![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
ZERO thinks maybe Haj Amin el Husseini did not lead the riots of the 20's and 30's. However, I can find articles on history like this one (with Bibliography and Notes) which say that he did?
http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/bh4145.php
"The Mufti instigated and organized Muslim riots against Palestinian Jews in 1920,1921,1929,and 1936,which resulted in hundreds of deaths."--from the article written by Carl K. Savich.
Savich is a graduate student in the History Department at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He received his BA from the University of Michigan. He has been a contributor to Ancient Serbia (Stara Srbija), The Voice of Ravanica, Liberty (Sloboda), The American Srbobran, The Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, The Macomb Daily, Foreign Policy, and The Oakland Post. He has a journalistic, academic, and legal background and is currently on the staffs of Liberty (Sloboda) and The Oakland Post newspapers, of which he is an editor. His areas of interest and expertise are history, political science, and law.
My thoughts:
1. The 1929 riots, it seems, were rather spontaneous. Less an organized thing than a spontaneous spurt of violence, somewhat like the pogroms of the Middle Ages.
2. The 1936-39 riots, on the other hand, seem to have been a very organized and directed campaign. Chances are, the Mufti and the Arab High Committee were behind them, aided and abetted by the Germans. (No evidence on the German bit, but it seems likely.) In fact, I would go so far as to say the situation was stirred up by the Germans in the beginning, with the Mufti as a Nazi puppet. - Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is giving me warnings about the size, calling it at least 64k. We should probably split the page into 3, archiving the first. - Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, it looks decent.
Re van Crevald's book: It actually stops with the late 80s, not the late 90s.
- Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One Voice, who are you kidding? Do you know the history of the Notrim, HaShomer, and other self-defense organizations that emerged during Ottoman times? Danny 13:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Danny, I do know the names. Faisal was an established Arab authority. Would you characterize the actions taken prior as Arab policy (which authority) or as brigandtry by individuals and groups. How do we include both aspects in the historical overview. It currently is a black-and-white depiction of a multi-shaded history. OneVoice 13:53, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He was a foreigner from the Hejaz. The fact that he was appointed by the British to be king of Syria and then Iraq does not make him a legitimate spokesperson for the falahin who actually lived in Palestine, any more than the feudal landowners in Damascus and Beirut could legitimately sell their "tenants" land. Danny 14:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are at least two issues here. The easier one is ownership. Ownership is either established by force or in civilized societies by legal means. Ownership allows one to use, rent, or sell ones possession. The renters do not have to agree. It may not be fair, moral or preferable, but it is legal. The opinion, desires etc of the tenants does not have legal standing. If you are arguing for abrogation of the legal system, that would be a different matter.
The other issue is the status of Faisal as a leader vis a vis other Arabs. This is certainly a more difficult issue and one that plagues Arab states to this day...the lack of representative government that works for the population as is common in the West. A much more involved issue. OneVoice 15:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A very minor point. The article appears not to be grammatically correct in some respects, e.g., "Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war" -- Why isn't it "houses"? P0M
"Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war, as Israel intended to expand its territory beyond that mandated by the U.N" -- Let me see if I get this right:
So, Zero claims my contributions are excessively propagandistic, and Dissident that they are pro-Israeli propaganda. Let us go through this point-by-point:
-- 128.139.226.34 08:38, 21 May 2004
I am away from home and can only offer a brief comment. The edits made by anon represent the mainstream Israeli historiography and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Some highlights:
-- Zero 13:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
The comments by
Zero represent Arab historiography, on occasions not even mainstream, but excessively revisionist, and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Point by point:
-- 128.139.226.34 07:38, 23 May 2004
Let's not turn this conflict between 2 sides into a world war, other wise rename the article. Q: Why are the Marxists so important? A: because today they reflect mostly anti-Israel POV, therefore should be put into anti-Israel camp. Everything else about their beliefs is irrelevant. Following this stance, Marxists believe that Zionism is a form of colonialism -- who cares? What do the other groups in the title of this section beleive? The text about single state also doesn't belong to this article. Proposals for a Palestinian state perhaps. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 06:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
"Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in most of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against." Prove it. Even offhand, I can add Mauritania, Somalia, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain to Morocco and Tunisia, if only because many of them have never had any to discriminate against. In any event, the burden of proof for such a statement is on the one making it. - Mustafaa 23:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
i m egyptian, havent met an egyptian jew yet. i know there are synagogues here. they are under heavy guard to protect them from terrorist attacks coz as far as i know, there are six (6) jews in egypt, mostly in alexandria. and as citizens of egypt they and they property must be protected even to heavy costs by the state which is paid for by the other religions of egypt; Islam and Christianity.
please give proof. thanks
--
Mohammed Arafa 10:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that it is forbidden for Jews to buy, sell, or own property in Jordan and Jordan is largely considered on of the mroe moderate countries in the region. Iraq would be another example of another country you don't want to be a jew in, along with Syria, Iran, Libya, and Lebanon. I'm no expert, but these are the one's I can think of offhand - G
'More than half' does not contradict '60%'. Fafo speaks of 44% refugees, I can imagine that not all Palestinians fall into this category. The last link is broken. The following links claim 60% or more: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
There are plenty of sources giving lower figures, and some giving higher figures. I think the problem is that there is no agreement on the definitions, especially of who is a Palestinian, also of whether to count Palestinians who are eligible for Jordanian citizenship but didn't officially take it up, and importantly because the Jordanian government regards the issue as sensitive enough to suppress the necessary details from the Jordanian censuses. So people employ various guessing methods. My suggestion is that we quote an academic source on this question. In "The Palestinian-Transjordanian Rift: Economic Might and Political Power in Jordan" by Yitzhak Reiter, The Middle East Journal. Vol. 58, 2004; pg. 72-92:
"The rate of the Palestinian population in Jordan is a controversial and debatable issue in Jordan since figures broken out by ethnic denomination have never officially been published. The estimates vary between 38-83% according to the estimator's extraction. Most scholars in the field estimate the Palestinians as constituting between 50-60% of the Jordanian population."
Can we agree on that? --
Zero 15:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have just read this article. When it says "Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings." it seems to be saying that Israel is pressuring Arafat to fire the moderates who speak out against Suicide Bombings. Am I mistaken in my reading?-- Josiah 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct in your reading, Josiah. The PLO is under tremendous pressure from the Israelis and also from 'extremist' internal groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas and paradoxically the pressure is making Arafat make the government more hardline, as there is no political gain in the current situation for Arafat to have doves in his administration and if he has hardliners, they can at the very least put on a strong face against all their opponents. Dissention among high-level leadership just looks bad and isn't tolerated in Israel nor in Palestine. Hauser 21:56 3 August 2004 (NZEST)
I uploaded a few pictures which are available here under free licences (GFDL and CC-BY-SA). Feel free to ask. Yann 15:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
HistoryBuffer, I haven't made any edits on this page except for minor grammar stuff, so it can't be my "propaganda". Please bring proposed changes to Talk: Jayjg 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV).
You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Jayjg you are way out of bounds. You have repeatedly removed "Disputed" notice from article which has been clearly disputed by many.
And Jayjg, who do you think you are to dictate to others to obtain your permission first?
Jayjg is well known as a persistent Zionist Denier of Palestine and occupation, and pretty much any fact which is unfavorable to Israel.
But, by repeatedly denying even that a dispute over his propaganda articles exists, Jayjg has reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your sick cause.
HistoryBuffEr 22:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
"Most Palestinian groups in opposition to PLO have declared that the only long term solution to the Middle East conflict is the elimination of the state of Israel." I dispute this characterization. What is the source? This is just more Zionist propaganda, "They want to throw us in the sea!" BS. How many Palestinian groups collaborate with Israeli groups like Peace Now and Naturei Karta for a peaceful reform in Israeli policies compared to the number advocating the total dismantling of the racist Jewish state? Alberuni 23:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The world war between international Islamists seeking to expel Israeli and American occupation of the Middle East is an extension of the Arab Israeli conflict. Netanyahu recently claimed on US TV that Israel's war is now America's war. "It is a war between civilization and those who would like to see a return to the medieval ages. They're nuts. It's not going to happen and we have to stop them." The 9/11 attacks were in retaliation for US support of the racist Jewish state, its occupation of palestine and oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the occupation of military bases in Saudi Arabia to contain and siege strangling Iraq. The War on Terror is intended to crush militant opposition to US and Israeli hegemony over Palestine and Mideast oil supplies. I dispute Jayjg's pro-Israeli POV on edits to this page. Alberuni 23:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By Ori Nir October 8, 2004
WASHINGTON — With their countries mounting parallel military offensives against terrorist strongholds in Iraq and Gaza, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a high-powered White House meeting Monday.
Moments after the talks, reporters asked Netanyahu if Rice had urged Israel to demonstrate restraint during its operation in Gaza. The Israeli leader lifted his index finger and replied with satisfaction: "Not in one word."
The meeting appeared to back up the assertion by Israeli and American officials that the White House essentially endorses the current offensive in Gaza. This view appeared to gain credence Tuesday, when America exercised its veto at the United Nations Security Council to defeat a resolution condemning Israel's actions in Gaza..
According to this view, the Bush administration has concluded that America has a significant interest in ensuring that an Israeli pullout from Gaza is not perceived in the Arab world as a victory for terrorist groups. The fear is that such a perception would embolden the forces targeting American soldiers in Iraq.
The Forward has learned that, in both military and political circles, Israeli and American officials recently have discussed the issue and concluded that the best course is for Israel to conduct punishing military operations against terrorists and their infrastructure as it withdraws from Gaza."
The article intro states "Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world. Animosity emanating from this conflict has caused numerous attacks on supporters (or perceived supporters) of one side by supporters of the other side in many countries around the world." The Arab-Israeli conflict clearly involves the USA and combatants beyond the Arab world, and even beyond 9/11, including Iran, Afghanistan, Europeans who attack Israeli interests, Islamists attacking US and allied interests in Africa and Asia, and American Muslims who are in prison for supporting groups opposed to Israel, etc. It is important to document the link between the Arab-israeli conflict and the world war against "terrorism"; which, of course, is why you insist on censoring it. Instead of constantly butting your head against the revert button like it's the Wailing Wall, why don't you "improve" it with your usual Zionist POV slant? Alberuni 03:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi. can we change:
"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy by Israeli forces, was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."
to:
"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy, by Israeli forces was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."
This change does not alter the content of the article in any way. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello,
I am coming from a disinterested point of view. I know almost nothing about this conflict, other than it is highly controversial and it's been going on for a while. I would ask for people's patience with the following questions, as I am but an ignorant fool on this issue. I also know that as this is such a "hot" issue some (possibly) may take offense at my questioning. For those people, I do not mean to take offence. Now that my disclaimer is given: for my own understanding, could I have some clarifications for some parts of the article?
Under the section "Reasons for the Conflict":
Many experts in Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims. Although the countries surrounding Israel have secular governments (including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon), Israelis claim that these ideas still prosper on the basis of nationalism, much like the anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe.
According to Islam, Jews and Christians and other non-muslims must accept the status of dhimmis if they want to live with Muslims. Islamic law allows Muslims to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands who refuse to accept this status. Moreover, this status was upheld numerous times by Islamic scholars and implemented by Islamic rulers. Some Muslims declare, however, that this image is created falsely by passages that are taken out of context. (See Talk page).
At stake is the very existence of the state of Israel. Israelis regard many of the Arab criticisms against the state of Israel as threats to the state's existence, and point out that against the multitude and power of the Arab states, there is only one Jewish state, which, as they feel, should behave vigilantly, and in particular never give up if bullied.
Liberal Israelis oppose settlements, believing that they thwart peace efforts. However, most Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war, and believe that disputes over land do not justify terrorism and mass-murder, but rather need to have politically negotiated solutions. This view is regarded as a farce by Palestinians as Israel's leadership continues to reject recent offers of peace and continues to build settlements on Palestinian land.
Some Israelis fear the consequences if they decide, or are eventually forced, to dismantle settlements. Some settlers may resist by force, creating a risk even of civil war. When Israel withdrew from settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in the early 1980s, moderate clashes between the Israeli Defense Forces and settlers occurred. Those settlers amounted to but a tiny fraction of the settler population in the West Bank. A recent survey by Peace Now indicated about two thirds of the settlers would comply with an order to evacuate, if issued democratically by the government.
Palestinians feel that the Jewish state of Israel was established under conditions that were deeply unfair to them. Some Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state as such, but all Palestinians feel that it should not have been established at their expense. They argue that after World War II - and, indeed, after World War I - the world allowed a state for Jewish people in Palestine to be made without much concern for the existing Arab population. Many Palestinians were forcibly expelled from Jewish-controlled areas before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (see Palestinian exodus.) Those who remained in Israel face some discrimination. Palestinians claim that they are denied many job opportunities, as many jobs require previous military service, and only Jews and some other groups, such as Druze and Bedouins, can serve in the IDF.
Palestinians cite many reasons for the lack of support of their cause in the Western world. One such reason is racism; while stereotyping of many other groups is no longer rampant, Muslims and in particular Arabs continue to be victimized by crude attacks.
Palestinians claim that they have International law on their side. To take a few examples, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 calls for refugees wishing to live in peace with their neighbors to be allowed to return to their homes, or to receive compensation if the don't wish to return. UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the Six-Day War. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power from settling an occupied territory with its own population. General Assembly Resolution 446 has declared that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal. However, there are doubts as to whether the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel, and the preservation of a "just and lasting peace" in the region.
In 2002, Saudi Arabia offered a peace plan in the New York Times, as if it were an original idea. The UN's resolutions call for withdrawal from occupied territories in addition to full recognition of Israel by the whole Arab world. This proposal was backed by some in the Arab World, but the Israeli government rejected this proposal. The same proposal also got criticsm from other Arabs. Therefore, it fell to the wayside.
Many Arabs deny that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today. They hold that events that happened thousands of years ago do not justify evicting the Palestinians from what they see as their homeland.
Some Arabs maintain that there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine, in itself, any more than there is with Jewish immigration into any other part of the world. But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state. Most Arabs maintain that Israel's settlement policy is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a violation of international law. Thus they claim, because of its expansion of settlements, Israel has the majority of responsibility for the failure of the peace process.
Moderate Palestinians realize that their cause may be thwarted by extremists within their own ranks; an issue that is mirrored in the Israeli camp. Many view the conflict as essentially extremist vs. moderate, as opposed to Israeli vs. Palestinian. Pro-Israeli advocates often assert that two sets of views exist from the same speaker, with a tolerant view usually expressed in English, and an anti-peace view usually expressed in Arabic, with pro-Arab advocates making similar charges. Palestinians do not deny that they would have preferred that modern Israel had never been created. However, they accept its existence today and call merely for a state of their own.
Today, many Palestinians realize that an equitable arrangement for all involved parties requires dialogue with both the Israeli side and the international community. Some in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing prior to the Six-Day War. However, representatives of the PLO (and in particular Yasser Arafat himself), have also declared at times that they intended these statements as purely political steps, and that ultimately the peace process with Israel is only a temporary measure; they say that their ultimate goal is still the destruction of the state of Israel. In support of their claims, the PLO never updated its formal statement of policy, the Palestinian National Covenant to reflect their recognition of the State of Israel; it still calls for the destruction of Israel. Although Arab representatives often deny these declarations, they cause great concern among the Israeli public.
Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution. They hold that terrorist killings of Israeli civilians are counterproductive, and some even consider it morally wrong. Unfortunately they seldom occupy a position of importance in the Palestinian Authority (PA). Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings. Thus, their voices are unheard over the Palestinian street's overwhelming support for suicide bombings - at 60%, according to recent polls. However, support for Hamas was consistently below 10% prior to the al-Aqsa Intifada. The ongoing standoff has hardened views on both sides.
In accordance with their peoples' opinions, some Palestinian and Arab leaders from around the world, have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Some Arab and Muslim countries, as well as groups like Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad disagree with any form of peace process, and hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just. The relationship between the PLO and Hamas seems to signify that the PLO itself does not oppose this attitude.
Many Arabs declare the Israeli government is not automatically responsible for the crimes of individual Israelis (ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis). They claim that the same standard should be applied to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians further feel that the world should also react against the silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the daily humiliation this leads to for the Palestinian population. Israel, however, claims that this does little to explain why the Palestinian Authority has not arrested a single Hamas official of importance since 2000, although they did arrest many prior to that.
Many Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism. Many Arabs believe Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinian people, worse than that practiced by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of colonialism. Israelis reply that this claim is hypocritical, since Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in some of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against. Palestinians hold that the existence of other Arab nations is irrelevant; they want to have the land they owned back, rather than being forced to throw themselves on others' charity in foreign countries. Probably 50%-60% of Jordanian population is ethnically Palestinian (former refugees and their descendants; estimates vary widely) but the country is ruled by the native Hashemite Bedouin family. In the 1970s, the PLO attempted to launch a coup against the Jordanian monarchy, which led to death of some 20,000 Palestinians and the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan.
The evidence is provided in the stated motives for the 9/11 attack (to liberate Palestine from the Zionist Crusader alliance) and in the US motives to attack Iraq in order to "protect our friends in the Middle East" i.e. Israel who Saddam Hussein threatened. -- Alberuni 05:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Guys! Timeout! Could we bring this back to the article please? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evidence that the 9/11 attacks and Iraq war are directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:
" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission. [13]
"In the video, bin Laden said he decided to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1982 after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which he claimed was backed by the U.S. Navy. "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same" he says, "and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children." He underscored it was U.S. foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks, saying, "Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'" " [14]
" "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said. .... "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said. [15]
It is the emotions generated by this long cycle of shuttle diplomacy - of expectations raised and hopes dashed - that ordinary Arabs talk about when they say they understand why Al Qaeda terrorists hate the US. It is a hatred that Osama bin Laden expresses in fierce terms. His videotaped statement of Oct. 7 ends with these words: "Neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine." Translation: The US will be subject to terrorist attacks as long as it allies itself with Israel. Indeed, the danger might continue as long as Israel exists.... Still, events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath have focused Americans' attention on their nation's ties with Israel to a degree not seen since the Arab oil embargo of 1973. "The American public is now waking up to the cost of the relationship with Israel," says Professor Lukacs. "This is a question that has never been addressed in the past." [16]
War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group. WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. [17].
It is very clear that the 9/11 attacks and War on Iraq are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the US alliance with Israel. The relationship is a significant well-documented issue that deserves inclusion in the article. It is not a "conspiracy theory" to be dismissed as our house Zionists are claiming so that they can continue to promote their one-sided propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Alberuni 22:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts Alberuni, will you go for 5? You've been pretty consistent in violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule recently, I'm wondering if you'll stay true to form. Jayjg 21:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Guys, hash it out on the talk page. I'm protecting till I see some consensus here. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be interesting to include
in the external links.
Alberuni, I hope you don't mind if I respond to some of the points you made about September 11 being an extension of the Arab-Israel conflict. I don't believe the Arab-Israel conflict had anything to do with that, and here's my reasoning:
The main mileposts on the road to September 11 were: (a) the millions directed to bin Laden and other Islamist groups by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, which made the Islamist movement powerful; (b) the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam and the subsequent stationing in Saudi Arabia of American troops because of that; (c) the further growth in Islamist ideology caused by Americans desecrating (as they saw it) the keeper of the holy places; and (d) the American support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, which are regarded by the Islamists as puppet regimes.
There's no evidence that the issue of Palestine has been anything other than a powerful rallying cry for the Islamists, just as the economic sanctions against Iraq turned that country into a rallying cry too, even though the Islamists hated Saddam. These issues are flags that people wave. But the flags are not the underlying causes of the Islamist war with America.
An excellent book on this subject is Unholy Wars by John K. Cooley, a former ABC News Middle East correspondent. He traces the entire relationship between America and Islamism, and the consequences of it, right up to September 11. He calls it "a strange love affair which went disastrously wrong: an alliance, during the second half of the twentieth century, between the United States of America and some of the most conservative and fanatical followers of Islam." He traces how this relationship stemmed from the start of the American-Soviet Cold War in 1946 and President Truman's perception that the Soviet Union was the principle threat to American interests; and how during the 50s and 60s, the adminstrations of four further U.S. presidents (Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon) were faced with finding a way to defend American interests against the Soviets in the Middle East and South Asia.
The question was asked: Who is the principle enemy of our enemy, communism? And the answer was that the Muslim religion, which was fundamentally anti-communist, could be "harnessed as a mighty force to oppose Moscow in the Cold War," as Cooley puts it. Cooley traces how that "harnessing" took place: how the Islamists were used to fight America's proxy wars; how and why the relationship broke down; and how that led to September 11, 2001. Although the state of Israel was something America did want to protect, all of the above would have happened even if Israel had not existed. This was a war between the world's two great superpowers, a battle left over from the Second World War, with Islamists used by America as the foot soldiers, because neither side could afford the devastation of a direct confrontation. Slim 02:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: As I tried to describe in the article WTC & Bin Laden there are of course links between all these events - but I think it is stupid to say "Ah, the Arabs thought they are used in Afghanistan and then turned against their masters” – this is nonsense. We need to understand the entire agenda: Freeing Muslim countries and giving them back honour and pride as it was in the past – and on the other hand the US who want control all major resources and contain major possible enemies or system competitors. This gives the clash.
Of course, US-Israeli links due to given security contracts as well as Jewish Lobby in the US increases and focuses the conflict. If somebody believes the main and single agenda of Bin Laden is Israel, why didn’t he blow up Tel Aviv? This is just one, maybe now the best selling story to get supporters.
H.ST.
Due to technical limitations beyond my comprehension and control, if I try to edit a very lengthy article on Wikipedia, it usually winds up accidentally deleting much of what was there before.
I have an external link that I think would add to the value of this article and would ask that someone kindly take on the responsibility of including it in the External Links sub-section, and perhaps commenting on the matter within the body of the article.
Here is the title of the article: 70% of Palestinians could be induced to leave; Scientific survey conducted face-to-face in West Bank
Here is the URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41791
"Thank you!" to whomever agrees to take on this task.
N.M.
Please keep in mind that Bin laden haven't had a revelation after fighting against Soviets in Afghanistan and kicking them out and then just turning against the US. And he is surely not such a big strategist that he thought, ok, lets fight the Soviets, then we keep Afghanistan, lets use this as a base and then we do our main work which is the fight against the US.
Bin Laden has a red line in his life and that is getting foreign power and foreign un-Islamic rules our of Muslim land to free the Muslim people and to give them a chance to have a life according the Koran. That’s the reason he supports fight’s all over the world and is personally involved in the main conflicts, which comprise – of course Israel as culmination point.
He is quite smart using this conflict and hate the US gained over supporting Israel and the – as he thinks – fallen regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt – and all the hate inside the people in this depressed region to position himself and his liberation activities, which are far more than just Israel and Jerusalem. As he himself stated: Even unbeliever in Saudi Arabia are considered as occupation of holy land.
Resulting – the agenda is bigger – the selling story is focussed and clever – the US answer more or less logical – democratisation or even more participation of the masses in the Arab world as a possible valve or channelling frustration into constructive civilisation building.
But, to be realistic, with this point of view you will easily find a next conflict where unbeliever have their dirty feet on Islamic land. So solving the Israeli conflict will just point the focus of the extremist groups to Kashmir, or to Thailand, or the Philippines or even China.
That’s why China and Russia do not vote for UN backed intervention: To have free hands in crack down their own Islamic extremist groups without international TV journalists. Unlike the US they have more to lose than just two towers, the integrity of their land.
So bad news for the world and all who think this will be over within a couple of years – this will last centuries and running out of Oil of these people will even make thinks worst – because of lacking visions of civilised existence in wealth and pride.
"Some observers of Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims." This is a lie. People of the Book are all respected by Muslims. -- Abdel Qadir 01:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to prove all the lies? There are too many lies here to spend all my life proving the truth. [18] -- Abdel Qadir 01:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"though proponents do point to the rapid decrease of the Christian Palestinian population (along with those of most Christian Arabs) as, at least in part, outcomes of Muslim hostility to non-Muslims." This is because of Muslim hostility to Christians? Or is it due to jews hostility to Palestinians? Christians can move to America or Europe but Muslims must stay and fight for justice against the Jew. -- Abdel Qadir 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Multiediting to reinsert POV is a means to muddy the water, Jayjg, so that you can claim you did not revert. Place discussion here, please, before mindlessly reverting others' edits. Dr Zen 05:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mucked up Arabia, the US and now Wikipedia. -- Wiesenthaler 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shyster was already on the list by the way. Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to dishonest cheating stealing murdering scumbags lawyers/ -- Wiesenthaler 07:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The section about Palestinian Christians is ridiculous blaming everything on Muslims and none on Israel. See this link that you keep deleting. The role of Palestinian Christians -- Wiesenthaler 07:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No unbiased editor can work on this or any other article touching on Israeli issues. Any edits that POV warriors such as Jayjg or Jewbacca do not approve of are reverted automatically without discussion by whichever Zionist POV pusher is on hand, with the others joining the battle when the first has run out of reverts. This is disgraceful. It seems that whoever can push their POV the hardest and the longest wins. Dr Zen 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abdel, you were asking for a reference for the dhimmi claims. I've added Benny Morris, who is a history professor at Ben-Gurion University. He addresses only the history of the dhimmi from around 630 to the 1940s. So far, I haven't found anything on the current legal situation of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, but you're welcome to add something if you feel there is positive material that should be there to provide a balance. All you have to do is make sure you take your material from a reputable publisher (e.g a mainstream newspaper, an academic journal, book or similar. If you look around, there are likely to be Arab academics who have addressed this issue. Or possibly the U.N. Slim 09:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Given that Benny Morris has written about the details and background of the conflict, and given that he's an academic, he's a very good source to use. The reason I like Bennis Morris as a source for Wikipedia, is that he has tried to straddle both sides of the debate. I suggest you give him a try, starting with Righteous Victims to read his analysis of how the history of the dhimmi directly led to today's prevalent attitudes on both sides. And as Jay says, if you have other sources to add, by all means do so. Slim 21:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Why the ‘Views’ is such a long straight? very unreadable i am attempting to provide headings so user can read easily or glance through the article.
Zain 11:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have some issues which are not mentioned here, some claims by Palestinians which are not mentioned here. And some answer to some things which are not given.
Although normally in wikipedia If editor thinks he is adding relevant, NPOV statement its ok. But I think may be on this page rules are different. So how can I add some thing which is not mentioned earlier?
But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.
If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.
If you are an experienced wiki-ist, you will probably have a good sense what will be accepted edits, and which edits should be discussed first.
If you are new to wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your proposals, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:
1. If the material in question is a sentence or so in length, copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there. 2. If the material is longer than a sentence, list your objections on the Talk page but leave the main article as it is.
Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.
Also, show respect for consensus. Avoid making major changes to an article if a vote (or poll) is currently in progress about whether those changes should be made, especially if there is no clear consensus shown by the vote.
We are dealing with an Arbitration case which involves editors to this and related pages. While the decision is not final, one problem that was noted was edits which made controversial changes to most sections of the article, no references offered, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision#Extensive_rewriting_by_HistoryBuffEr. What I am proposing there (applying only to those before the Committee) is that changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English. I think the evil to be avoided is bombarding the other editors with a mass of edits, either all together (in one edit) or over a short period of time. That way others have a chance to consider the edits and not feel the whole article is turning to shit, unless closely monitored (and reverted frequently). Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Zain 14:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose a policy that "changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English." References in other languages should be entirely acceptable, and limiting changes to one fact at a time makes it virtually impossible to make any major edits, which many of the pages surrounding this conflict need. However, I do agree that all changes ought ideally to be sourced. - Mustafaa 14:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, would you agree that an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted? A result which will occur no matter how "good" the numerous changes are. I don't think this notion needs to be restricted to "one fact", but if references are provided for a series of related changes, if changes are too extensive it becomes difficult to evaluate what is happening. As do references to books and websites in Arabic or Hebrew. Fred Bauder 16:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
References in Arabic and Hebrew do make life a bit more difficult, but there are enough speakers of both languages on en that translations offerred can be cross-checked, and that is more appropriate than just banning their use, since not all information is available in English. I do agree that "an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted", but what counts as such is hard to determine... My experience with Sabra and Shatila Massacre leads me to suspect that such a policy would be misused to excuse reversions of contributions that actually significantly improved an already POV but supposedly "consensus" article. - Mustafaa 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here are some things which I will like to change. May be in first step just one proposal. It is stated in article that
I won't get into the 'Israel' part, because its acceptance or interpretation is very disputed. But label of Arab is not true. Let me give you example.
Same goes for Greek Christians and other refugees.
'Arab Israeli' conflict term is mostly applicable but this is not 'technically correct'. Plus there is no relation with 'Arab ancestry' with the conflict. Whatever ancestry you have if you are accepted as 'jew' you are one side of the conflict, if you are not accepted as 'jew' ancestry or religion) you are on the other side.
What about changing too
Can I make this change? Or correction?
Zain 15:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would go further. There are Jews on the side of the Palestinians (see Neturei Karta) and even, sadly, Arabs on the side of Israel (eg the South Lebanon Army. - Mustafaa 15:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as right to return is concerned, yes, but as regards the accuracy of the term "Arab-Israeli Conflict", which is the issue I thought you were addressing, this illustrates that the conflict is strictly speaking neither Arabs vs. Israelis nor Arabs vs. Jews. - Mustafaa 15:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
History section starts with 1948. conflict between two started when migrants started to come arm groups, property disputes Every thing? Why it is missing in history section. Can I add into it earlier conflicts.
Zain 15:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's a fair point; technically, earlier disputes don't involve Israel per se, but given that they involve the people that became Israel, it seems sensible to address them here. - Mustafaa 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Which massacre page? Anyway, I was agreeing with you: there should be at least some info on the beginnings of the conflict. A good starting point might be the 30's, although the "verbal" war started well before that. - Mustafaa 16:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"frequently by giving them the property of Palestinian refugees under the Absentee Property Act". Frequently? What does that mean in this context, and according to which sources? Jayjg 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, make it "sometimes" if you prefer; given that most Israeli land falls into that category, I assume "frequently" is an understatement, but obviously I can't prove that offhand. For concrete examples, see, for instance, Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation. - Mustafaa 19:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And note that it is actually the official Israeli position that "the property of these Arabs and Jews could be counterbalanced due to the population exchange" [24] - Mustafaa 19:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A new citation:
- says an Israeli Mizrahi author, Sami Chetrit [25]. - Mustafaa
"although in fact Palestinians were nowhere forced to remain in refugee camps". They weren't? Were they allowed to move anywhere they wanted in Syria or Lebanon, for example? Jayjg 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As much so as any citizen, to the best of my knowledge. - Mustafaa 19:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly they don't get Syrian (nor Lebanese) citizenship. I haven't heard about residence restrictions, but I'm always happy to see new sources. - Mustafaa 20:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"some Palestinian groups, as well as Egypt in 1973, chose war"? This implies that Egypt went to war to fight for the Palestinians, which I think is farfetched. Jayjg 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"certain Arab states such as Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen do not give full rights and freedoms to Jews, and others, such as Saudi Arabia..." can you source these claims more precisely? (Not that any Syrian gets "full rights and freedoms", mind - the term is rather ambiguous, and I'd like to come up with a more precise one.) - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think following are two rules here
Now let me make some changes and try to explain it here
So please be careful in editing ‘claims’ which may be seen as ‘POV’ better method is to give a ‘response’ that’s the reason we have chosen two sides claim different. Because we are considering both as POV.
What one sides claim is not expected to taken as fact.
Zain is having trouble with English. Consequently both his edits and his comments on talk are difficult to understand. Fred Bauder 22:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
ok can we ask Fred Bauder for mediation on [state terrorism] as a 'third person'. I will really like this to happen. So can it happen? If you are tired don't worry we can do it tomorrow or some other time.
Zain 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This won't work as I am an arbitrator. I don't want to get into details and then have to recuse myself. Just try to see that everyone is doing their best. Fred Bauder 01:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
You might try User:Ed Poor or simply Wikipedia:Requests for mediation Fred Bauder 11:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
1/ You insisted on "traditional". So, traditionally, the dhimmi were those who had accepted Muslim rule rather than be slaughtered. 2/ The dhimmi were allowed to keep their land precisely because they had accepted dhimma. 3/ Elie Kedourie is a "historian" with no mention of his ethnicity or religion, and yet Muhammad Hamidullah is a "Muslim scholar". 4/ You moved the quote from Hamidullah to the end of a list of antiArabisms, where I had interposed it. And you added a "however". This is clearly intended to bias the reading of this part of the article. 5/ Cite Morris. If he says the Muslims "rose up" against the Jews (a bizarre reading since uprisings are generally against rulers) you won't mind quoting his saying so. If he did not, and this is a POV wording not of his invention, then you'll agree that my rewriting is far more acceptable. 6/ There is nothing to suggest that Harun raised heavy taxes "on behalf of" the vizier, which implies that the vizier prompted it. Please give your source for this edit.
I've reverted your widescale changes, and I ask you to discuss each here before imposing your POV. Dr Zen 04:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1. If you wanted to say "rather than be slaughtered", you could have.
But I didn't want to. It's not necessary. It is, however, necessary to imply that the rule was accepted.
2. That's not what Morris says. You can't reverse Morris's meaning just because you believe something else.
You can't cite Morris in one sentence and expect his writ to run for the entire article.
3. Do a search on Muhammad Hamidullah. He was one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, and that's how the links describe him. He was a lawyer, professor, translater, author, linguist fluent in dozens of languages, etc. He's described as a Muslim scholar here and all over the web because that's what he was.
I know who he is. You have ignored the point I made, which is that you do not refer to others in the article by their religion or ethnicity.
4. Nonsense. The structure of the article is to give the position of the people stating it, then give countering positions. Since Hamidullah's position counters those of the earlier people, it goes at the end.
When has that ever been the idea of this or any other article?
5. Slim had the book, and she quoted him. Since you've never read it, you shouldn't speculate about what it actually said, and change things according to your opinions.
She did not quote him saying they "rose up". I assume she cannot. She replaced the part about Spain (not in the area, and not on the map), which has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict the article is about, but does smear Arabs quite nicely.
6. A deputy vizier is an advisor to the vizier; he is appointed by the vizier, and does everything on the vizier's say so. If you like, though, we can take the whole apologetic out, since the only point of it was to provide an excuse for the killing of hundreds of innocent Jews; what is your source for it in the first place?
It provided context. I know you don't like anything that suggests that Arabs are not bloodthirsty anti-Semitic murderers who will kill Jews at the drop of a turban, but the context is important.
I'll NPOV your POV edits again now. Jayjg 04:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) You'll reimpose your POV, YMTS. in italics Dr Zen 05:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen, I draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Talk page article, which explicitly states "Don't misrepresent other people: Typing errors, grammar, etc are always fair game, and remove personal attacks where you can, but don't edit someone's words to have them say something they don't believe in.". In this edit [36] you do just that. I will assume that your intentions were good, but please don't do so again. Jayjg 04:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would the editor who added the following please supply a publication date and a link if there is one? "However, Muslim scholar Muhammad Hamidullah writes in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs: "If Muslim residents in non-Muslim countries received the same treatment as Dhimmi in the Islamic regime, they would be more than satisfied; they would be grateful." Many thanks, Slim 05:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
My pleasure:
Muhammad Hamidullah, "Relations of Muslims with non-Muslims", Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol.7, no.1, January 1986, p.9 Dr Zen 05:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I am about to create a References section, which at the moment will sadly only contain two references, but hopefully it will grow, as that is the surest way of ending disputes that I know of — always cite sources. Slim 05:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
As it happens, I do not agree. It's rather easy to find sources that agree with one view or another. I believe it's best to include as many views as possible and to present them as views (I'm not sure about referencing them all because in a large article one will end up with a long list of references -- but the references are for us not the reader; in other words, I think you should put Benny Morris in the references if you really think he is useful further reading, but cite him here on the talk page if you simply want him to back your POV). I think it helps to present "facts" as neutrally as possible too and for all to accept that facts do not necessarily become any more "factual" just because somebody, anybody says so. Dr Zen 05:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, what's your point? There are different levels of verifiability, as the policy points out, and different ways to cite sources. I'm entirely conversant with the policies. Perhaps you feel every single claim in the article should be sourced with full references. If so, get cracking. I disagree, of course. I don't believe for instance that you need to source that the Middle East has seen a conflict. You can state that as a fact. Nor do you need to show that it has in fact been the centre of diplomatic and media attention for years. This is not disputed. Referencing these claims would make the article unwieldy, if not unreadable.
I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I suggested that we ought not to weigh down the article with references for everything (a different matter to suggesting that we should not source everything -- you are conflating the two) because it is simply not reader-friendly. It is readily verifiable that Hamidullah said what I claim. I gave the full quote and the magazine in which he said it. It is not a particularly useful piece of further reading, and as such, I think it can safely be omitted as a reference. By the way, I cannot find anything in the policy that gives a hierarchy of sources. I think clearly that in different cases different sources will be best. Benny Morris is not, in fact, a primary source on 15th century Morocco. A 15th century Moroccan would be! Do you see? Dr Zen 07:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm also not sure how you're distinguishing between a source and a reference. Perhaps if you explain your terms and your concerns, I'll know better what you mean.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
ZERO thinks maybe Haj Amin el Husseini did not lead the riots of the 20's and 30's. However, I can find articles on history like this one (with Bibliography and Notes) which say that he did?
http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/bh4145.php
"The Mufti instigated and organized Muslim riots against Palestinian Jews in 1920,1921,1929,and 1936,which resulted in hundreds of deaths."--from the article written by Carl K. Savich.
Savich is a graduate student in the History Department at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He received his BA from the University of Michigan. He has been a contributor to Ancient Serbia (Stara Srbija), The Voice of Ravanica, Liberty (Sloboda), The American Srbobran, The Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, The Macomb Daily, Foreign Policy, and The Oakland Post. He has a journalistic, academic, and legal background and is currently on the staffs of Liberty (Sloboda) and The Oakland Post newspapers, of which he is an editor. His areas of interest and expertise are history, political science, and law.
My thoughts:
1. The 1929 riots, it seems, were rather spontaneous. Less an organized thing than a spontaneous spurt of violence, somewhat like the pogroms of the Middle Ages.
2. The 1936-39 riots, on the other hand, seem to have been a very organized and directed campaign. Chances are, the Mufti and the Arab High Committee were behind them, aided and abetted by the Germans. (No evidence on the German bit, but it seems likely.) In fact, I would go so far as to say the situation was stirred up by the Germans in the beginning, with the Mufti as a Nazi puppet. - Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is giving me warnings about the size, calling it at least 64k. We should probably split the page into 3, archiving the first. - Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, it looks decent.
Re van Crevald's book: It actually stops with the late 80s, not the late 90s.
- Penta 20:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One Voice, who are you kidding? Do you know the history of the Notrim, HaShomer, and other self-defense organizations that emerged during Ottoman times? Danny 13:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Danny, I do know the names. Faisal was an established Arab authority. Would you characterize the actions taken prior as Arab policy (which authority) or as brigandtry by individuals and groups. How do we include both aspects in the historical overview. It currently is a black-and-white depiction of a multi-shaded history. OneVoice 13:53, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He was a foreigner from the Hejaz. The fact that he was appointed by the British to be king of Syria and then Iraq does not make him a legitimate spokesperson for the falahin who actually lived in Palestine, any more than the feudal landowners in Damascus and Beirut could legitimately sell their "tenants" land. Danny 14:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are at least two issues here. The easier one is ownership. Ownership is either established by force or in civilized societies by legal means. Ownership allows one to use, rent, or sell ones possession. The renters do not have to agree. It may not be fair, moral or preferable, but it is legal. The opinion, desires etc of the tenants does not have legal standing. If you are arguing for abrogation of the legal system, that would be a different matter.
The other issue is the status of Faisal as a leader vis a vis other Arabs. This is certainly a more difficult issue and one that plagues Arab states to this day...the lack of representative government that works for the population as is common in the West. A much more involved issue. OneVoice 15:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A very minor point. The article appears not to be grammatically correct in some respects, e.g., "Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war" -- Why isn't it "houses"? P0M
"Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war, as Israel intended to expand its territory beyond that mandated by the U.N" -- Let me see if I get this right:
So, Zero claims my contributions are excessively propagandistic, and Dissident that they are pro-Israeli propaganda. Let us go through this point-by-point:
-- 128.139.226.34 08:38, 21 May 2004
I am away from home and can only offer a brief comment. The edits made by anon represent the mainstream Israeli historiography and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Some highlights:
-- Zero 13:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
The comments by
Zero represent Arab historiography, on occasions not even mainstream, but excessively revisionist, and cannot be presented as if they are neutral facts of which there is no dispute. Point by point:
-- 128.139.226.34 07:38, 23 May 2004
Let's not turn this conflict between 2 sides into a world war, other wise rename the article. Q: Why are the Marxists so important? A: because today they reflect mostly anti-Israel POV, therefore should be put into anti-Israel camp. Everything else about their beliefs is irrelevant. Following this stance, Marxists believe that Zionism is a form of colonialism -- who cares? What do the other groups in the title of this section beleive? The text about single state also doesn't belong to this article. Proposals for a Palestinian state perhaps. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 06:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
"Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in most of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against." Prove it. Even offhand, I can add Mauritania, Somalia, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain to Morocco and Tunisia, if only because many of them have never had any to discriminate against. In any event, the burden of proof for such a statement is on the one making it. - Mustafaa 23:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
i m egyptian, havent met an egyptian jew yet. i know there are synagogues here. they are under heavy guard to protect them from terrorist attacks coz as far as i know, there are six (6) jews in egypt, mostly in alexandria. and as citizens of egypt they and they property must be protected even to heavy costs by the state which is paid for by the other religions of egypt; Islam and Christianity.
please give proof. thanks
--
Mohammed Arafa 10:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that it is forbidden for Jews to buy, sell, or own property in Jordan and Jordan is largely considered on of the mroe moderate countries in the region. Iraq would be another example of another country you don't want to be a jew in, along with Syria, Iran, Libya, and Lebanon. I'm no expert, but these are the one's I can think of offhand - G
'More than half' does not contradict '60%'. Fafo speaks of 44% refugees, I can imagine that not all Palestinians fall into this category. The last link is broken. The following links claim 60% or more: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
There are plenty of sources giving lower figures, and some giving higher figures. I think the problem is that there is no agreement on the definitions, especially of who is a Palestinian, also of whether to count Palestinians who are eligible for Jordanian citizenship but didn't officially take it up, and importantly because the Jordanian government regards the issue as sensitive enough to suppress the necessary details from the Jordanian censuses. So people employ various guessing methods. My suggestion is that we quote an academic source on this question. In "The Palestinian-Transjordanian Rift: Economic Might and Political Power in Jordan" by Yitzhak Reiter, The Middle East Journal. Vol. 58, 2004; pg. 72-92:
"The rate of the Palestinian population in Jordan is a controversial and debatable issue in Jordan since figures broken out by ethnic denomination have never officially been published. The estimates vary between 38-83% according to the estimator's extraction. Most scholars in the field estimate the Palestinians as constituting between 50-60% of the Jordanian population."
Can we agree on that? --
Zero 15:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have just read this article. When it says "Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings." it seems to be saying that Israel is pressuring Arafat to fire the moderates who speak out against Suicide Bombings. Am I mistaken in my reading?-- Josiah 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct in your reading, Josiah. The PLO is under tremendous pressure from the Israelis and also from 'extremist' internal groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas and paradoxically the pressure is making Arafat make the government more hardline, as there is no political gain in the current situation for Arafat to have doves in his administration and if he has hardliners, they can at the very least put on a strong face against all their opponents. Dissention among high-level leadership just looks bad and isn't tolerated in Israel nor in Palestine. Hauser 21:56 3 August 2004 (NZEST)
I uploaded a few pictures which are available here under free licences (GFDL and CC-BY-SA). Feel free to ask. Yann 15:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
HistoryBuffer, I haven't made any edits on this page except for minor grammar stuff, so it can't be my "propaganda". Please bring proposed changes to Talk: Jayjg 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, you've been already told that Wikipedia is not your private sandbox and that no one needs your permission to edit here. Now you have (again) shown your immaturity by repeated reverts with no good reason (other than that NPOV edits obviously hurt your pro-Israeli POV).
You should be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's policy of "No 3 reverts within 24 hours". If you do not grow up and leave this page alone I'll have no choice but to refer you to adult supervision. HistoryBuffEr 05:42, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Jayjg you are way out of bounds. You have repeatedly removed "Disputed" notice from article which has been clearly disputed by many.
And Jayjg, who do you think you are to dictate to others to obtain your permission first?
Jayjg is well known as a persistent Zionist Denier of Palestine and occupation, and pretty much any fact which is unfavorable to Israel.
But, by repeatedly denying even that a dispute over his propaganda articles exists, Jayjg has reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your sick cause.
HistoryBuffEr 22:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
"Most Palestinian groups in opposition to PLO have declared that the only long term solution to the Middle East conflict is the elimination of the state of Israel." I dispute this characterization. What is the source? This is just more Zionist propaganda, "They want to throw us in the sea!" BS. How many Palestinian groups collaborate with Israeli groups like Peace Now and Naturei Karta for a peaceful reform in Israeli policies compared to the number advocating the total dismantling of the racist Jewish state? Alberuni 23:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The world war between international Islamists seeking to expel Israeli and American occupation of the Middle East is an extension of the Arab Israeli conflict. Netanyahu recently claimed on US TV that Israel's war is now America's war. "It is a war between civilization and those who would like to see a return to the medieval ages. They're nuts. It's not going to happen and we have to stop them." The 9/11 attacks were in retaliation for US support of the racist Jewish state, its occupation of palestine and oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the occupation of military bases in Saudi Arabia to contain and siege strangling Iraq. The War on Terror is intended to crush militant opposition to US and Israeli hegemony over Palestine and Mideast oil supplies. I dispute Jayjg's pro-Israeli POV on edits to this page. Alberuni 23:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By Ori Nir October 8, 2004
WASHINGTON — With their countries mounting parallel military offensives against terrorist strongholds in Iraq and Gaza, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a high-powered White House meeting Monday.
Moments after the talks, reporters asked Netanyahu if Rice had urged Israel to demonstrate restraint during its operation in Gaza. The Israeli leader lifted his index finger and replied with satisfaction: "Not in one word."
The meeting appeared to back up the assertion by Israeli and American officials that the White House essentially endorses the current offensive in Gaza. This view appeared to gain credence Tuesday, when America exercised its veto at the United Nations Security Council to defeat a resolution condemning Israel's actions in Gaza..
According to this view, the Bush administration has concluded that America has a significant interest in ensuring that an Israeli pullout from Gaza is not perceived in the Arab world as a victory for terrorist groups. The fear is that such a perception would embolden the forces targeting American soldiers in Iraq.
The Forward has learned that, in both military and political circles, Israeli and American officials recently have discussed the issue and concluded that the best course is for Israel to conduct punishing military operations against terrorists and their infrastructure as it withdraws from Gaza."
The article intro states "Some groups fear that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a part of (or precursor to) a wider clash of civilizations between the Western World and the Arab or Muslim world. Animosity emanating from this conflict has caused numerous attacks on supporters (or perceived supporters) of one side by supporters of the other side in many countries around the world." The Arab-Israeli conflict clearly involves the USA and combatants beyond the Arab world, and even beyond 9/11, including Iran, Afghanistan, Europeans who attack Israeli interests, Islamists attacking US and allied interests in Africa and Asia, and American Muslims who are in prison for supporting groups opposed to Israel, etc. It is important to document the link between the Arab-israeli conflict and the world war against "terrorism"; which, of course, is why you insist on censoring it. Instead of constantly butting your head against the revert button like it's the Wailing Wall, why don't you "improve" it with your usual Zionist POV slant? Alberuni 03:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi. can we change:
"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy by Israeli forces, was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."
to:
"The al-Aqsa Intifada. Began just before September 2000 when Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif complex in Jerusalem and declared the area eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots broke out in Old Jerusalem a number of hours later, and Israeli authorities killed several Palestinians suppressing them. The killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old boy, by Israeli forces was videotaped and broadcast around the world, triggering further rioting. This conflict is on-going."
This change does not alter the content of the article in any way. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello,
I am coming from a disinterested point of view. I know almost nothing about this conflict, other than it is highly controversial and it's been going on for a while. I would ask for people's patience with the following questions, as I am but an ignorant fool on this issue. I also know that as this is such a "hot" issue some (possibly) may take offense at my questioning. For those people, I do not mean to take offence. Now that my disclaimer is given: for my own understanding, could I have some clarifications for some parts of the article?
Under the section "Reasons for the Conflict":
Many experts in Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims. Although the countries surrounding Israel have secular governments (including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon), Israelis claim that these ideas still prosper on the basis of nationalism, much like the anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe.
According to Islam, Jews and Christians and other non-muslims must accept the status of dhimmis if they want to live with Muslims. Islamic law allows Muslims to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands who refuse to accept this status. Moreover, this status was upheld numerous times by Islamic scholars and implemented by Islamic rulers. Some Muslims declare, however, that this image is created falsely by passages that are taken out of context. (See Talk page).
At stake is the very existence of the state of Israel. Israelis regard many of the Arab criticisms against the state of Israel as threats to the state's existence, and point out that against the multitude and power of the Arab states, there is only one Jewish state, which, as they feel, should behave vigilantly, and in particular never give up if bullied.
Liberal Israelis oppose settlements, believing that they thwart peace efforts. However, most Israelis do not view the building of house and stores in Israeli settlements as an act of war, and believe that disputes over land do not justify terrorism and mass-murder, but rather need to have politically negotiated solutions. This view is regarded as a farce by Palestinians as Israel's leadership continues to reject recent offers of peace and continues to build settlements on Palestinian land.
Some Israelis fear the consequences if they decide, or are eventually forced, to dismantle settlements. Some settlers may resist by force, creating a risk even of civil war. When Israel withdrew from settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in the early 1980s, moderate clashes between the Israeli Defense Forces and settlers occurred. Those settlers amounted to but a tiny fraction of the settler population in the West Bank. A recent survey by Peace Now indicated about two thirds of the settlers would comply with an order to evacuate, if issued democratically by the government.
Palestinians feel that the Jewish state of Israel was established under conditions that were deeply unfair to them. Some Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state as such, but all Palestinians feel that it should not have been established at their expense. They argue that after World War II - and, indeed, after World War I - the world allowed a state for Jewish people in Palestine to be made without much concern for the existing Arab population. Many Palestinians were forcibly expelled from Jewish-controlled areas before and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (see Palestinian exodus.) Those who remained in Israel face some discrimination. Palestinians claim that they are denied many job opportunities, as many jobs require previous military service, and only Jews and some other groups, such as Druze and Bedouins, can serve in the IDF.
Palestinians cite many reasons for the lack of support of their cause in the Western world. One such reason is racism; while stereotyping of many other groups is no longer rampant, Muslims and in particular Arabs continue to be victimized by crude attacks.
Palestinians claim that they have International law on their side. To take a few examples, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 calls for refugees wishing to live in peace with their neighbors to be allowed to return to their homes, or to receive compensation if the don't wish to return. UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the Six-Day War. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power from settling an occupied territory with its own population. General Assembly Resolution 446 has declared that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal. However, there are doubts as to whether the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel, and the preservation of a "just and lasting peace" in the region.
In 2002, Saudi Arabia offered a peace plan in the New York Times, as if it were an original idea. The UN's resolutions call for withdrawal from occupied territories in addition to full recognition of Israel by the whole Arab world. This proposal was backed by some in the Arab World, but the Israeli government rejected this proposal. The same proposal also got criticsm from other Arabs. Therefore, it fell to the wayside.
Many Arabs deny that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today. They hold that events that happened thousands of years ago do not justify evicting the Palestinians from what they see as their homeland.
Some Arabs maintain that there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine, in itself, any more than there is with Jewish immigration into any other part of the world. But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state. Most Arabs maintain that Israel's settlement policy is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a violation of international law. Thus they claim, because of its expansion of settlements, Israel has the majority of responsibility for the failure of the peace process.
Moderate Palestinians realize that their cause may be thwarted by extremists within their own ranks; an issue that is mirrored in the Israeli camp. Many view the conflict as essentially extremist vs. moderate, as opposed to Israeli vs. Palestinian. Pro-Israeli advocates often assert that two sets of views exist from the same speaker, with a tolerant view usually expressed in English, and an anti-peace view usually expressed in Arabic, with pro-Arab advocates making similar charges. Palestinians do not deny that they would have preferred that modern Israel had never been created. However, they accept its existence today and call merely for a state of their own.
Today, many Palestinians realize that an equitable arrangement for all involved parties requires dialogue with both the Israeli side and the international community. Some in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing prior to the Six-Day War. However, representatives of the PLO (and in particular Yasser Arafat himself), have also declared at times that they intended these statements as purely political steps, and that ultimately the peace process with Israel is only a temporary measure; they say that their ultimate goal is still the destruction of the state of Israel. In support of their claims, the PLO never updated its formal statement of policy, the Palestinian National Covenant to reflect their recognition of the State of Israel; it still calls for the destruction of Israel. Although Arab representatives often deny these declarations, they cause great concern among the Israeli public.
Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution. They hold that terrorist killings of Israeli civilians are counterproductive, and some even consider it morally wrong. Unfortunately they seldom occupy a position of importance in the Palestinian Authority (PA). Arafat, under massive pressure from the Israeli government and their occupation of Palestinian territories, has recently fired moderates when they have spoken out against suicide bombings. Thus, their voices are unheard over the Palestinian street's overwhelming support for suicide bombings - at 60%, according to recent polls. However, support for Hamas was consistently below 10% prior to the al-Aqsa Intifada. The ongoing standoff has hardened views on both sides.
In accordance with their peoples' opinions, some Palestinian and Arab leaders from around the world, have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Some Arab and Muslim countries, as well as groups like Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad disagree with any form of peace process, and hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just. The relationship between the PLO and Hamas seems to signify that the PLO itself does not oppose this attitude.
Many Arabs declare the Israeli government is not automatically responsible for the crimes of individual Israelis (ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis). They claim that the same standard should be applied to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians further feel that the world should also react against the silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the daily humiliation this leads to for the Palestinian population. Israel, however, claims that this does little to explain why the Palestinian Authority has not arrested a single Hamas official of importance since 2000, although they did arrest many prior to that.
Many Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism. Many Arabs believe Israel practices a form of apartheid against the Palestinian people, worse than that practiced by South Africa, and that Zionism is a form of colonialism. Israelis reply that this claim is hypocritical, since Arabs have created twenty two Arab states, in some of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against. Palestinians hold that the existence of other Arab nations is irrelevant; they want to have the land they owned back, rather than being forced to throw themselves on others' charity in foreign countries. Probably 50%-60% of Jordanian population is ethnically Palestinian (former refugees and their descendants; estimates vary widely) but the country is ruled by the native Hashemite Bedouin family. In the 1970s, the PLO attempted to launch a coup against the Jordanian monarchy, which led to death of some 20,000 Palestinians and the expulsion of the PLO from Jordan.
The evidence is provided in the stated motives for the 9/11 attack (to liberate Palestine from the Zionist Crusader alliance) and in the US motives to attack Iraq in order to "protect our friends in the Middle East" i.e. Israel who Saddam Hussein threatened. -- Alberuni 05:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Guys! Timeout! Could we bring this back to the article please? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evidence that the 9/11 attacks and Iraq war are directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict:
" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission. [13]
"In the video, bin Laden said he decided to attack the twin towers of the World Trade Center in 1982 after the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which he claimed was backed by the U.S. Navy. "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same" he says, "and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children." He underscored it was U.S. foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks, saying, "Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'" " [14]
" "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said. .... "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said. [15]
It is the emotions generated by this long cycle of shuttle diplomacy - of expectations raised and hopes dashed - that ordinary Arabs talk about when they say they understand why Al Qaeda terrorists hate the US. It is a hatred that Osama bin Laden expresses in fierce terms. His videotaped statement of Oct. 7 ends with these words: "Neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine." Translation: The US will be subject to terrorist attacks as long as it allies itself with Israel. Indeed, the danger might continue as long as Israel exists.... Still, events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath have focused Americans' attention on their nation's ties with Israel to a degree not seen since the Arab oil embargo of 1973. "The American public is now waking up to the cost of the relationship with Israel," says Professor Lukacs. "This is a question that has never been addressed in the past." [16]
War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group. WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. [17].
It is very clear that the 9/11 attacks and War on Iraq are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the US alliance with Israel. The relationship is a significant well-documented issue that deserves inclusion in the article. It is not a "conspiracy theory" to be dismissed as our house Zionists are claiming so that they can continue to promote their one-sided propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Alberuni 22:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts Alberuni, will you go for 5? You've been pretty consistent in violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule recently, I'm wondering if you'll stay true to form. Jayjg 21:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Guys, hash it out on the talk page. I'm protecting till I see some consensus here. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be interesting to include
in the external links.
Alberuni, I hope you don't mind if I respond to some of the points you made about September 11 being an extension of the Arab-Israel conflict. I don't believe the Arab-Israel conflict had anything to do with that, and here's my reasoning:
The main mileposts on the road to September 11 were: (a) the millions directed to bin Laden and other Islamist groups by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, which made the Islamist movement powerful; (b) the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam and the subsequent stationing in Saudi Arabia of American troops because of that; (c) the further growth in Islamist ideology caused by Americans desecrating (as they saw it) the keeper of the holy places; and (d) the American support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, which are regarded by the Islamists as puppet regimes.
There's no evidence that the issue of Palestine has been anything other than a powerful rallying cry for the Islamists, just as the economic sanctions against Iraq turned that country into a rallying cry too, even though the Islamists hated Saddam. These issues are flags that people wave. But the flags are not the underlying causes of the Islamist war with America.
An excellent book on this subject is Unholy Wars by John K. Cooley, a former ABC News Middle East correspondent. He traces the entire relationship between America and Islamism, and the consequences of it, right up to September 11. He calls it "a strange love affair which went disastrously wrong: an alliance, during the second half of the twentieth century, between the United States of America and some of the most conservative and fanatical followers of Islam." He traces how this relationship stemmed from the start of the American-Soviet Cold War in 1946 and President Truman's perception that the Soviet Union was the principle threat to American interests; and how during the 50s and 60s, the adminstrations of four further U.S. presidents (Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon) were faced with finding a way to defend American interests against the Soviets in the Middle East and South Asia.
The question was asked: Who is the principle enemy of our enemy, communism? And the answer was that the Muslim religion, which was fundamentally anti-communist, could be "harnessed as a mighty force to oppose Moscow in the Cold War," as Cooley puts it. Cooley traces how that "harnessing" took place: how the Islamists were used to fight America's proxy wars; how and why the relationship broke down; and how that led to September 11, 2001. Although the state of Israel was something America did want to protect, all of the above would have happened even if Israel had not existed. This was a war between the world's two great superpowers, a battle left over from the Second World War, with Islamists used by America as the foot soldiers, because neither side could afford the devastation of a direct confrontation. Slim 02:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: As I tried to describe in the article WTC & Bin Laden there are of course links between all these events - but I think it is stupid to say "Ah, the Arabs thought they are used in Afghanistan and then turned against their masters” – this is nonsense. We need to understand the entire agenda: Freeing Muslim countries and giving them back honour and pride as it was in the past – and on the other hand the US who want control all major resources and contain major possible enemies or system competitors. This gives the clash.
Of course, US-Israeli links due to given security contracts as well as Jewish Lobby in the US increases and focuses the conflict. If somebody believes the main and single agenda of Bin Laden is Israel, why didn’t he blow up Tel Aviv? This is just one, maybe now the best selling story to get supporters.
H.ST.
Due to technical limitations beyond my comprehension and control, if I try to edit a very lengthy article on Wikipedia, it usually winds up accidentally deleting much of what was there before.
I have an external link that I think would add to the value of this article and would ask that someone kindly take on the responsibility of including it in the External Links sub-section, and perhaps commenting on the matter within the body of the article.
Here is the title of the article: 70% of Palestinians could be induced to leave; Scientific survey conducted face-to-face in West Bank
Here is the URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41791
"Thank you!" to whomever agrees to take on this task.
N.M.
Please keep in mind that Bin laden haven't had a revelation after fighting against Soviets in Afghanistan and kicking them out and then just turning against the US. And he is surely not such a big strategist that he thought, ok, lets fight the Soviets, then we keep Afghanistan, lets use this as a base and then we do our main work which is the fight against the US.
Bin Laden has a red line in his life and that is getting foreign power and foreign un-Islamic rules our of Muslim land to free the Muslim people and to give them a chance to have a life according the Koran. That’s the reason he supports fight’s all over the world and is personally involved in the main conflicts, which comprise – of course Israel as culmination point.
He is quite smart using this conflict and hate the US gained over supporting Israel and the – as he thinks – fallen regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt – and all the hate inside the people in this depressed region to position himself and his liberation activities, which are far more than just Israel and Jerusalem. As he himself stated: Even unbeliever in Saudi Arabia are considered as occupation of holy land.
Resulting – the agenda is bigger – the selling story is focussed and clever – the US answer more or less logical – democratisation or even more participation of the masses in the Arab world as a possible valve or channelling frustration into constructive civilisation building.
But, to be realistic, with this point of view you will easily find a next conflict where unbeliever have their dirty feet on Islamic land. So solving the Israeli conflict will just point the focus of the extremist groups to Kashmir, or to Thailand, or the Philippines or even China.
That’s why China and Russia do not vote for UN backed intervention: To have free hands in crack down their own Islamic extremist groups without international TV journalists. Unlike the US they have more to lose than just two towers, the integrity of their land.
So bad news for the world and all who think this will be over within a couple of years – this will last centuries and running out of Oil of these people will even make thinks worst – because of lacking visions of civilised existence in wealth and pride.
"Some observers of Islamic society, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, hold that one of the primary religious reasons for continued Muslim Arab hostility towards Israel is that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims." This is a lie. People of the Book are all respected by Muslims. -- Abdel Qadir 01:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have to prove all the lies? There are too many lies here to spend all my life proving the truth. [18] -- Abdel Qadir 01:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"though proponents do point to the rapid decrease of the Christian Palestinian population (along with those of most Christian Arabs) as, at least in part, outcomes of Muslim hostility to non-Muslims." This is because of Muslim hostility to Christians? Or is it due to jews hostility to Palestinians? Christians can move to America or Europe but Muslims must stay and fight for justice against the Jew. -- Abdel Qadir 01:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Multiediting to reinsert POV is a means to muddy the water, Jayjg, so that you can claim you did not revert. Place discussion here, please, before mindlessly reverting others' edits. Dr Zen 05:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mucked up Arabia, the US and now Wikipedia. -- Wiesenthaler 07:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Shyster was already on the list by the way. Why are you taking it personally? I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to dishonest cheating stealing murdering scumbags lawyers/ -- Wiesenthaler 07:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The section about Palestinian Christians is ridiculous blaming everything on Muslims and none on Israel. See this link that you keep deleting. The role of Palestinian Christians -- Wiesenthaler 07:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No unbiased editor can work on this or any other article touching on Israeli issues. Any edits that POV warriors such as Jayjg or Jewbacca do not approve of are reverted automatically without discussion by whichever Zionist POV pusher is on hand, with the others joining the battle when the first has run out of reverts. This is disgraceful. It seems that whoever can push their POV the hardest and the longest wins. Dr Zen 08:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abdel, you were asking for a reference for the dhimmi claims. I've added Benny Morris, who is a history professor at Ben-Gurion University. He addresses only the history of the dhimmi from around 630 to the 1940s. So far, I haven't found anything on the current legal situation of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, but you're welcome to add something if you feel there is positive material that should be there to provide a balance. All you have to do is make sure you take your material from a reputable publisher (e.g a mainstream newspaper, an academic journal, book or similar. If you look around, there are likely to be Arab academics who have addressed this issue. Or possibly the U.N. Slim 09:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Given that Benny Morris has written about the details and background of the conflict, and given that he's an academic, he's a very good source to use. The reason I like Bennis Morris as a source for Wikipedia, is that he has tried to straddle both sides of the debate. I suggest you give him a try, starting with Righteous Victims to read his analysis of how the history of the dhimmi directly led to today's prevalent attitudes on both sides. And as Jay says, if you have other sources to add, by all means do so. Slim 21:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Why the ‘Views’ is such a long straight? very unreadable i am attempting to provide headings so user can read easily or glance through the article.
Zain 11:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have some issues which are not mentioned here, some claims by Palestinians which are not mentioned here. And some answer to some things which are not given.
Although normally in wikipedia If editor thinks he is adding relevant, NPOV statement its ok. But I think may be on this page rules are different. So how can I add some thing which is not mentioned earlier?
But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.
If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is.
If you are an experienced wiki-ist, you will probably have a good sense what will be accepted edits, and which edits should be discussed first.
If you are new to wikipedia, or unsure how others will view your proposals, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:
1. If the material in question is a sentence or so in length, copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there. 2. If the material is longer than a sentence, list your objections on the Talk page but leave the main article as it is.
Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.
Also, show respect for consensus. Avoid making major changes to an article if a vote (or poll) is currently in progress about whether those changes should be made, especially if there is no clear consensus shown by the vote.
We are dealing with an Arbitration case which involves editors to this and related pages. While the decision is not final, one problem that was noted was edits which made controversial changes to most sections of the article, no references offered, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/HistoryBuffEr_and_Jayjg/Proposed_decision#Extensive_rewriting_by_HistoryBuffEr. What I am proposing there (applying only to those before the Committee) is that changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English. I think the evil to be avoided is bombarding the other editors with a mass of edits, either all together (in one edit) or over a short period of time. That way others have a chance to consider the edits and not feel the whole article is turning to shit, unless closely monitored (and reverted frequently). Fred Bauder 13:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Zain 14:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose a policy that "changes be limited to one fact and be supported by a readily available reference in English." References in other languages should be entirely acceptable, and limiting changes to one fact at a time makes it virtually impossible to make any major edits, which many of the pages surrounding this conflict need. However, I do agree that all changes ought ideally to be sourced. - Mustafaa 14:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, would you agree that an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted? A result which will occur no matter how "good" the numerous changes are. I don't think this notion needs to be restricted to "one fact", but if references are provided for a series of related changes, if changes are too extensive it becomes difficult to evaluate what is happening. As do references to books and websites in Arabic or Hebrew. Fred Bauder 16:46, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
References in Arabic and Hebrew do make life a bit more difficult, but there are enough speakers of both languages on en that translations offerred can be cross-checked, and that is more appropriate than just banning their use, since not all information is available in English. I do agree that "an edit which changes almost every paragraph in the article in a POV way will be reverted", but what counts as such is hard to determine... My experience with Sabra and Shatila Massacre leads me to suspect that such a policy would be misused to excuse reversions of contributions that actually significantly improved an already POV but supposedly "consensus" article. - Mustafaa 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here are some things which I will like to change. May be in first step just one proposal. It is stated in article that
I won't get into the 'Israel' part, because its acceptance or interpretation is very disputed. But label of Arab is not true. Let me give you example.
Same goes for Greek Christians and other refugees.
'Arab Israeli' conflict term is mostly applicable but this is not 'technically correct'. Plus there is no relation with 'Arab ancestry' with the conflict. Whatever ancestry you have if you are accepted as 'jew' you are one side of the conflict, if you are not accepted as 'jew' ancestry or religion) you are on the other side.
What about changing too
Can I make this change? Or correction?
Zain 15:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would go further. There are Jews on the side of the Palestinians (see Neturei Karta) and even, sadly, Arabs on the side of Israel (eg the South Lebanon Army. - Mustafaa 15:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as right to return is concerned, yes, but as regards the accuracy of the term "Arab-Israeli Conflict", which is the issue I thought you were addressing, this illustrates that the conflict is strictly speaking neither Arabs vs. Israelis nor Arabs vs. Jews. - Mustafaa 15:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
History section starts with 1948. conflict between two started when migrants started to come arm groups, property disputes Every thing? Why it is missing in history section. Can I add into it earlier conflicts.
Zain 15:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's a fair point; technically, earlier disputes don't involve Israel per se, but given that they involve the people that became Israel, it seems sensible to address them here. - Mustafaa 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Which massacre page? Anyway, I was agreeing with you: there should be at least some info on the beginnings of the conflict. A good starting point might be the 30's, although the "verbal" war started well before that. - Mustafaa 16:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"frequently by giving them the property of Palestinian refugees under the Absentee Property Act". Frequently? What does that mean in this context, and according to which sources? Jayjg 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, make it "sometimes" if you prefer; given that most Israeli land falls into that category, I assume "frequently" is an understatement, but obviously I can't prove that offhand. For concrete examples, see, for instance, Robert Fisk's Pity the Nation. - Mustafaa 19:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And note that it is actually the official Israeli position that "the property of these Arabs and Jews could be counterbalanced due to the population exchange" [24] - Mustafaa 19:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A new citation:
- says an Israeli Mizrahi author, Sami Chetrit [25]. - Mustafaa
"although in fact Palestinians were nowhere forced to remain in refugee camps". They weren't? Were they allowed to move anywhere they wanted in Syria or Lebanon, for example? Jayjg 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As much so as any citizen, to the best of my knowledge. - Mustafaa 19:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly they don't get Syrian (nor Lebanese) citizenship. I haven't heard about residence restrictions, but I'm always happy to see new sources. - Mustafaa 20:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"some Palestinian groups, as well as Egypt in 1973, chose war"? This implies that Egypt went to war to fight for the Palestinians, which I think is farfetched. Jayjg 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"certain Arab states such as Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen do not give full rights and freedoms to Jews, and others, such as Saudi Arabia..." can you source these claims more precisely? (Not that any Syrian gets "full rights and freedoms", mind - the term is rather ambiguous, and I'd like to come up with a more precise one.) - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think following are two rules here
Now let me make some changes and try to explain it here
So please be careful in editing ‘claims’ which may be seen as ‘POV’ better method is to give a ‘response’ that’s the reason we have chosen two sides claim different. Because we are considering both as POV.
What one sides claim is not expected to taken as fact.
Zain is having trouble with English. Consequently both his edits and his comments on talk are difficult to understand. Fred Bauder 22:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
ok can we ask Fred Bauder for mediation on [state terrorism] as a 'third person'. I will really like this to happen. So can it happen? If you are tired don't worry we can do it tomorrow or some other time.
Zain 23:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This won't work as I am an arbitrator. I don't want to get into details and then have to recuse myself. Just try to see that everyone is doing their best. Fred Bauder 01:16, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
You might try User:Ed Poor or simply Wikipedia:Requests for mediation Fred Bauder 11:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
1/ You insisted on "traditional". So, traditionally, the dhimmi were those who had accepted Muslim rule rather than be slaughtered. 2/ The dhimmi were allowed to keep their land precisely because they had accepted dhimma. 3/ Elie Kedourie is a "historian" with no mention of his ethnicity or religion, and yet Muhammad Hamidullah is a "Muslim scholar". 4/ You moved the quote from Hamidullah to the end of a list of antiArabisms, where I had interposed it. And you added a "however". This is clearly intended to bias the reading of this part of the article. 5/ Cite Morris. If he says the Muslims "rose up" against the Jews (a bizarre reading since uprisings are generally against rulers) you won't mind quoting his saying so. If he did not, and this is a POV wording not of his invention, then you'll agree that my rewriting is far more acceptable. 6/ There is nothing to suggest that Harun raised heavy taxes "on behalf of" the vizier, which implies that the vizier prompted it. Please give your source for this edit.
I've reverted your widescale changes, and I ask you to discuss each here before imposing your POV. Dr Zen 04:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1. If you wanted to say "rather than be slaughtered", you could have.
But I didn't want to. It's not necessary. It is, however, necessary to imply that the rule was accepted.
2. That's not what Morris says. You can't reverse Morris's meaning just because you believe something else.
You can't cite Morris in one sentence and expect his writ to run for the entire article.
3. Do a search on Muhammad Hamidullah. He was one of the great Muslim scholars of the 20th century, and that's how the links describe him. He was a lawyer, professor, translater, author, linguist fluent in dozens of languages, etc. He's described as a Muslim scholar here and all over the web because that's what he was.
I know who he is. You have ignored the point I made, which is that you do not refer to others in the article by their religion or ethnicity.
4. Nonsense. The structure of the article is to give the position of the people stating it, then give countering positions. Since Hamidullah's position counters those of the earlier people, it goes at the end.
When has that ever been the idea of this or any other article?
5. Slim had the book, and she quoted him. Since you've never read it, you shouldn't speculate about what it actually said, and change things according to your opinions.
She did not quote him saying they "rose up". I assume she cannot. She replaced the part about Spain (not in the area, and not on the map), which has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict the article is about, but does smear Arabs quite nicely.
6. A deputy vizier is an advisor to the vizier; he is appointed by the vizier, and does everything on the vizier's say so. If you like, though, we can take the whole apologetic out, since the only point of it was to provide an excuse for the killing of hundreds of innocent Jews; what is your source for it in the first place?
It provided context. I know you don't like anything that suggests that Arabs are not bloodthirsty anti-Semitic murderers who will kill Jews at the drop of a turban, but the context is important.
I'll NPOV your POV edits again now. Jayjg 04:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) You'll reimpose your POV, YMTS. in italics Dr Zen 05:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen, I draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Talk page article, which explicitly states "Don't misrepresent other people: Typing errors, grammar, etc are always fair game, and remove personal attacks where you can, but don't edit someone's words to have them say something they don't believe in.". In this edit [36] you do just that. I will assume that your intentions were good, but please don't do so again. Jayjg 04:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would the editor who added the following please supply a publication date and a link if there is one? "However, Muslim scholar Muhammad Hamidullah writes in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs: "If Muslim residents in non-Muslim countries received the same treatment as Dhimmi in the Islamic regime, they would be more than satisfied; they would be grateful." Many thanks, Slim 05:27, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
My pleasure:
Muhammad Hamidullah, "Relations of Muslims with non-Muslims", Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol.7, no.1, January 1986, p.9 Dr Zen 05:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I am about to create a References section, which at the moment will sadly only contain two references, but hopefully it will grow, as that is the surest way of ending disputes that I know of — always cite sources. Slim 05:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
As it happens, I do not agree. It's rather easy to find sources that agree with one view or another. I believe it's best to include as many views as possible and to present them as views (I'm not sure about referencing them all because in a large article one will end up with a long list of references -- but the references are for us not the reader; in other words, I think you should put Benny Morris in the references if you really think he is useful further reading, but cite him here on the talk page if you simply want him to back your POV). I think it helps to present "facts" as neutrally as possible too and for all to accept that facts do not necessarily become any more "factual" just because somebody, anybody says so. Dr Zen 05:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, what's your point? There are different levels of verifiability, as the policy points out, and different ways to cite sources. I'm entirely conversant with the policies. Perhaps you feel every single claim in the article should be sourced with full references. If so, get cracking. I disagree, of course. I don't believe for instance that you need to source that the Middle East has seen a conflict. You can state that as a fact. Nor do you need to show that it has in fact been the centre of diplomatic and media attention for years. This is not disputed. Referencing these claims would make the article unwieldy, if not unreadable.
I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said. I suggested that we ought not to weigh down the article with references for everything (a different matter to suggesting that we should not source everything -- you are conflating the two) because it is simply not reader-friendly. It is readily verifiable that Hamidullah said what I claim. I gave the full quote and the magazine in which he said it. It is not a particularly useful piece of further reading, and as such, I think it can safely be omitted as a reference. By the way, I cannot find anything in the policy that gives a hierarchy of sources. I think clearly that in different cases different sources will be best. Benny Morris is not, in fact, a primary source on 15th century Morocco. A 15th century Moroccan would be! Do you see? Dr Zen 07:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm also not sure how you're distinguishing between a source and a reference. Perhaps if you explain your terms and your concerns, I'll know better what you mean.