cannot have everything they might desire. There is no one prepared to state what is absolutely obvious, namely that any return to the boundaries of 1967, let alone those of 1948, is a ludicrous notion. There is no one willing to declare openly that not only do those who surround Israel have to recognise its right to exist, but that their societies will thrive only when they begin to emulate the democratic values, economic ingenuity and cultural diversity that explain why Israel’s gross domestic product exceeds that of its vastly more populous neighbours combined."

Zeq 17:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

woops, I confused the quote. This is the newsweek version (by Fareed): [7].

I agree with everything (or almost everything) in your rsponse. Happy Id. Zeq 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question on palestinian organization[edit]

hi, i noticed you're from palestine (ayd mabruk and all that), after i noticed you make a lot of good edits. i'm especially impressed with your counter-vandalism vigilance on the arafat articles.

thing is, i entertain a certain nerdish fixation with arab politics, and one of my bigger pasttimes is finding out stuff about obscure palestinian organizations. so, i just wonder... could you tell me anything about the "palestinian arab front" or "arab palestinian front" which is headed by one jamil shehadeh; active in the west bank, gaza and east jerusalem, and a member of the NIF. they run as the "freedom and independence" list in the elections, and are apparently minuscule. there's basically nothing on them on the internet, except a couple of statements... anyway, sorry if i bother you :-) Arre 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot! i'm really trying to find out more about them, as i want to get all the PLO factions on Wikipedia. there's no reliable list of them now, that i know of. i know the PAF/APF was in the PNC in 1988 as PALF (L for liberation), so i guess they still are, but i can't find any other traces of them... who they split from, or if they're independently started, who supported them, what they did, etc. that kind of stuff. let me know if you find anything, will you? and thanks again. Arre 22:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy[edit]

Hi,

I have way too many Palestinian friends and I go by what they tell me. You will not be able to convince me that Israel did not affected favorably on palestinians as a role model for democracy. But I understand that you can not admit this, maybe even to yourself. Zeq 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I have "superior intellect over you " I think you are more intelegent than me. But if you choose not to admit that palestinians, at least many of them, learn what free speech means by being in close contact with israel this is fine. I am not going to argue with you about it. You can admit (to yourself) in what ever you want.

Without refering to you, let me say that many palestinians have such a hugh "victim complex" it clouds their judgment. But surly you will not agree with me about this either. I have told you long time ago that when palestinians will take their future in their own hands we will all be better off. Zeq 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nakbah and peace[edit]

Does anyone remember Jewish exodus from Arab lands? I know the Nakbah of 1948 means "calamity", and for anyone forced from their home or otherwise dispossessed from their very livelihood and homeland, it is a calamity. As this also happened to 600,000 Jews who had lived in Arab countries, the Nakbah (and most of these people spoke Arabic too) really goes both ways. After fear, intimidation, mass-humiliation, unliveable circumstances, confiscation of savings, confiscation of property, stripped of rights, stripped of citizenship, pogroms, murders, and so forth, 99% of them fled these countries, and 400,000 of them became refugees in Israel. There, they were given citizenship. For decades, they made up the bulk of the lower classes, and participated in more servile social role and labor to Ashkenazi Jews. Equality for them has come slow, but they are finding it. But for them, what Israel slowly gave them was far favorable to what they were denied in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, and so forth, and virtually none wish to return to what they see as a now-unliveable place, even on official invitation. Half of Israel's population is made up of Jewish citizens who are indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, and when Israeli Arabs are included, that means more than half Israel's population is indigenous to this sociocultural region within the last century. These Jewish refugees traditionally would bend over backwards to avoid conflict, but got conflict anyway, and the sentiment that they'll never get back what they lost is now absolutely orthodox to them. I greatly sympathize with dispossessed Palestinian refugees as well, but maybe the greatest way they can be served is to be given full citizenship in the places where they live now, such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and so forth. Jordan, for its credit was very graceous to give citizenship to Palestinians and their refugees residing in Jordan and the West Bank. And if Palestinians themselves want a state, there really is no equitable rationale to deny them their wish. But real peace and the end of beligerence can only really come when there is no more denials of anyone's shared history, and there are no more politically credible calls for revenge, nor for the seizing of pride, nor for the annihilation of anyone—not by any Hamas-like entity nor by any Kahanist-like entity. Afterall, even in the history of Israel in the region, there was never a time when they did not coexist with people they regarded (or who regarded themselves) as separate ethnicities—the Hittites, the Philistines, the Phoenicians, the Jebusites, the Assyrians, the Samaritans (there are still 500 between Holon and Mount Gerizim), the Hellenists, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Armenians, the Arabs, the Druze, the Frankish Crusaders, and the Palestinian Arabs unto this day. If many consider it a religious sin to divide the Land of Israel, then let it be united by people who agree and adhere to a peaceful coexistence where there is no fear of neighbors, and no one has to feel the psychological need for walls, checkpoints, raids, airstrikes, bombings, and the like. The issues you have discussed here and on other talk pages are important and very complicated, and you have my sympathy and moral support. You may be interested in the reading the essays of Loolwa Khazzoom, and her memories of humiliation and seeking constructive and peaceful change for everyone's understanding and natural benefit. - Gilgamesh 21:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement on RFAr[edit]

I think you misunderstood our position a little. To use your own analogy, it is perfectly aproprite for the Sherlock Holmes article to mention the quotation "Elementary, my dear Watson", explaining that he in fact never uttered those words.

I, Zeq and Kriegman have provided sources for that quotation which we find credible (Pearlman, Sachar, Honing). I understand that credibility of those sources is disputed by some editors. Still, it is not disputed that many people believe that he said that. Therefore, we maintain that even if the quotation could not be established as a fact, it should be mentioned that some people claim that he said that. -- Heptor _talk 13:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you call your recent edits 'according to Ramallite's comments"?????[edit]

I madfe these changes based on your comments to me. (it does not mean I followed what oyur POV is)

Let set the facts strait:

1. Pal economy highly infulance from Israeli economy 2. In 2000 due to high tech boom Israel had a pick year 3. In 2001 due to hightech decline Israel (and palestine) started going down. Intifada also hurt both (palestine more) 4. In 2002 continue to suffer due to increase economic uncertenty due to Intifada. palestine suufered an invasion. 5. In 2003 things stablzied 6. In 2004 , as a result of the wall and decrease in terror economy is up slighly

this goes on.

so this is loses and gaines.

Let us also make sure we undertand: most unemployment in palestine is from denial of entry into israel from the 2nd year of the Intifada, not because of wall. After wall, israel againsed opened up permits for work in Israel. Zeq 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blaming me in POV pushing why don't you assume good faith and show good skills and suggest an laternative text. You know I most often agree with you: You are skilled and know the facts. Zeq 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff's Connection to Israel-Palestine[edit]

Please consider weighing-in regarding Jack Abramoff's Connection to Israel-Palestine See also NPOV Dispute re: "Connection to Israel-Palestine". Bring a friend if you like.--DieWeibeRose 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimerling[edit]

kimeling[edit]

I saw kimeling BS. He is one of a very tiny minority that is detached from reality. What is more fascinating is that Kadim platform and labor are now almost the same. Likud (bibi) is even talking about giving up territory. Even settlers are now drawing maps of what israel should keep. The bottom line: israel public is cementing around a position that tends to give up most of the west bank. as someone who always thought Israel should not hold to the west bank I think this is a very good move.

I know for you it is critical but as someone who has tons of (original research) and know the real route of the fence I know that outside Jerusalem it is mostly along the green-line. With some minor corrections (Kalklia) it would become a reasonable border despite what Kimmerling is saying. Of course the wall route in Jerusalem requires major changes but there as well Israeli public will understand that Israel should not prevent Palestinians from having East Jerusalem. I am hopeful. Today I heard a Palestinian politician say:

For 10 years the Israeli public moved toward compromise it is now our turn.

http://212.179.31.106/likud2006.htm Zeq 10:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on today's election[edit]

Hi Ramallite-

Just wanted to say thanks for your additions to the page on today's PLC elections. Out of curiosity: your user page says you "hail from" Ramallah, but doesn't say if you still live there. The article would really benefit from some pictures ... if you were out and about there with a digital camera today, that'd be great. But anyway, thanks for your contributions. --Jfruh 04:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So.. How are You doing ?[edit]

what is up with you ? If I am right you are not too happy about the results but it does make things clear. Zeq 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli West Bank Barrier[edit]

You write, "I still feel the text is a thinly veiled attempt to push a POV that the barrier [causally] actually improved the economy". Which part? How? The text that I wrote presents the raw data. I have tried very hard (perhaps unsuccessfully) to eliminate any commentary or establish any cause/effect implication. The relevant facts are (a) when was the barrier constructed? (b) what was the economy before? (c) what was the economy after? (d) what other facts are relevant to evaluating a cause/effect relationship? The interpretation is up to the reader. The reader could interpret the data any number of ways, such as, (1) the barrier actually improved the economy, (2) the barrier prevented the economy from recovering to 1999 levels, (3) the barrier had no effect because the trend was the same before and after, etc. I do feel it is important to address the misconception and implication of the previous text that "the barrier caused the West Bank economy [i.e. GDP] to decrease" (you once wrote something like this) because GDP actually increased after the barrier was constructed. This is true and not a matter of interpretation.

Also, if you have more comments specifically about IWBB, isn't it best to put them on the IWWB talk page?

By the way, I have training as a scientist (engineering, specifically) so we're speaking scientist-to-scientist.

-SeattliteTungsten 17:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Worried[edit]

No. I am not at all worried. I agree with how you see things altough I think israel gave a much bigger recognition the concept of palestinian independence than you give credit for the Oslo process.

I do think things are going to be different for you, but I don't know how and to which direction.

Kadima (IMHO) will suffer from this Bibi and the extreme right will gain: Extmists on both sides feed each other.

One thing I am surprized: I mistook you for a Fatah supporter - my apology. Zeq 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine[edit]

Hi there

I have a major deadline rapidaly approaching (and as a result have been wasting time all afternoon on Wikipedia but can do so no more). Could you keep an eye on this article? I commented out some fine nonsense inserted by an anon some weeks ago which passed unnoticed, but one user appears to be still objecting and I don;t have the time to debate it for a few days. Palmiro | Talk 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now I can get back to the تشكيل of لجان توجيهية للتنسيق والتعاون with a clear conscience - oh joy. Palmiro | Talk 18:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I would have thought that in giving spoken languages for a territory, we'd probably just give those in use as community languages. Would there be many countries that didn;t have English listed otherwise? Cheers, Palmiro | Talk 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the settlers I think they included a fair few native speakers of English... I don't see why we should include langages other than those used as community languages in the area (whether strictly speaking native or otherwise) - I think that is what is common on other such articles but don;t have time to check, as I am currently snowed under with work (yet still wasting time here!). Palmiro | Talk 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, now we just need an article on Domari... Palmiro | Talk 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaeg Copyright Info[edit]

Hi, I have marked the image Image:RamallahMeetingHouse.jpg as lacking source and copyright information. Please add the required information, let me know and I will remove the tag. Otherwise the photo will be deleted in one week. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians for Palestine[edit]

New Yahoo Group: Wikipedians for Palestine The group is described as "for Wikipedians working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Wikipedia." Please spread the word.--DieWeibeRose 08:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exciting times[edit]

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]

Adminship[edit]

FireFox RFA[edit]

Congratulations ...[edit]

Adminship[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Anti-Arabism[edit]

Hello![edit]

Using the tools already?[edit]

Congrats[edit]

You're welcome[edit]

your attention requested[edit]

Hate ? I don't see any.[edit]

another call for your attention - non-violent resistance[edit]

Israel security[edit]

Delete old user page[edit]

Congratulations on your Adminship[edit]

Jenin_Palestine.jpg[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Please make your best call here[edit]

arabic sound files[edit]

RfA thanks[edit]

Question[edit]

Rafah[edit]

It sadden me[edit]

Intifadat or Intifaadat?[edit]

try this[edit]

Palestine topics and Wikipedia[edit]

Answer[edit]

suggsted reading[edit]

Thank you[edit]

you missed the point[edit]

Hope you can take a look at this[edit]

Interesting change[edit]

Mufti[edit]

Need your help on something[edit]

Pal exodus[edit]

FAC for The West Wing (television)[edit]

Mufti[edit]

Ann's RfA[edit]

shwarma in a lafa for you, on me[edit]

RfC[edit]

Input requested at Palestinian Arabic[edit]

Administrator Problems[edit]

The West Wing is now FA[edit]

A blueprint for international instability[edit]

Are you real[edit]

Jewish-Arab conflict[edit]

206.106.75.163[edit]

Discussion from Zeq's talk page[edit]

The Palestinian name of the West Bank[edit]

Edward Said[edit]

Al or El?[edit]

new noticeboard[edit]

"Beam me up, Scotty"[edit]

Elevator syndrom[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Confined to the south ?[edit]

Munich[edit]

quote[edit]

question on palestinian organization[edit]

More Questions[edit]

Democracy[edit]

Nakbah and peace[edit]

Your statement on RFAr[edit]

How do you call your recent edits 'according to Ramallite's comments"?????[edit]

Jack Abramoff's Connection to Israel-Palestine[edit]

Kimerling[edit]

kimeling[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq[edit]

Thanks for the info on today's election[edit]

So.. How are You doing ?[edit]

Israeli West Bank Barrier[edit]

Not Worried[edit]

Palestine[edit]

Imaeg Copyright Info[edit]

Wikipedians for Palestine[edit]

exciting times[edit]

Fir e Fo x RFA[edit]