Jump to content

Talk:Palestine (region)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.25.85.58 (talk) at 02:49, 7 March 2002 (Reply to Joseph). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please, let's try to keep this article written from a NeutralPointOfView--that will be hard, but it's important to try. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements.


(moved commentary that was here to /Commentary -- Simon J Kissane)

The last part of the article is a paper from somewhere else. What about copyright? --css

I think it is in the public domain, it has an author statement, representing who wrote it is the very last part or the long article 10 years??

Joseph

Unless it is very old (i.e. at the very least, over fifty years) or the author explicitly states it is in the public domain, it is copyrighted. Now if it has references to things in the 1980s, the copyright certaintly hasn't expired, so it is copyrighted unless the author puts it in the public domain. So unless you have a statement from the author saying they put it in the public domain, or saying that it can be distributed under the terms of GNU FDL, I am afraid we are going to have to remove it. -- Simon J Kissane

Describing the "ancient decline of Jewish population of Palestine" with only passing references to the Babylonian and Roman conquests is like describing the "creation of Palestinian refugees in 1948" with only passing references to the Israeli military. Furthermore, someone reading the above section would think that Jews considered their ancient homeland insignificant between, say, the years 200 and 1900; in reality, references to "Eretz Yisrael" and its importance pervade classical Jewish legal and liturgical writing.

Maybe the changes I have just made make it better. However, while certaintly the Babylonian and Roman conquests was part of the cause, I think its role is often overestimated. Many of those in the ancient Diasporas had ample opportunity to return to Israel, but didn't -- because they didn't want. Many of those deported by the Babylonians, but were given the chance to return (at the end of the Exile), but didn't want. For the same reason as many American Jews today can emigrate to Israel -- the Israeli government even goes to enormous lengths to encourage them to do so -- but they don't. Why? Because they are happy where they are. And in the same way, yes deportation is a factor in the decline of the Jewish population -- but another, often ignored, reason for the decline is that many Jews preferred to live in the Diaspora to Israel. It was also for that reason that many of them voluntarily emigrated as well. -- Simon J Kissane

On a new topic near and dear to my heart - nomenclature and etymology: no one has explained the etymology of the odd term Palestine and its relation to Philistine. I don't know enough to write the paragraph. I'd like to know the history of the LOCAL use of the term. Was it continuous, or revived under the colonialist influence? --MichaelTinkler

R.K. -- Please try to avoid including statements which reflect only one sides point of view, be it the Palestinian or the Israeli side, unless it is clearly identified whose point of view it reflects. The article should not give the impression of supporting either side of the conflict. The original article was rather pro-Palestinian, yes, but the solution to that is not what you have done, which is try to make it pro-Israeli. The solution is to create an article which both sides could agree on. -- Simon J Kissane


There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions; and many Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Samaritan Pentateuch contains some older textual variants closer to the original than the Massoretic text. In particular, it often agrees with the LXX or the Qumran texts against the Massoretic.

The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect. The oral law represents only one sect within 1st century and earlier Judaism, the Pharisees. The Saducees and the Essenes, which were just as Jewish as the Pharisees, either rejected the oral law or had different versions of it. Now it is true that the Pharisees were eventually triumphant, but having the Rabbinical oral law is not a essential part of the definition of Judaism, historically considered. Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai, as the Rabbis claim, but that it was rather developed by the Pharisees, who then projected it back in time in justification.

And there are still Jews today who don't follow the oral law; the Karaites. Claiming the Karaites to be a separate religion from Judaism because they reject the Rabbinical Jewish traditions is like claiming Protestantism to be a separate religion from Christianity because they reject the traditions of the Catholics.

And as to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well. In later Judaism they only did it at the Temple, and since then they have stopped it completely; but in early Judaism there is evidence that it was a lot more wide spread. So the fact that Samaritans practice animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism, in the same way as the fact that ancient Jews practiced animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism. And I find your suggestion that I am a liar or an anti-Semite highly offensive. I think that sort of name-calling is beneath deserving a response. -- Simon J Kissane

Yes, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and not support one viewpoint or the other. Your statement It is clear that an anti-semitic person is blatantly lying about Jews in this entry as part of a Palestinian effort to disconnect Jews from the land of Israel. is totally uncalled for, and is offensive on so many levels that I do not even know where to begin. Simon has backed up his claim with relevant facts and arguments, and I warmly invite you to do the same, and maybe we can develop an article which presents a balanced viewpoint of both sides of the argument. But keep your racist invective to yourself. Anyone with an anti-anyone viewpoint is not welcome here, this applies equally to anti-semites, anti-westerners, anti-islamic, etc. -- ManningBartlett

Simon has received unwarranted criticism. However, on a histroical point I disagree with his position about the Samaritans and Judaism. Simon writes "There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions"

RK (me) writes: I fully agree; however, so do Mormons, Protestant and Catholics. Yet these religions have little in common with Judaism.

Yes, but Mormons, Protestants and Catholics add radically non-Jewish elements to their theology -- the trinity, the incarnation, salvation by grace, the vicarious atonement. And Mormons believe in three Gods, and believe that at least two of these Gods have a body, and at one stage at least (they seem to be moving away from some of their more unusual beliefs, so maybe not so much anymore) they believed that humans could become gods, and rule over other planets, and that God lived physically on another planet, and some of them even taught that Adam was God. These are all radically non-Jewish beliefs. Samaritans, though they may differ in some of their ritual and legal practices, have a theology much closer to Judaism.
As far as I'm aware, the Samaritans are mostly in agrement with the 13 points of Rambam; something which cannot be said for (-- Simon J Kissane

Simon writes The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect." RK writes: I disagree with this claim. With the exception of two tiny Karaite towns, 99% of the religious Jews in the world see Judaism via the oral law. (I am leaving out those people of Jewish descent who have no religion, or who have converted to another faith.) It is true that 2000 to 3000 years ago were there Israelites who felt otherwise, yet these groups no longer exist. Today even Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, the most liberal branches, still accept the Mishnah and Talmud as authoritative to some degree, even if not in a binding sense. RK

Do you deny Karaites are Jews? Do you deny that the ancient Saduccees and Essenes were Jews? Unless you deny they are Jews, it follows that the oral law is not a neccessary part of the definition of Judaism, and that historically (and today as well) not all Jews have followed the oral law. Now, yes, almost all Jews today follow the oral law; but that is not because the oral law is a necessary part of Judaism, rather it is because those Jewish sects which supported the oral law won over those sects which did not have it. -- Simon J Kissane

Simon writes "Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai,..."

I also doubt this claim; it is definately an exagerration. RK

Definitely an exagerration? The Rabbis taught that the oral law was given in its whole by Moses at Sinai. Many scholars (certaintly almost all Christian scholars, and some Jewish scholars as well) would argue that the oral law was mostly developed by the Pharisee sect of Judaism over several centuries after the return from the Babylonian exile (long after Moses), and that little or none of it derives from Moses. -- SJK

Yet no matter where the oral law originated, it is the lens through which Jews views the Bible. That is what makes their religion different from the other religions based on the Bible. When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the New Testament, you get a different religion (Christianity.) When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the Samaritan Chronicles and law codes, you get a different religion (Samaratanism), etc. Of course Judaism, Christianity and Samaratanism all have the same basic books as their core, but they all go off in different directions with them, and thus are different religions. RK

But Christianity is much further from Judaism than Samaritanism. Christianity claims that God came to earth in the form of a man to die in order to save the world. The basics of Christian theology are radically different from those of Judaism. But the basics of Samaritan theology are pretty close to Judaism. Karaism also goes off in different directions from the Tanach, as did many ancient forms of Judaism, but they are still Judaism. -- SJK

Simon correctly notes that "As to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well." That is true. But Jews do not sacrifice animals, and have not done so for 2000 years. They also do not stone adulterers to death, nor do they follow any of the laws relating to the Temple. Why? The religion known as rabbinic Judaism is not synonymous with ancient Hebrew practices; it is only one evolutionary outgrowth of them. Jews - myself included - believe that this evolutionary path is the correct path for us to have followed. Other peoples have taken different paths. Christians developed different interpretations and scriptures than Jews, and so did Samaritans and Muslims. They of course believe that this is the correct path for them to have followed. C'est la'histoire. But why the need to identify any two or more of them as really still being the same religion? RK

I am sure you must be aware that some Jews want to rebuild the Temple and restart animal sacrifices. Of course that is very unlikely to happen; but supposing it did -- would these Jews cease to be followers of Judaism? No. Then there is nothing incompatible with Judaism and following all the laws relating to the Temple. Isn't it true, in fact, that Rabbinic Judaism teaches that with the coming of the Messiah, that the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple sacrifices will start again? How can sacrifices be incompatible with Judaism, if a central hope of the Jewish religion is that sacrifices will recomence? If sacrifices are incompatible with Judaism, then Judaism is a religion whose greatest hope is to be replaced with another religion. -- Simon J Kissane


RK - I know absolutely nothing about the subject which is why I'm not debating. However, your article calmly takes what Simon said, issues challenges and supports your arguments. This is intelligent, well-reasoned and rational debate, and I find it a pleasure to read. Thank you - MB

Can someone explain something to me? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is greatly divergent from Judaism? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is not greatly divergent from Judaism?

The PLO has been producing propaganda for years that the Samaritans are the "real" Jews, and that all the other Jews in the world - i.e. 99% of the Jewish people - are imposters; that they all are "only" recent descendent of European converts, who have taken on the mantle of ancient Judaism as part of a pro-Western and anti-Arab plot. The PLO, further, maintains that the Jewish people never lived in the land of Israel, and never built a Temple in Jerusalem. All archaeology that supports such a fact, therefore, is a hoax and lie, even the archaeology done by Chrisitians, and by moderate Arabs. (They teach all this in their public school system). Accroding to this view, much of Jewish history that is in Western encyclopaedias is a lie and hoax designed to hurt Palestinians. RK
But I have never said that the Jews aren't real Jews. All I said was that the Samaritans and Jews are fundamentally the one religion. -- Simon J Kissane

On the other hand, I am not aware of any cause that has an ulterior motive to "assert" that Samaritanism, Christianity, Mormonism, or Islam is greatly divergent from Judaism. These are just historical and obvious facts. They simply are different religions.

I see. Thank you. Since this is an issue of present-day dispute, I suggest we find a way to work this into a sub-article somewhere. --Branden

The entry says "Several of the Palestinians who originally reported the massacre have now say that the claims they made were false and an exagerration. Other Palestinians argue that it is these retractions that are false."

[Are the Arabs who have now retracted their claims non-existent? Wholesale rewriting of fact is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia entry. Palestinians schools and government offices also officially deny that the Holocaust took place? So what? In the interest of "balance" should we admit that the Holocaust might be a Jewish hoax? Look, some Arabs have now retracted their claims, and this indisputable fact is well documented. If Palestinians on this forum don't like this, that's too bad. But if they imply that these people don't exist, or that they didn't retract their claims, then they are engaging in antisemetic historical revisionism.]

"these retractions that are false" is supposed to mean not that the retractions were never made, but that the content of the retractions was false. I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I'm merely stating what many Palestinians would say, to try to get rid of some of the bias. -- Simon J Kissane

Palestinians consider a far more accurate statement of the intention of the founders of Israel ... [Is it the position of this Encyclopaedia that Palestinians are telepaths? This entry should stick to history, and not mind-reading games. Would Palestinians like it if all quotes by Arab leaders were followed by quotes from people who telepathically guessed their "real" intentions? Let us stop the Jew-bashing games and get on with recorded _history_, not histrionics.]

I am the person who wrote that, and I am not a Palestinian. I was trying to make the article more neutral (it reflects mainly the Israeli point of view), and I was incorporating some of the comments placed in the article originally by a Palestinian refugee, Joseph E. Saad, who edited it earlier. I am getting very sick and tired of being accused of "Jew-bashing games" or "anti-Semitic historical revisionism". As I said before, I find those sort of comments so patently offensive as to be beneath reply. Is it at all possible for you to discuss things without being abusive?
You are just going to have to get used to the idea that this article is NOT going to support one side or the other, be it the Israeli side or the Palestinian side. Do you deny that a lot of Palestinians believe that was the real intention of the founders of Israel? Rightly or not, a lot of them do, and so we should state that they do so. Not say what was or wasn't the real intentions of Israel's founders, but just say what many people think those intentions were. See NeutralPointOfView if you can't get this concept. -- Simon J Kissane

On the date of British withdrawal the Jews declared the formation of the State of Israel. On the day Israel proclaimed its independence there were already 300,000 Palestinian refugees, and Zionist forces had occupied large chunks of territory designated for the proposed Arab state as well as parts of Jerusalem intended for international administration.

Israelis allege that the Arab refugees left their homes because Arab radio from surround nations ordered them to leave.

Outrageous historical revisionism. All Arab historians admit that this is real. This Encyclopaedia has been overrun by some fairly serious Jew-haters.

As I said before, I am not a "fairly serious Jew-haters", you have absolutely no evidence that I am, and you are just being insulting and offensive. Do all Arab historians admit this is real? If they do so produce some evidence that they do. I was bracketing the statements as Israeli claims (which is a fact, they are Israeli claims) to try to make it less pro-Israel and more neutral. Maybe the way I choose to deal with the bias wasn't the most accurate; but it was the best I could do. If you can see a better way of including those facts without making the article either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian then do so. -- Simon J Kissane

They claim that Arab military commanders promised an immediate invasion of the nascent Jewish state that would kill all the Jews, and Arabs were ordered to leave to reduce casualties. Israelis claim that the Arabs were promised that victory would be quick, and that they would be able to return to their homes within a few weeks.

Simon J Kissane- My name is Joseph E. Saad, I have been very busy, so I apologize that you have had to edit alone, and get blamed for things that I know were never meant to offend. I, originally when I edited, tried to include as much relevance as I could to make the article more balanced. I was extremely shocked, hurt, and dismayed to find the original article so biased towards in my view, the Israeli view. I have seen an encyclopedia written by a Palestinian author, which did much at that time to illuminate my perspectives. Also I have looked at sources such as culturegram, companions to the middle east, histories of the region & others in that line to get an idea how a balanced article should look. I am afraid that the way it is is presented now still needs some work, but it is getting there, the figures are also I would say not accurate.

I am not an extremist, I am just a person, I try & be fair in my views. I have nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion, only Zionism & the concept of Zionism.

This, by definition, is anti-Jewish. How would you feel if someone said that they "have nothing against Arabs or Islam, only against the existence of Arab nations and the concept that Arabs should have the same national rights as other human beings." You would brand such a person as a bigot. So why is this same behaviour towards Jews acceptable?
I don't like any sort of nationalism, be it Arab or Jewish or anything else. (I'm an Australian, and if is little I dislike more than Australian nationalism.) But RK, you are ignoring one fundamental difference between Arab and Jewish nationalism -- the Arabs actually lived in the land they claimed as theres, and had lived there for over a thousand years. --SJK
Garbage. It has been conclusively proven that the majority of people who call themselves Palestinians today are the descendents of people who immigrated to Israel in the 1800s and 1900s. I don't accept your fact-free historical revisionism.
And as everyone knows, the majority of Jews in Israel today migrated there from Europe or from other parts of the Arab world. Even if most Arabs are later migrants, the fact still remains that until the rise of Jewish immigration due to Zionism the majority of the population was Arab and had been Arab for over a thousand years. -- SJK
Agreed. RK


Although Jews had lived in Palestine/Israel/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the past, and some still remained there, most Jews lived in Europe or in other parts of the Arab world. Jewish nationalism inherently involved colonialism and irredentism. Arab nationalism didn't. -- SJK
Where do you get this socialist brand of antizionism from? Not from history books, UN demographics, or English historical records of the Palestinian mandate. You are merely repeating the antisemetic claims that extremist Arabs use to deligitimize the rights of Jewish people to have a state of their own. RK
Do you have any evidence it didn't inherently involve colonialism and irredentism? Most of the Jewish emigrants came from Europe. Admittedly they did not fit the definition of colonists in the sense of being a colony of a particular European power, but they were Europeans (whatever their more distant ethnic background, they had lived in Europe for centuries). They came with the intention establishing their own society separate from that of the native population, not integrating with the native population. The Balfour declaration was only possible against the background of European colonialism in general. And Palestine was a British colony, although the League had renamed colonies "Mandates" for reasons of political correctness (the system of mandates was primarily developed to deal with the Central Power's colonies after WWI -- they didn't want to give them independence, lest it provide a precedent for their own colonies, but they did not want to let the Germans keep them either.)
Ok, I will defer to your argument and agree with you. (Don't forget to pick your jaw back up...)RK


And it was irredentist. Irredentism is claiming a right to territory occupied by another state or people, on the grounds of distant historical connections. Zionism is undoubtedly the most irredentist philosophy in human history -- it wanted territory which the majority of its people hadn't occupied for over a thousand years.
Also, I didn't get my views from "extermist Arabs". I mainly developed them myself. -- SJK

That it excluded and continues to exclude myself and others from the land of our birth, from our homeland, is the main reason for this conflict..LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT IS THE WAY IT IS....

Nonsense. Over 75% of Palestine is now in Arab hands, mostly run by Hashemite Arabs in Jordan, and partially run by Palestinian Arabs in parts of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is only a small part of the original Palestine land mandate. Further, Arabs already have more than 100 times the land area in the Middle East than Jews do. If every Jew in Israel was murdered by Hamas, Hizbollah and the PLO, and all Israel was destroyed and became part of another Arab state, that would still amount to less than a 1% increase in the amount of land controlled by Arabs. Thus, ending Zionism would have virtually no effect on Arabs at all - but it would be Hitler's greatest post-humous victory. I cannot understand why you see the mere existence of Israel as the cause of the middle-easy conflict? Open up some history books, and you will learn for that every time Arabs have fought against Israel, they have fought against each other four or five times. While there have been only five Arab-Israel conflicts, in this sime time period there have been over two dozen Arab-Arab and Arab-Persian conflicts. The region was war-like before the existence of Israel, and it still is now. As long as you continue to blame Zionism for the problems of the Arab nations, you will get nowhere. [[RK}}
Jordan is not part of Palestine. It was part of the Mandate prior to 1923, but the British then turned it into a separate entity. The British doing so was foreseen by article 25 of the Mandate, which permitted them to withold most of the provisions of the Mandate in its eastern part. And AFAIK (you are welcome to submit evidence to the contrary), the separation of Trans-Jordan was approved by the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with article 27. -- SJK
Saying that Jordan is not a part of Palestine is exactly like saying that Israel is not a part of Palestine. Both statements are so ludicrously false that one hardly knows where to begin disputing it. Yes, the land of Palestine was LEGALLY separated into two different legal domains...but the land still PHYSICALLY EXISTED, and it still does exist! Giving it a new name doesn't make it "not part of Palestine" anymore. If your argument were true, then once the UN recognized the State of Israel (note the new name!) then Palestine no longer exists! The British could have separated 75% of Palestine, or 95% of it, or 1% of it, but that has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Just because the name of one region changes, history doesn't suddenly rewrite itself for that area. RK
Of course the land still physically existed. But geographical names are decided by a combination of convention and legal recognition, and the meaning of geographic names can change over time. The legal definition of "Palestine" changed in 1923, and the conventional meaning has changed as well -- in the usage of most people, Jordan is not part of Palestine.
That is totally true, but I would argue misleading. The places that people came from are still those same places, even if the names changed, and even if today people talk more about the Western region (nowadays the State of Israel) than the rest of the region. RK
Also, Israel is increasingly not a part of Palestine. When a Palestinian state is established, it will be called "Palestine", and then saying "Israel is part of Palestine" is going to sound like saying "the United States is part of Canada"... of course, some Arabs might still think of Israel as part of Palestine, but most of the world won't. And signs of this change in meaning can be seen even today -- increasingly people in the West use "Palestine" to refer only to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as recognised by the UN. -- SJK
Agreed, but this is a semantic problem, and it needs to be carefully separated from the geographic and political problems. This, btw was one of the reasons that the Zionist groups decided on the name "Israel" for their state, rather than "Judea", as they hoped that the name would refer to the biblical land of Israel, and not necessarilly descendents of the tribe of Judah (which most Jews today are from). They had hoped that their region would have the name Israel, and that the rest would have some other name. At the time, the entire region, it was imagined, would still be referred to as Palestine. Today the semantic issue is hopelessly complicated, and no one can even speak about the damn thing without footnotes and maps. RK

So sorry again, but anyone who does not follow the Zionist line gets it, we have seen it too often, again, and again. I am not trying to be offensive or "anti" anything, but the facts are the facts, I remain a refugee, while Eastern Europeans, are welcomed to the land of my birth (with US funds), good luck anyway, I will try and help in a positive way.

Revision of previous statement: I disagree. The State of Israel does not turn away Jewish refugees. In contrast, most Arab states have such a hatred of each other than they refuse to help each other's refugees - and often murder each other by the tens of thousands - and this doesn't bother you? I would suggest that you step back and look at the bigger picture. Jews do take care of each other, but this isn't as true in the Arab community, and the Palestinians suffer as a result. But this doesn't make the Jewish inhabitants of Israel (most of whom are Zionist) bad; it makes the leaders of the Arab nations bad. RK


RK: I really wish you would stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a Jew-hater. It is unjustified and uncalled for. -- SJK
I really wish that people would stop saying that only the Jews have no human rights when it comes to having their own state (i.e. this is the definition of Zionism) but claim that all other human beings (especially Arabs) do have such rights. THAT position is unjustified and uncalled for. As long as people claim "I like Jews, but I am agains Zionism and the very CONCEPT of Zionism", antisemitism continutes, and terrorism against Jews is justified. The position you claim to be justis *precisely* what Hasmas and Hizbollah claim. Doesn't this bother you? Human rights are for all humans - including Jews. RK
I don't believe any people has a right to a state. Ethnic or racial groups do not have rights; only individuals do. Jews have no right to a state; Arabs don't either. Of course, the residents of any particular place have the democratic right (though it is subject to some limitations) as individuals to have the government in that area organized in such a way as best suits them, be that having an independent state, or some degree of autonomy in a pre-existing state. But Jews, in the period when Zionism arose, where not the residents of a particular place claiming rights as individuals. Thus the right did not apply to them then. (On the other hand, it applies to Jews living in Israel now, insofar as they do not violate the rights of non-Jewish individuals in doing so, which I would argue it often does.)
RK, let me clarify something for you. I have no objection to the current existence of Israel, only to its creation. Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel was immoral and was either illegal or should have been so. However, now that the state of Israel has been in existence for over fifty years, and so many Jews have been resident there for even longer, it would be immoral and illegal to just kick them out. Israel's existence although originaly a wrong has been converted to a right by prescription, as it were.
But this right to existence is not absolute. Israel and Israeli Jews have a right against attempts by Arabs to kill or deport them all. However, if Arabs moved in peacefully and slowly grew until they formed a majority in Israel, then although that would be the end of the Jewish state, so long as the Arabs respected the rights of the Jewish minority no harm would be done, and Israel or individual Jews have no right to prevent such a peaceful annihilation. Any attempt by Israel to prevent such a peaceful annihilation would be immoral and illegal, since it would inevitably involve discrimination against Arab people.
And I don't support Hizbollah or Hamas, nor do I support violence, be it committed by Palestinian militants or the Israeli government. -- SJK

BTW- When I do a search for Palestine, it does not come up, why?, is there a way to fix it so when you do a search , it pops up, like any other topic... Thanks, so far the article is not bad...

Joseph E. Saad

Don't worry Joseph, I more or less agree with you. Your do have some pro-Palestinian bias, but a lot of other people editing it have pro-Israel bias, so don't worry. I hope people will be able to argue it out to some sort of basic agreement on what happened. The thing that really gets me is some other people (not you) who can't seem to have a civilised discussion without hurling abuse and insults. -- Simon J Kissane

=================================================================================

Thanks the search is much better, I will have to clean up some other definitions, like, Canadian/Christian ( and others) that come up. It is more professional to have just the meaning without our comments, I am still learning....

Joseph

The article's lead sentence makes it sound as if someone has been using "Israel" and "Palestine" as synonyms, something I haven't seen myself. I thought Israel was only part of Palestine.

"Palestine is a region in the Middle East, also called Levant and Israel. "

Changed one statement about legal status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The original statement that the West Bank and Gaza could be considered integral parts of Israel is incorrect because *Israel* doesn't make that claim. Unlike the Golan which Israel has annexed, it hasn't annexed the West Bank or Gaza and as far as I know the Israeli government has never asserted that it has full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. Certainty there are some in Israel who think that it should annex the West Bank and Gaza and one can argue that Israel has a historical claim on the West Bank and Gaza, but unless the Israeli government actually declares sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and annexes the territories, I don't think it's possible to claim the legal theory that was proposed to be valid.

This statement should be altered: "Israel captured these territories at the end of the Six Day War. Israel has claim to have annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem." This is very odd. Does anyone believe that Israel secretly didn't annex these lands, but only claimed to? Why would they do that? They've got enough troubles as it is! Rather, we should say that Israel did annex these lands, but this annexation is controversial, and it has not been recognized by other governments. Its like when Morrocco took over Western Sahara; they didn't claim to have done so...they actually did so. Whether other people recognize or not is a different story, and can be noted. RK

Depends on what you understand annexation to mean. If "annexation" means "legal incorporation into its territory", then whether or not Israel annexed it is controversial. (It might be true as a matter of Israeli domestic law, but many would argue it is not true as a matter of international law.) On the other hand, if "annexation" merely means "Government claims it as its own territory", then everyone agrees Israel annexed it. -- SJK
Yes, I meant only that the Israeli government passed a law to this effect and claimed it as its own territory. I don't mean that anyone else accepts it. In fact, Israel didn't annex the Golan in the same way that it annexed part of the city of Jerusalem, nor did it annex it in the same way that other nations annex land. The government of Israel did a very curious thing, and I am not quite certain why. They effected a quasi-annexation of the Golan, by extending Israeli law over it, effectively making it part of Israel. They had other options open to them, yet they didn't take it. I suspect that this was a compromise. Perhaps they thought it might give future governments more wiggle room. (i.e. they could say "No, we never really annexed it, that's why it Ok to give some of it back in a peace deal" or "Yes, of course its annexed, that's why we can't give any of it up.") RK

RK

Quick question: Does anyone consider the Golan heights part of Palestine? I was under the impression that the answer is no, and if that is the case the article needs some refactoring.

As I understand it, neither side considers Golan Heights part of Palestine. It used to be part of Syria, until the war (was it 1967 or Yom Kippur, I can't remember). Israel now says they have annexed it, sort of (see RK's comment above). Most of the rest of the world, including all the Arab states, consider it to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel. -- SJK

I removed the following, because I would like to see a reference for it: "Though about ninety-five percent of the territories were offered to the Authority, the offer was rejected." -- SJK

Camp David talks, August 2000. It is agreed by all parties that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the territories inside the "green line", including territories in East Jerusalem. This offer crossed just about any "red line" that the Israeli public has ever had, although many Palestinians claimed it did not go far enough. See http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/000720/2000072019.html and http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380. I will modify the sentence somewhat and return it where it belongs. --Uriyan

Hang on, you are confusing interim and final status negotiations. The PA only has full control of a few percent of the territories under the Oslo Accords (and succeding agreements.) The offer to grant PA full control over 95% of the territories was not an interim offer (like the current control the PA has), but a final status offer. Control PA currently has comes without strings attached with respect to the final status of the negotiations. The control Barak was offering comes with strings attached with respect to the final status of the negotiations. Arafat, rightly or wrongly, (personally I think wrongly), refused to accept Barak's strings. But by comparing the current situation and offers made in final status negotiations, you are comparing apples with oranges. -- SJK

Yes, that's a good point. I'm aware of the distinction, but I've just been taking it for granted. I will mention that too. --Uriyan
=================================================================================

I am getting pretty tired of editing out falsehoods and misleading statements, by obvious Zionist supporters. Look the truth is the truth, no less and no more...

Is it not enough that Israel holds all the cards? Can you not let a Palestinian person (who is now a refugee) to at least set the record straight? It is not always Jewish history or Zionism or Israel, there has always been and always will be a Palestinian people, so do not try to minimize us...

No matter how hard you try, the truth will come out, and justice will prevail. It cuts both ways and I pesonally feel both sides have equal rights to the land...

I have tried to play fair, and keep the article sounding like a proper Encyclopedia article, not a propaganda article. Please try and do the same, please... Thank You!

Joseph (Proud Canadian, Palestinian Refugee)

=========
Note to Joseph, or whoever had added this part of the article. An Arab state has never existed in the land of Palestine. The Arab inhabitants of this region have never, before the 1960s expressed en masse their desire for statehood. So before the 60s, there wasn't a "Palestinian people". That's also the reason why you don't have a Palestinian state according to 181 - the Palestinian arabs were not able in consolidate in 1948. As to the claims below - feel free to make them, but do three things - stick to the facts, write whose opinion it is and don't censor out the other side's thoughts. --Uriyan, a proud Israeli citizen.

removed Palestinian propaganda

There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine:

For all the invasions and changes in its rulers, the core of Palestine's population has been etthnically stable for millennia, posessing for the last thirteen hundred years a culture that has been unambiguously Arab.

Many popular images of the Zionist movement portray the land as desolate or empty of a vibrant people and culture. Golda Meir announced that they never existed as evidenced in this famous quote:

"There was no such thing as Palestinians...It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."

This kind of propaganda could never have been really convincing outside Israel because so many people - travellers, merchants, missionaries, and soldiers - had actually seen the Palestinians and knew that they existed even if they did not know much about them.

There are now somewhere between 6.5 - 7 million Palestinians worldwide, some live as a minority in Israel proper, some live in the West Bank and Gaza portions of Palestine, most are refugees in many parts of the world (mainly the Middle East, Europe, and North and South America) living a life of diaspora, as displaced persons.

According to your figures, perhaps. But the Palestinian social agencies are infamous for dishonesty in their reporting of refugees. Even the UN, which is staunchly pro-Palestinian, used to have figures which were much lower than those published by the PLO.

Few Palestinians have assimilated to their host countries. Most feel too strong, a sense of identity, with their Palestinian nationalism.

Yes, but this is because their Arab host countries treated Palestinians as criminals to be locked in regugee camps for decades at a time. It alway shas been the open policy of many Arab nations to actively prevent Palestinians from assimilation. You make it sound as if Palestinians refused to assimilate. Nothing could be further from the truth. There has a 50 year long middle-east wide Arab policy to actively prevent this from every occuring. You can't leace this fact out. RK

In 1948 Palestine ceased to exist politically, however, its people remain a vital and integral part of the land, known variously as: 'the Holy land', Israel, Palestine, etc. They remain Palestinians awaiting their political and national rights.

This comment is ludricrous. No Arab state of Palestine existed at this time. The British Mandate of Palestine was give mostly to Arabs at this time, and only 20% was given to the Jewish people. In the vast majority of Palestine, the Arabs fought amongs each other, and one group (the Hashemites) have oppressed the other group (the Palestinians). The oppression still occurs today. Stop blaming the Jews for inter-Arab problems. That's not constructive criticism; that's historical revisionism. RK
=================================================================================

No I do not think your comments are right at all, and I think that many would disagree with you. There has always been a Palestinian people, (state by the modern meaning or not) these people are still a people called Palestinians, living in a land called PALESTINE (pre-1948)

You are a racist trying to deny these facts.You can put out your view, I will put mine, do not delete my work... and I won't delete yours, there are two sides, two views, neither yours or mine are exclusively right...

Joseph

Tell me, does the fact that Jews lived in Palestine 2500 years ago make them Palestinians? What makes the difference is the desire for self-determination. Until the 1960s, the Arabs living in Palestine did not desire self-determination. They never had a joint sub-culture, join symbols, joint (agreed upon) leadership. Try to disprove me here. As to the "racism" part, I must regretfully inform you that I belong to the same Semitic race as you. I dislike you for another reason, though. Your view of history is perverted and you are yourself a hypocrite trying to show something through your double standards. Your writing is not not encyclopedia-worthy as it is now. However, I didn't delete it. Learn what "objectivity" is and come back later. --Uriyan

A response:

Uriyan

At least I acknowledge your (any Jewish or Palestinian) right to exist in this land. I looked you up on GOOGLE, your family did not even live in Israel until shortly after you were born some 16 years ago (Russian Jews, if you are even Jewish, who payed for you to be able to go there?)... My familty can trace our coming to the Holy Land since the 6th century AD. We have lived there for Millennia. Contrary to what you may think, if you do, Arabs and Jews lived together there for Centuries under Ottoman rule, with no problems.

Well, I never objected the fact that relations were peaceful under the Ottomans - but that was 200 years ago in a totally different situation. I was born out of Israel; and yet anywhere in the world but Israel I am a refugee, and I yearn for my country as much as you do.


Dear Joseph, it is a proven fact that most people who call themselves Palestinians are themselves descendents of recent immigrants to the land of Palestine. Thus, all of your argurments to deligitimize the Jewish State also deligitimizes the struggle for a Palestinian state. Why do yuo also leave such facts out? By refusing to own up to such facts, you end up with a vehemently anti-Jewish point of view.

It was not until the establishment of the terrorist state of Israel that problems began between these two people. Unlike yourself, I do not hate you or any other Jewish person, I hate Zionism, and the concept of displacing a whole people for another solely on ANCIENT HISTORY.

I'm not basing on ANCIENT HISTORY anymore than you are. In 1948, Israel did not set out to displace the native Arabs of this area. The fact that Arab refugees were created was as much a surprise for Jews as it was for Arabs. After all there were twice as much Arabs than Jews in Palestine before 1948. And by the way, do the words "Hebron 1929" mean anything to you? Terrorism goes both ways, you see.
So all of us Jews support terrorism ? That must be your claim, since you define Israel as a terrorist state. Listen, Joseph, until you can get over your seething hatred of the State of Israel, and learn a little bit about history, you will not be able to work on this entry in a productive fashion. Stop the diatribes. RK


I never said anything about Jewish people, living there or anywhere else, being anything other than Jewish. As for my poor encyclopediac writing, sorry I am doing my best, but I have had to educate myself, fund myself, since there is an assistance given to Palestinians who had the means to escape the Zionist prosecution. Unlike the Jews from all over the world who have never even lived there, like yourself, since the last 15-20 years. I have tried to be objective, but I have not seen too much objectivity in these articles on Palestine...

Well, deleting the other's side position (permanently, not into the talk page), is surely a means to facilitate objectivity.

BTW: The ARABS/PALESTINIANS (whatever) were promised independence since the end of the First World War, by Britain for helping fight against the Turks. They have never given up that dream, or desire. It is significant that of all the countries that were former colonies all have achieved independence, except the Palestinians. We will however one day, you can be sure, do get ready. I can read in your language and comments, an Israeli view and bias towards history. Until Israel gives justice to the Palestinians, thee will never be PEACE!

There is a state of Jordan, you know. The problem with Arabs is that they never agreed to compromise anything less than 100% of Palestine. Too bad for them. There will never be PEACE until you understand that Israel does exist and will do so in the future.

One more thing, say what you want about me, but my grandmother told me lots about the life of Palestinians before 1948, as a matter of fact, my grandfather was good friends an dpartners with a Jewish man and his family before the 1948 war. It was this man and his family who warned them to flee because of Jewish terrorist attacks that were coming, shortly after, the 1948 war started, and my grandfathers home (and my fathers) became part of the green line of Jerusalem. Just try to remember there are always two sides, to any argument.

I know that there are two sides; and I've met a person who has fought in this areas. Say, what were those gunmen doing in Bab-El-Wad? --Uriyan

Joseph

Joseph, sweeping all the changes I've made is impolite. You can re-write paragraphs or dispute my points but the page is supposed to evolve with both sides' participation, not reverting it to an older version just because you like it more is bad. I based on your writing when I modified the page, why can't you do the same? --Uriyan

Uriyan-

I am not sure what you mean, all of my comments and statements have been removed, I am hurt and disappointed, I feel that this whole article has turned into an exercise in Jewish history only. There essentialy is nothing to indicate the truth that Palestinians lived there in the past, continue to live there, or that we have an equal and just claim to the land. Everything of importance I wrote has been removed...

You copy-and-pasted your old version over what I'd written. I edited your writings, not cut them out. Imagine how I felt when you did the same.

I feel that this project is no longer worth my time, I do not have a lot of extra time to keep arguing about it. I suggest that you read other encyclopedias that deal with the Middle East, and see what a proper article looks like. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East is a good start, it covers both sides. Also there is a new book called Culturegrams this also covers both sides well, it explains the problem in real human terms, that a layperson can understand.

If you dare, you could also take a look at The Encyclopedia of the Palestinian People by Issa Nakhleh,or Encyclopedia of the Palestinians - edited by Philip Mattar, this explains many aspects of what you do not seem to understand, mainly, there has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine!

Arab perhaps, but not Palestinian. If I ever get around a copy I should surely insepct it, although I suspect it is mainly a work of Palestinian propaganda. Speaking of which, you've never tried to get through the Jewish argument either.

Also there are a number of good books published by others, The Arab-Israeli dispute by Don Peretz, Beseiged bedfellows: Israel and the land of Apartheid by Benjamin A. Joseph, Creating Facts: Israel. Palestinians, and the West Bank by Geoffrey Aronson, The Intifada: causes and effects by Aryeh Shalev, Resignation or revolt?: socio-political development and the challenges of peace in Palestine by Cristopher Parker, and finally the best of all: The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky (he is Jewish even).

Yeah, Noam Chomsky. You wouldn't pick Osama Bin-Laden to represent the Arab people, would you?
Is this a joke? Chomsky is a virulent Israel hater, and he promotes the total destruction of the State of Israel. Most Jews view him as an anti-Semite. Do Arabs actually teach that Chomsky is respected by Jews? Such a distorted viewpoint, so totally disconnected from reality, explains a lot about your views.

Also one more thing I thought the purpose of this article was to write from a neutral point of view, I see nothing of this, at all, just more Zionist propaganda... If as you say it is all our fault, why do you a Russian 'presumable Jew' who was not born there, get to live there in prosperity, and me a Palestinian Christian Arab, who WAS born there live in poverty in a land not my own? Why can I not return to the land of my birth? Do not say it is because we did not accept Israel, it is because Israel chose war and terror every time since before 1948 till now.

It is not up to you to check for my Jewishness. The 1948 war was fair play, and had the Jews lost, they'd find themselves in the Mediterranean rather quickly. I thought you knew there was always more than one truth.

No I am sure there will never be peace, like I am sure justice will never be given to the Palestinians, the only way is war, Israel will have to realize that we have as much right as she does for statehood, that is all there is to it.

So, you have the right to murder people until you get what you ask for? And you want to cooperate on an encyclopaedia article with that attitude? Joseph, you sound like a dangerous man who supports mass murdering Jews in Israel. You'll find previous few civilized people who think of that as an acceptable point of view in this era.
You have as much right as Israel for peaceful statehood alognside it. Nobody is denying that.

This article as far as it goes is far from objective or neutral, as a matter of fact it sucks. It is totally biased towards your side. I would like to make a new page called Palestine as seen from the Arab viewpoint, and you can have your side, we cannot agree, and all my work has been removed... It is not right, it sucks, and I am sick of it.

Joseph

I did not remove your work, it is still present in edited form and in history (in full form). Let me explain what you did: there was a page called Palestine months before I approached Wikipedia. It was subject of fierce disputes, and was eventually edited into a state which was equally bad for both sides, which resolved the disputes. For a while it experienced only minor changes (such as the elaboration on Areas A, B and C). Then you come and change it to reflect a fierce pro-Palestinian position. I changed it to a general pro-Israeli position. You then come and paste your old version over what I had written. Now that's bad, I get angry and do the same to you.
I am very sorry for my part in this flamewar, and in no way did I mean to scare you away from actually improving the article. You're new to Wikipedia and not used to the style of work here (avoid generalization and always state the side explicitly for disputed parties) - and I wasn't considerate enough. I apologize and I'd like to see you back. --Uriyan

Uriyan

OK I accept, and I am sorry too. I was pretty selfish and inconsiderate as well.You seem like a nice enough person, and I believe that perhaps we could work this out. It will take me some time to formulate a workable plan, with guidelines for us to follow, not only for this page, but for other contentious pages as well.

I am not really sure why there is this insistance on making the page called Palestine so one sided, when there is a page called Israel that should contain all this information anyway. I set a see also link for that page to this, and one for this page to the other. In all my library training I have never seen such a backwards way of representing an issue than the way it is represented now.

I am willing to work with you, but you have to promise that statements like:

"Until the 1960s, the Arabs living in Palestine did not desire self-determination."

will not be made, as it is false, and untrue. My Grandfather was put in jail in the late 1930's by the British, for protesting British policies, and in the rebelliion that followed. My father remembers the family going to see him in prison, he also remembers how much of a toll it took on his mother, my Grandmother.


this statement:

"There is a state of Jordan, you know. The problem with Arabs is that they never agreed to compromise anything less than 100% of Palestine."

again is false, we do not consider Jordan, our homeland, nor was it ever, the fact that Israeli propaganda for years has tried to make it seem that way is misleading. The fact that many Palestinians have been forced to live there, because of this conflict does not diminish their rightful claim to their homeland- Israel/Holy Land/Palestine- whatever.


The fact is that more than half of my fathers family, after 1967, ended up in Jordan. This does not mean that we did not live in the West Bank of Palestine before the 1967 conflict. In fact we were living in the French Hill area, if you know where that is, from 1948-1967. We (I should say my Grandfather and family came to settle there after the 1948 war, after coming back from Lebanon), as a matter of fact it was twice in a lifetime that my Granfather lost everything, and he never recovered. In all the years after 1967 he received assistance from some agencies, but mosttly from my father and his brothers, to get by, that is all. You should know that this is a small part of the conflict, so many people lost so much.

It is too late for my father and mother, they will never go back, peace or no peace. That leaves the last generation, me & my siblings (who were born there), in fact my third brother was born shortly after the 1967 war, under Israeli occupation, that makes him an Israeli Arab, no?

This statement:

"Arab perhaps, but not Palestinian."

again, why? why can you not accept the fact that there was/is/and always will be a Palestinian people? We have a very different culture than other Arabs, especially the Christians... Look up the unfinished article Palestine/Christian... My Great Grandfather received the Victoria Cross, spoke eight languages, received the Kaiser, and stayed in Buckingham Palace, at one time. You may not believe it, but it is true... There really was a whole culture, people, tradition, whatever called Palestinians, living there, like I said before, for Millenia.

You claim you want me to participate again, I am willing, but as an equal, and I want to see that these issues are addressed.

I never once denied the Jewish right to their homeland, or their state, but I do deny that right to put us down or try to change history, to suit the Zionist cause.

I will try to formulate some guidelines if you agree, but realize that Palestine is not Israel, the same way Austria is not Germany, or Canada is not the USA (no malice intended)

In any case, I look forward to your reply.

BTW: I am very busy three kids, very busy job, etc... But I will do my best to be active at this same time whenever possible. I want to edit the offending 'evil, evil man' remark about Ariel Sharon... as a sign of my goodwill, but I cannot seem to do it, it shows on the main page , but not the edit page? Do you know why? I do want to keep parts of the opposing views section, however. --

Joseph

Hi Joseph

I am thankful that you've agreed to resolve this matter peacefully. Perhaps to begin with, we should move disputed parts to here or to Palestine/Work in Progress and then work on it at the speed we'd like (I am often quite busy myself), according to a certain protocol that we agree upon. One thing that we should probably not do is to discuss the current political situation in the context of our work on this article; history goes from antiquity to modernity, not vice versa. Politics tend to upset people, and if too many emotions become involved on both our sides, this will definitely harm the article.

Now to the matter itself: I did not name the page Palestine (I did not write it, and the only thing I ever added to it was the description of the three Areas). The current geographical and political status should probably stay herein Palestine, while the history should perhaps be moved to another page (like History of Levant or History of Mandatory Palestine).

Both of us have made several far-going statements that are imprecise and/or ambiguous. So in order to repair the situation now, we should better discuss them at a Talk page, add the necessary detail and reservations and update the page with the new details to everyone's equal comfort (or discomfort).

As to my statements per se, I've never denied that there were Arab people in the area of Palestine for more than a thousand years, which developed as the time passed a distinct sub-culture (note that this alone did not make them a nation). The concept of Palestinian nationalism originated in the beginning of the 20th century, became known in the 1920s, but was shared by all of the Palestinian public only by the 1960s. So what I wanted to say was that only at that time did the Palestinian nation become consolidated an entity desiring joint statehood.

I mentioned the state of Jordan because you implied that the British ignored all their obligations to the Arabs; this is not so as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon was created specifically as a way to repay their supporters in the Arabian Revolt against the Turkish empire. As to the "100%", all partition plans proposed by the British and the U.N. (1936, 1939 and 1947) were rejected by the majority of the Arab leaders of that time, claiming that all of Palestine should be in their hands.

I agree to setting guidelines. One of the things I propose we should do is to disclose opinions. As the encyclopedia writer, we do not believe anything, we disclose what other people believe (and in tempered form). So "Ariel Sharon is an evil, evil man" should turn into "Many Arabs dislike Ariel Sharon for ...". The other thing I feel it's important to do is to maintain symmetry: do not claim just e.g. "The Palestinian people have claims to this land", but "Both Palestinians and Israelis have made claims to this land".

I think that our final goal should be presenting an article which is as neutral as possible and contains mostly historical facts with as little of our personal opinions as possible. Such an article won't be particularly flattering to either of our sides, but I think it will be the most acceptible solution for both of them at once. Uriyan

Uriyan
All of your comments sound positive enough, we will have to work through it, i agree to most of what you have indicated, like I said before, facts are facts, they cannot be changed. We should treat the content in an objective unbiased way, a seperate section for contentious issues I think is a good idea.
When I have more I will let you know.
Joseph
=================================================================================

Uriyan:

Why do we not work step by step on the article, starting with the intro.

Good idea, I bring my version with double indent

For example:

How about something like this for the introduction:

The area of what was once considered Palestine, today, comprises an area in the Middle East known in the area variously as Israel, the Holy Land, the occupied West bank, the Gaza strip, Israel proper, and a host of other geographic and topical names. There is no specific boundry or state, as such, in modern times.
Palestine (Arabic: Falastyn, Hebrew: Eretz Israel, "The Land of Israel"), an area in the Middle East. Palestine is bounded from the west by the Sinai peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea, from the east by Jordan river and the Arava valley, and from the north by the Lebanon mountains. (Perhaps a summary should be added here or below in the article as to the geographical division of Palestine, the animal/plant life, natural deposits etc.)


OK, not bad, but how about where you have 'Arava valley' also should we add the more common name of the 'Jordan Valley' as some people may not know what you mean by 'Arava valley' (if that is the name for the 'Jordan Valley'. We have to treat the material and content from the perspective that someone may not know much about it, so the intro. should be plain and easy to understand without complicated matter. Also 'Lebanon Mountains' I do not think is a very good geographic name, perhaps something like: from the north by the 'Sea of Gallilee', the 'Golan Heights', and the 'Bekaa Valley'. Also the correct Arabic would be 'EL Falastyn', also like 'EL Lebnan'. or 'EL Ourdan' (for Jordan). Always 'EL' for 'the' when describing a geographic area. As for the more detailed descriptions, (the animal/plant life, natural deposits etc.) I think that that should be later on in the article, prhaps under natural resources and animal plant life sections. The More general geographic explanation of the area, should be at the beginning with an explanation about how it may be considered in modern day terms (at least for the intro). So something like 'What was once considered Palestine is now:' or 'The general goegraphic area of what once was palestine is now modern day Israel (including the Occupied West Bank and Gaza)...' Whatever it is that sounds best, the point being that we should again explain in general terms, in terms that most people who may not understand or know much about it, could say oh that is what they mean by that.

As I said before later on in the article we could treat the subject in more detailed ways.

I have sort of an outline plan for the article:

Intro: Much of what we have with some refinement. (main points are that this is the area where the current conflict in the ME is raging, that two peoples have equal rights to this land (both had always lived there, even during the Diaspora of the Jews many stayed there, they never ever all left). Equally so that the Palestinians have also continously lived there.

Later on we break down the article into three main headings, as that is how most people would identify the history:

Heading 1: Pre-history or period up to the fall of the Ottoman Empire... Whatever we may agreee on. I kind of like 'History of Palestine up to the First World War' myself. There could also be a link saying something like 'See also Israel, or Ancient Israel, or the Levant'. As these are seperate topics, at the end of the first heading would allow the reader the chance to check into more history if they want or to read on to the next heading if they want.

Heading 2: could be from the End of the First World War to the end of the British Mandate. In this section we lay out the main conflict, various aggreements and statements, and the partition plan, all the dirty/conflicting stuff.

Heading 3: from 1948 (the establishment of the state of Israel) to present times. In this section we lay out the rest. We could also place here Arab/Palestinian views and Jewish/Israeli views on the conflict and subject.


In each of the 3 main sections we could add sub-sections explaining in more detail specifics on topical items like for example: the animal/plant life, natural deposits, customs, etc., specifcs to the time frame, and the people.

What do you think of that?

What is considered Israel (including the occupied territories and the Gaza strip) is considered by most historians as the actual physical area that was once the state called Palestine.
That's not really precise (Palestine has been a Mameluk and then Turkish province, never an independent state). Maybe the following is better:
Currently, the area of Palestine is divided between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Previously, Palestine was an administrative unit of the Roman Empire, Arab Khaliphate, Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Kingdom of Mameluks, the Turkish Empire and the British Empire, in roughly similar borders.
The Palestinians of today, are a people who are the direct decendants of all the people who have conquered , lived, and occupied this land. Palestinians are a people who comprise an Arab identity, and are usually, but not limited to, being Christian or Muslim. Their Christian identity can be traced from the time of the earliest Christians and Christianity. Muslim Palestinians, trace their conversion from about the 7th century A.D.
It should be noted and understood that in addition to the Palestinians, there was/is another people who have lived in this area without interuption from the beginning of time, these people are known variously as: Hebrews, Canaanonites [sp], Israelites, and Jews. These people throughout their long history and diaspora, have not only lived in the land of what was once known as Palestine, but other countries in the Middle East (Link here), as well.
There has always been a Jewish and Arab/Palestinian presence in this land.
I'd rather replace (and reorder) the three paragraphs above, so that it reads:
Two peoples are historically associated with the land of Palestine: these are the Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
The Palestinians (most of your text intact)
The Jews lived in this land since immemorable times. It was in this Palestine where they have written the Bible; they were expelled by the Romans in the 1st century A.D. Although most Jews were forced out of their land for thousands of years, they have never given up the hope of returning to it one day.


Palestine, is a name that was given to the Holy Land by the Romans during the period of the Roman ocupation of the region in 70 A.D. The name Palestine, derives from the biblical Philistines, who occupied the region of the southern coast of the land of Israel.
The name "Palestine" originates in Palestina, the name given to this land by Romans to replace the older Judaea following the Jewish revolt of A.D. 70. The name Palestine, derives from the Philistines, who, as the Bible says, occupied the southern Mediterranean coast of Israel. By the time of the renaming, the Philistines ceased to be a separate ethnic group, and the name was chosen specifically to opress the Jews.
The history of this part of the world, being the subject of a conflict that continues to this day, is heavily disputed; there are indeed few statements concerning its history which would be agreed with by both Israelis and Palestinians. This article attempts, however imperfectly, to present both sides equally and fairly.

That is the main part of what I would like to see, please note that links have not really been included yet. My suggestion would be that once we agree (if we can) on the intro. we add the links, and wherever we leave off, explain that the revision is on-going. I do not want to rewrite much of what was once a fairly accurate article, however, I want us (and others who have an interest)to agree on the content before we post. Let me know what you think, sorry it took so long for such a small revision, but I wanted to be sure it was unbiased. There can also be made mention through links, specific subjetcs on Israel, Jews, Palestinians, etc...

Remember that the intro. just should give a basic overview, of the subject, details can be added later on in the article.

Hoping this meets your expectations somewhat...

Your writing was very good. A point which I felt was important is the fact of Palestine's being a separate land (with distinct geographical/zoological/botanical features). This land was in most cases a single administrative unit, but it was never independent (since at least 50 B.C.). What do you think about it? --Uriyan

Joseph

=================================================================================

Thanks Uriyan for your patience and time (please see comments above) I feel that if we take our time, and work these things out, we could have a realy good article, that most people could understand and agree with. Also I feel that one of our main guidelines and principles should be, that we should look at the subject from these two points of view:

1) What is in the best interests of the reader, how would they look at it? How would they understand it? There is no point in placing material that only a Jewish or Palestinian scholar or person would know or understand. We should go from broad to specific...
2) What is the most current view? What is it, that is most commonly accepted as the facts for a certain chain of events or subjects. For example I have never heard of 'Arava Valley'. Sorry for my ignorance. But do you see where I am going with this, I want the article to encompass the subject from a distinctly matter of fact way. Later on at the end of a heading or subheading, you place a 'See Also link:' In the library world see also's are the way complicated subjects are handled, that way a novice or experienced user will both find what they need when doing research.

Waiting for your next reply, sorry it took so long.

Joseph

Well, first of all my first name is Uri, so you can call me that :-).

The points that you bring are important. I think that you're right in proposing to separate the pieces of information (indeed, perhaps the introduction should only say that "Palestine is a land situated at the northern part of East Mediterranean") and expand later on in the body of the article. So perhaps we should need yet another heading on "Geography of Palestine" or something of this sort.

The "Arava Valley" (translation/transliteration of Hebrew emeq ha-a'rava), is a wide valley that is a continuation of the Jordan Valley to the south. This was a bad choice of name (even though it's used in some English sources, most of the English public does not know the name). In general, I think that it's best to stick to the English names, as Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia.

P.S., please see my comments at Talk:Ariel Sharon. Uriyan

=================================================================================

Ok Uri, thanks for that, my friends sometimes call me Joe for short...

I have added some comments to Ariel Sharon Talk...

Also feel free to make changes to editorial style, however, not to specific content, I will work with you to make all issues on Israeli/Arab pages better, more professional, and easier to understand. I regret now, that I made unilateral changes earlier on when I first started some months ago.

Feel free to start the intro. for Palestine, keeping in mind points I have made, I will mention any problems in talk here after I review with you. I am working on some articles in my spare time specifically on the 1914-1948 and 1948-1967 period.

Thanks again for your help in this, it is turning into a lot of work.

Joseph

BTW: have you geard of Gush Shalom? I would like to add a page for them...

Hi Joseph,

I appreciate your cooperation a lot. I've started to write an intro which I think to be generally better than the existing one (geography rather than politics), but it'll probably take me some more days to post it. One thing that I don't feel comfortable, though, with the choice of name - I feel that e.g. Holy Land would be better. Palestine is a name alien to Jews, while "Holy Land" is relatively neutral. What do you think about it?

I've heard of Gush Shalom, they're one of the more radical peace movements here in Israel, led by Uri Avneri. You can find their site at http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/. Note however that most Israelis don't take them seriously, Peace Now is more popular (as far as I can tell, I'm not affiliated with them).

P.S. Thank you for your kind words at my Talk page. Uriyan

No it is not all right, the reason I got involved was because it was refered to as Palestine, but I see now that there is no room for the Palestinian position. Right now I am a bit upset perhaps I should not write, but Palestine is the name, if you want to create a 'Holy Land' page, create one, but I feel it is a wate of time, RK will come and dispute the whole article.
Why is there not allowed any mention of my point of view, the Palestinian point of view like:
=== There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine: ===
For all the invasions and changes in its rulers, the core of Palestine's population has been etthnically stable for millennia, posessing for the last thirteen hundred years a culture that has been unambiguously Arab.
Many popular images of the Zionist movement portray the land as desolate or empty of a vibrant people and culture. Golda Meir announced that they never existed as evidenced in this famous quote:
"There was no such thing as Palestinians...It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist."
This kind of propaganda could never have been really convincing outside Israel because so many people - travellers, merchants, missionaries, and soldiers - had actually seen the Palestinians and knew that they existed even if they did not know much about them.
There are now somewhere between 6.5 - 7 million Palestinians worldwide, some live as a minority in Israel proper, some live in the West Bank and Gaza portions of Palestine, most are refugees in many parts of the world (mainly the Middle East, Europe, and North and South America) living a life of diaspora, as displaced persons.
Few Palestinians have assimilated to their host countries. Most feel too strong, a sense of identity, with their Palestinian nationalism.
In 1948 Palestine ceased to exist politically, however, its people remain a vital and integral part of the land, known variously as: 'the Holy land', Israel, Palestine, etc. They remain Palestinians awaiting their political and national rights.
I know that it is a waste of time now, I will have to try to edit and fit my text the way I see fit, because the Palestinian views will never be allowed, only Zionist propaganda...
I am sorry URI, but if there is real change I will go back to cooperation otherwise, we do not agree, especially with RK
Joseph (March 6, 2002)

I removed the following disclaimed from the main entry. "The Palestinians dispute most of the contents of this article, as it represents mainly the view of a single side, that is one of Israeli Zionists." I removed this sentence for the following reason:

The Palestinian community is well known for disputing much of ancient and modern history regarding this subject. A great many Palestinians literally believe that much of history, ancient and present, is a hoax by "the Jews", or the Western powers of the world. In many Palestinian elementary schools, middle schools, high school, and Islamic seminaries, they teach that (a) The Biblical nation of Israel never existed, (b) The Jews really came from Yemen, (c) There really are no Jews; most "Jews" are really Kazars who are trying to steal Palestinian land; (d) There was no Temple in Jerusalem, ever, (e) There was never any Jewish presence in the land of Israel, ever, (f) The Holocaust didn't happen, of if many Jews did die, it was greatly exagerrated, (g) that "the Zionists" have a secret plan to rule the world. Among Palestinians these are not the views of a tiny number of extremists; these are fairly mainstream views. As such, it should not be surprising that some of them view everything in Wikipedia as distorted by "Zionists" (whom Palestinians erroneously believe to be monolithic.)

The question is, is there good reason to believe that a great amount of the current article is a lie, or distorted to the point of needing such a widespread disclaimer? I note that no other Wikpedia entries have such disclaimers. The Wikipedia community should just follow the standard Wikipedia editing protocol. If someone has a concrete reason for believing that a statement needs to be changed, put forth the new version, with valid historical references, and explain why. This shouldn't be a battleground accusing "the Zionists" of being liars. RK

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you the 'Racist' person came back...

I believe that people should base this article on verifiable history. How does this make me racist? Please stop spouting such claims. All you do with your attacks is show that you have no proof for your claims. I am sorry, but this isn't the Palestinian Authority, and you cannot use brute force to rewrite history. We value scholarship, not polemics. RK


Always you are so negative in your views on Arabs and Palestinians... The Zionist equivalent of the Holocaust denier, except you deny anything ever happenned bad to the Palestinians, we became refugees because we wanted to hugh... To hell with you...

You are incoherent. And your damnation of me does not further the discussion.

The article quite frankly sucks, it is biased, and shows no justice or decency to Palestinians or their continued suffering... You have a page for Israel, but that is not good enough, is it?

There IS an entry here for Palestine. Obviously, there is no entry for nation of Palestine, because none exists, and none ever has. Perhaos one will exist in the near future. In fact, that is a position I support (don't you?). But just because I would like such a state to exist in the future doesn't give me the right to falsify history books, and pretend that one has existed in the past. I am sorry that you are not able to understand this.


What does the Holocaust have to do with Palestine???? Nothing except for more propganda, when I add Palestinian content it is removed, to hell with you...

Joseph, it is a well known historical fact that the Holocaust was one of the seminal events in shaping the formation of the modern day State of Israel in a small part of the British Mandate of Palestine. (The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is now the other part of Palestine.) Your claims that these events have no connection is illegitimate historical revisionism. Until you can talk about this topic in a less angered tone, you will have nothing productive to add to this entry.


I was waiting to hear from URI, now I am not sure. Read what we wrote and discussed earlier in the sections above (that was myself (Joseph) and URI). We were trying, i think it is hopeless now... You will see we were working together, but I can see that any topics about my culture, or my people, or my heritage does not count... Only beloved Israel and the Jews, is that it?? No Palestinians ever lived there, none of us existed,, is that it??

Please dispense with the paranoia and self-pity. This is a work of scholarship, and not a project for anyone's personal self-esteem.

If you want to continue this way, fine, I will edit whenever I can and write the way I see fit, with no consideration to you or your ideas. You suck RK. Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Well, I am aware that you have been rewriting the material here (contributed by many people) with no consideration to historical truth or context. However, we in the Western world see such blatant propaganda as both rude and unscholarly. I hope that you get a better attitude in the near future. RK

Hello, Joseph

First of all, to maters of principle: in Wikipedia, we write encyclopedia articles that are objective and neutral. There should be only one article for each subject; that's why you can't claim "you have the article about Israel to spill your truth on". There can be only one article covering the history of Mandatory Palestine, and if we beleive there are several versions of these facts - they should all be combined into that article. That is the reason why I chose to cooperate with you - but I can do it only if you recognize that there's more than one "truth".

Secondly, as to the choice of name. You would most certainly be offended if I created an article called "Eretz Israel" (or "Land of Israel"), because it is a name alien to you and your people. In the same manner, Palestine is a name alien to me and my people. "Holy Land" is a compromise, and while it is not the way we both usually call this land, it would offend noone.

Thirdly, as to the part of the article that we've been debating (it has a heading beginning with the words "There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine"), it uses 6 paragraphs to explain 3 points:

  1. Palestine has been ethnically stable for millenia.
  2. Zionists are liars
  3. There are 6.5-7 million Palestinians worldwide

Point #3 is factual and could be integrated into an article (e.g. Palestinian). Point #1 is very vague - how does one define "ethnically stable"? In the millennial range, the only thing that I could say is that the region is occupied by Semites (Jews included), and you don't bring any facts to explain yourself further. As to Point #2, you skipped the part of proving that the land wasn't desolate, and rather switch to "uncovering the Zionist propaganda". Note that I'm not taking a position in this argument - it's irrelevant whether it was or was not desolate, but you need proof no matter what you try to prove! Because you prefer to make far-going statements that offend many people yet do not bring any relevant facts, this fragment is a piece of Palestinian propaganda in its own right, and as such unacceptable to an encyclopedia.

If I were writing this fragment, I would first provide information about the ethnical build-up of population and the land's economical life throughout the history (which is factual). Then I would write a paragraph about the Palestinian people's struggle for national liberation (which is also factual). And only in the section titled "Commentary" I would provide my thoughts about propaganda (which are an opinion).

You ask "What does the Holocaust have to do with Palestine?", and I answer: the Holocaust was a major event in the Jewish world, which changed the way Jews treat Zionism. You cannot separate the Holy Land from the rest of the world, and you cannot separate it from the Jews, for whom it is as much a homeland as for you.

If you recognize that there's more than one view of the truth, and that not all people must accept yours(this is particularly important in Wikipedia, which is a tool for education), I will protect your right to state your view as such. But if you deny the other people's right to state their opinions, in the same way as you state yours, you will only be pushing your own, subjective, view of the things, and I will have to resist that. The choice is in your hands. Uriyan

You should know by now that I will always listen to a reasonable point of view...
I could give you facts and figures, researched, etc... All that would do is cause more controversy. I will watch and listen, provide comments when needed, and hope the article improves. I see some positive work, I added comments below.
Uri, if I can still call you that, I consider your work to be OK, not perfect, like mine is not, however, you have listened, and for that I thank you.
Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Part of the problem is that Palestine has several different meanings: geographical, historical, political, etc., each of which has different connotations for the people involved in the conflict. Furthermore, the definitions are so intertwined that no one has, as yet, succeeded in untangling them (and I mean politicians, journalists, historians, etc., and not just Wikipedians). Here then, is my attempt. If people think that this this is more or less the right direction, I will continue with Geography, then History, then People. Danny

Thank you Danny, if it was you that made these changes...

I think it is written with good direction, and the tone is respectful to all. It may not be all that everyone wants, but the point is: that this is a land that both sides (Arabs & Jews)call home, and I should also add that that there are other national groups, including Armenians, that live there, and also call this land their home.

Armenians do not consider this land to be their homeland.

It seems good to me, although Uriyan still has to speak, as well, as we will hear, I am sure from RK, who ever that is. I can live with what is there, all I wanted to make sure of at the most basic level was that there were/are and always will be a people called Palestinians, who have lived there at least (the minimum) 1300 years.

Again, your claims are wrong, and provably so. There is zero historical evidence to support your extreme claim. Arab, British and UN historical documents prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was no such thing as an Arab Palestinian nationality before the 20th century. Are you claiming that all Arab documents of that time period are also "Zionist lies"? Honestly, Joseph, we cannot buy into your conspiracy theories. It is your continued insistence on myth-making and PLO propaganda that we object to, because it is not based on objective verifiable history. RK

The politics should cover the past, in an objective unbiased way. Thanks, you have done a good job with the intro., though it looks similar to what Uriyan was proposing. I for one appreciate it.

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Thanks, Joseph. There will inevitably be disputes and conflicting national narratives, however, I do think we can get something together here that will meet everyone's de facto approval. Most of all, I'm pleased that we can all work together on this. Maasalaam Danny


Mister RK:

I could search the libraries here and find source material for you, I could also give you ISBN #'s of books, names of authors, etc, etc, etc... You will never believe them, you do not even listen to any points that I make.


The problem, Joseph, is that you do not make any points. You just shout that everyone in the entire world is a "Zionist liar", and that you nad only you have "the truth". Your lack of methodology indicates that you are basing your facts on emotional outburts, rather than historical documentation.

Whatever, I put up some entries earlier for URI to check out, also I suggested some new publications, one in particular called Culturgrams [sp]... I suggest you read these, and learn the truth, the real truth.

Ah, so this one website is "the real truth", but all the history books that I and others have referred to are all lies? You need to learn that a quote from a website means nothing in historical debate. Anyone can write anything on a website. I can even show you many, many websites that "prove" that the world is flat. Does this constitute valid scientific or historical truth? No. RK

I am not interested in pleasing you, all I want is a fair accurate article, one that is objective, and unbiased... I may not be that knowledgeable, nor do I know many fancy computer tricks, but I can learn and I try.

Huh? I fail to understand what your (or my) knowledge level about computers has to do with constructing an accurate study of this topic.

I had no assistance from anyone in furthering my education. We came to this country as refugees from a war that was started by Israel, I know, it was not Israel's fault right... They had to attack right, I know the story, more lies, I was there as a child, and I remember, believe me...

Please, re-read the emotional outburst you just made. Dispense with the paranoia and self-pity. As long as you are controlled by your rage, you will not be able to work with history-minded individuals in a productive fashion.

You can say what you want, you can do what you want, but leave me alone... I will listen and address those that address me, as is appropriate. One more thing please, post at the bottom, I find it hard to follow where you post comments now, and also find it confusing. I know the truth about Palestine, and until it is posted I will not be content or quiet.

Again, Joseph, no one in the world accepts that your claims are true, because you repeatedly shout that you "know the truth". History books are not written by those who shout the loudest, or by those who hate Jews the most. You need to be objective, that' all we are asking. RK

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

To RK, I am curious as to whether my attempt at making the introduction to the piece NPOV was satisfactory to you.

Seems fine to me. RK

To Joseph, Part of the problem here is that there are competing "truths." It is therefore inevitable that one person's "facts" will conflict with anothers.

To both of you, It seems that you are trying to use this piece to come to some resolution of a long-standing conflict. That ain't gonna happen. Instead of talking at each other, it would probably be best to talk to each other and discover the common ground (bad pun!) that you do have.

To everyone else, Looking over some of the arguments that were raised above, I had a good laugh. The only thing that really surprised me was that no one started quoting Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad or arguing whether Isaac or Ishmael was placed by Abraham on the altar. The question here is not who is right and who is wrong, but what historical text can be placed in this article that will be satisfactory to most people.

I agree. However, it looks to me like many historical texts alluded to or quoted are already considered by some as "Zionist lies", which I take to be an ad homenim against most Jewish people. If there is genuine historical reason to cast suspicion on a document, that's fine by me. Sometimes such suspicion is genuinely warrented. But there needs to be solid grounds for doing so, and not just a general suspicion that "the Jews" control the publication of most of the world's books. RK

Finally, to Michael Tinkler, a bit on the nomenclature. Philistine - Palestine - Falastyn are actually a lot more similar than they seem. In Hebrew, P and F are interchangeable. They are written with the same letter, which is used as an explosive (P) or a fricative (F) depending on its position in the word. Add to this the fact that the Hebrew and Arabic alphabet do not have vowels, so people actually make an educated guess as to how the word should be read. In effect, all three words can be written the same way (though modern Hebrew has found ways of distinguishing between all three).

No one name has ever really been applied to the country. In biblical times, areas were simply named after the mythical ancestor of the tribe that inhabitated the region or the nearest city, and this convention survived well into modern times. There was a tribe of Judah and an eponymous territory, along with Benjamin, Zebulon, Ephraim, etc., for a people that simply called itself Children of Israel (itself a name for Jacob--House of Jacob also appears in the Bible). It could also be called Canaan after a legendary descendant of Noah's son Ham, who was believed to be the forefather of the indigenous peoples. In the article, I spoke briefly about how the Romans renamed the country Palestine after the Philistines. That word originates with the Semitic root P/L/Sh, meaning invader. In fact, it concurs with modern theories that the original Philistines of the Bible invaded the country from the Greek islands shortly before the Israelite invasion.

Sounds like a very accurate description to me. RK

While the Roman name survived in Latin literature, most Christian texts simply called the country the Holy Land (Terra Sancta). This was unacceptable to the Muslims, for whom the foremost holy sites, Mecca and Medina, were located in Arabia. They simply referred to the different regions of the country by the names of nearby cities (interestingly enough, though, they followed the Christian convention in Jerusalem, which they renamed al-Quds, "the Holy"). The Crusaders followed this method by naming their kingdoms Jerusalem, Edessa, etc. It was only in the past 150 years, when Europeans began taking an academic interest in the country, that an "unbiased name" was sought to refer to the geopolitical entity. While some (for instance Kenyon) continued to refer to as the Holy Land, Palestine gradually came back into vogue and was adopted by the local Arab population, albeit with their own pronounciation.

(By the way, as an example of Arab prononciation coming into vogue, it is interesting to consider the West Bank city of Nablus. In biblical times, this was the city of Shechem, which was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. Because Arabic lacks the P sound (Falastyn, rather than Palastyn), the name became Neabolis, which eventually evolved into Nablus.

The Jews considered several options for their new state-in the-making, including Zion and Judea. Judea, however, referred to a specific region of the country south of Jerusalem, while Zion is actually a hill in Jerusalem. The name Israel was chosen to serve as a link with the past and encompass all Jews as the "Children of Israel." Meanwhile, the Palestinians kept the name introduced by the Europeans.

Finally, I think it is one of the little ironies of history that the Romans changed the name of the province they conquered from Judea to Palestine. If they hadn't, the struggle for political hegemony would be between the Jews and the Judeans, and in Hebrew and Arabic both words are identical. Danny

You are right, and the only reason I got involved was that a library journal I was reading mentioned Wikipedia and Nupedia some time last year... When I naturally did a search for Palestine, what I found was clearly unacceptable, nor unbiased, nor objective. I thought it needed improving, so I jumped in and wrote, that was not the best solution, but I was really upset the first time I read the article and the blatant attempt to change history.

I appreciate your attempts at correcting the article.

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Mister/Miss RK:

You seem to be the one who rants and raves, all the time...

Again you did not read my message correctly, oh well, perhaps you never will, whatever...

I said earlier that "Whatever, I put up some entries earlier for URI to check out"

which means Uri as in Uriyan, not URL

Here are some of the authors and titles I asked him to check out, you as well, if you want to see the other side:

The Encyclopedia of the Palestinian People by Issa Nakhleh

Encyclopedia of the Palestinians - edited by Philip Mattar

The Arab-Israeli dispute by Don Peretz

Beseiged bedfellows: Israel and the land of Apartheid by Benjamin A. Joseph

Creating Facts: Israel. Palestinians, and the West Bank by Geoffrey Aronson

The Intifada: causes and effects by Aryeh Shalev

Resignation or revolt?: socio-political development and the challenges of peace in Palestine by Cristopher Parker

The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

All that remains: The Palestinian villages occupied & depopulated by Israel in 1948 By Muhammad A. Khalidi

Before their Diaspora: A photographic history of the Palestinians, 1876-1948 By Walid Khalid

The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs By Ahron Bregman and Jihan El-Tahri

Also there are these:

Whose Promised Land? By Colin Chapman

The Middle East Conflict: From 1945 to the present (a bit dated only goes to 1982, but still relevant)

The Origins of the the Arab Israeli Wars By Ritchie Ovendale

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East

Culturegrams [sp] new, published by Gale group.

Read, then talk

Finally I ask you have you ever been there??

Were you born there??

Did you lose family there??

Unless you are there, you canot say what goes on.

I say I know because I was there, I saw, and I will never forget...

Believe me the truth will come out one day, I may not see it, but my children will bear witness, and if not them their children will...

Justice will come, it may take a long time however...And many more lives, tragically...

Now do two things:

1) Leave me alone...

2) Address all inquiries at the bottom. I hate the indents...

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Hello, Joseph

First of all, I'd like to propose to divide this (rather large) article into several parts:

I understand your desire to promote your view above all others, but Wikipedia was not designed for this purpose. In the articles themselves, you must stick only to facts and truths, which must be objective. You can spill your own feelings at a section named "Commentary", however. See Neutral Point of View for explanation why this is necessary. On my behalf, I can do the same with statements regarding Israeli positions.

As to books, not everything that is written in books is true. So you can't just write Chomsky's opinions in the body of the article and claim them to be objective facts. However you can refer to facts from whatever source you like, provided that you mention the source in the case that the fact is not common knowledge, and you can refer to opinions provided that you disclaim whose opinion it is (e.g. "Noam Chomsky believes that ..."). And of course in the case that you make a far-going statement that happens to offend a lot of people (e.g. "Zionists are liars"), you'd better provide a lot of solid facts to prove your point. --Uriyan

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_(region)&oldid=24811"