Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 3

message: 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.
: I never heard of Savich.  I based my opinion (less black-and-white than summarised here) on  the evidence given at the official enquiry after the 1929 riots, including the response made by the Jewish Agency to the enquiry report, all of which I have read.  Evidently Savich has not.  On the matter of incitement, the Mufti was blamed for contributing to the general atmosphere but the conclusion was that "no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement."  As for the charge of leading the riots, the evidence is the opposite: "After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder."  A better case can be made for the Mufti's leadership in the 1936-1939 revolt. --Zero 01:40, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than declare "all of which I have read.  Evidently Savich has not." perhaps you may with to read Savich's work and bring quotes from the British Enquiry.  Already the British had sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment for his role in the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920. Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner and a Jew,  dropped the charges against Amin al-Husayni and appointed him the grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, thereby positioning the Mufti to continue his previous activities. Zero0000, citations please.  Others would like to read the source material you quote from as well. OneVoice 15:40, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I brought quotes from the enquiry report already.  They are in italics above and were copied by me directly from the conclusions section of the report.  Since you are wondering if this enquiry whitewashed the Arab role, here are some more extracts from the conclusions section: "The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established. The outbreak was not premeditated. [The disturbances] took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property.  A general massacre of the Jewish community at Hebron was narrowly averted." --Zero 11:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husseini & Riots 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Mufti and the disturbances in the 20s and 30s 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't complain here about trivia.  Just go and fix them! --Zero 01:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article overall 

message: "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: 
# Have or have not the Arabs reject the UN 1947 partition plan? Have or have not Israel accepted it? 
# So, the Arab nations knew the Israel's intention to expand. Naturally, their five armies preemptively invaded to prevent those nasty Zionists' expansion? Correct?
# And despite of the above and their openly genocidal rhetoric, we prefer to call this a "defensive war" here? Whoever calls this NPOV has lost my respect, sorry. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:11, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab POV

message: So, Zero claims my contributions are excessively propagandistic, and Dissident that they are pro-Israeli propaganda. Let us go through this point-by-point:
# 1948 or 1948-1949: it is a simple, proven fact that the fighting lasted until January 1949. Try Google on that or visit your local library.
# Arab-Israeli War or Israeli War of Independence: I do not consider this a major issue, but Wikipedia uses the term 'War of Independence' for many (all?) other wars which have led to a country’s independence. See List_of_wars. So why should Israel get a special treatment? Also, the page 1948_Arab-Israeli_War claims that the Arab term for it is 'al Nakba', but the Nakba page itself defines it as the outcome of the war, not the war itself. And, if Nakba were really the term for the war itself, the page should redirect to 1948_Arab-Israeli_War, as the Israeli_War_of_Independence does. The way it is now, Wikipedia is biased towards Arabs, since the same war is referred to by a 'neutral' and a pro-Arab term, but not by an Israeli one.
# Began after the declaration or Began as a joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi attack: For all consecutive wars, Wikipedia described how it started. Why not for the first one? Just to favor the Arab POV?
# According to Israel, the war resulted from Arab rejection or Arabs had rejected: It is not only 'according to Israel', it is a well-established fact that Arabs rejected the partition plan. Again, see a search engine or your local library.
# in which Israel was formed out of part of Palestine or proposed establishment of an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine: The UN did not establish Israel any more than the Arab state. It actually did not have the power to establish any state, just to propose a solution.
# Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war: They maybe claim that today. I have never seen such a claim being made at the time of the war. See also comment by Humus_sapiens above.
# drive the Jews into the sea: Well documented quote, see standard literature, e.g.Collins & Lapierre: O, Jerusalem. 
# About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled and the Arabs expelled or killed all Jews: Does anyone challenge this? Two sentences further, a former edition claims that 600,000 Palestinians left. This is roughly 2/3 of the population, see UN survey. Concerning the Jews, please give me one Jewish settlement which survived under the Arab rule in Palestine.
# but that changed after the Six-Day War: This is to put the prior statement into context. I agree that it could have been done better. I propose the following, new formulation: In few cases, (e.g. in Morocco) local Arab governments strongly encouraged Jews to stay, and some Jewish leaders (e.g. in Haifa) encouraged Arabs to stay. Is this OK?
# The fighting ended…: As for all consecutive wars, it is interesting to know how it ended.
# withdrawal or expulsion of the UN peacekeepers: The forces did not withdraw of their free will, but were ordered to do so by Nasser.
# stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and public announcement by Nasser are well established facts, I have provided a link, and there are many more.
# 1991 or 1987-1993: simple facts, easy to check. Also, the beginning and the end are no less relevant than for other wars.
# IDF's response was widely criticized world-wide: this statement is so general that it can as well fit to any other war. Furthermore, it is irrelevant for the understanding of the uprising, unless the author wants to suggest that the criticism influenced the outcome of the uprising. In that case, the claim should be substantiated.
# The Gulf War: I think I explained sufficiently why it counts as an Arab-Israeli war. 
# Most leaders or Some voices: If they are really leaders, and form a majority, how come that the terror still exists? True, there are public figures condemning terror, but they do not lead anyone. And, considering all public figures in the Palestinian society, they are definitely not a majority.
# both counterproductive, and more importantly, wrong or some even consider it morally wrong. The former wording implies that everyone who rejects terrorism does it for moral reasons. I do not see this claim supported by evidence. Does anyone have any quotes?
# renewed Israeli invasion or al-Aqsa Intifada: The former is excessively Arab POV, blaming squarely Israel. It implies that without the 'invasion' the support for terror would be lower, but avoids mentioning that the 'invasion' followed terrorism (so that actually terrorism produces support for terrorists). My wording is neutral, it gives the context but does not put blame on anyone.
-- 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:
* The war started with the invasion of the Arab states.  At this point of time the Israelis-to-be were already in control of a substantial fraction of the area allocated to the "Arab State", and nearly half of the refugee problem had been created already.  Many events of key importance to the Arab perspective, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, had already happened.  One reason the start of the war is dated to May 15 1948 is to remove the Palestinians from the story.  It is an opinion and not a fact that the war started in May 1948.
* Israel accepted the UN resolution and the Arabs rejected it. Well, Israel said that it accepted the resolution; that much is plain fact.  However, behind the scenes, Israel was making plans to take more territory than alloted, including all the areas where there was any Jewish settlement and all of Jerusalem.  Israel was also discussing with Transjordan their mutual interest in preventing the formation of an Arab State and had a semi-agreement to that end.  So it is an opinion and not a fact that Israel accepted the UN resolution.
* The UN "did not have the power to establish any state".  Maybe so, there is still legal argument on that point.  It is certainly not an accepted fact.
* drive the Jews into the sea  I don't think these exact words were used in 1948, but anyway it is quite easy to quote Zionist leaders on the desirability of expelling the Palestinians.  Such quotation competitions make bad history.
* please give me one Jewish settlement which survived under the Arab rule in Palestine.  There were none, but why didn't you reveal that there were hardly any Jewish settlements that ended under Arab control?  The Etzion bloc (where there was one massacre) and the Jewish part of the old city (where there wasn't) were almost everything.  Did you mention the more than 400 Arab villages that were completely depopulated and the dozen plus massacres of Arabs?  So your edit here tells just one side of a two-sided story where most of the misfortune was on the other side.
* Arabs maintained they fought a defensive war.  I would not use that wording myself, but the image of fighting a defensive war was the one presented in 1948 as can be seen from reading newspapers at the time.  The Arab states claimed to be intervening to protect the Palestinians from dispossession.  Whether you accept the claim or not, that is what they claimed.
* The (UN) forces did not withdraw of their free will, but were ordered to do so by Nasser. This is misleading since the UN presence was always by Egyptian invitation.  One can ask why the UN didn't just move to the other side of the border.  To save you the trouble of answering: it was because Israel had always refused to allow UN forces on its territory.  So we could alternatively describe the situation as Egypt adopting the stance that Israel already had.  That would be a POV of course, but so is yours.
* Gulf War.  Saddam Hussein attempted to make it part of the Israeli-Arab conflict but failed.  I'm not totally opposed to it being listed here, but on balance I don't think it belongs.
* Jewish refugees from Arab countries.  Your timing is way off; there were no substantial Jewish refugees from other coutries until some time later.  Your choice of words is also POV.  The attempt to establish an equivalence between Arab and Jewish refugees is pure POV that does not survive a critical analysis.
--Zero 13:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Arab POV

message: 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)
replies: text: I cut & pasted what was the entire Marxist views section into Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxists, buddhists, AAs, and the sufferers of [[appendicitis]] 

message: "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)
replies: text: Hi Mustafaa, I'm no expert in this field, but one could easily say that in Egypt and Saudi Arabia such persecution happens. In the countries such as Saudi Arabia, where non-muslim religions are not legal, discrimination against other religions could be assumed since they are outlawed.--Josiah 22:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I have a Brazilian Jewish friend and her father is an Egyptian Jew, but he lives in Israel since 1984. Pedro Inecco 11:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: All of the Karaite Jews in Egypt fled because of the persecution they faced after the Lavon Affair (bank accounts seized, etc.), and now mostly live in either California, USA or Israel.--Josiah 14:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "in most of which the remaining Jews are discriminated against"- says who?

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HistoryBuffer 

message: 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)
:HistoryBuffEr, you have mistunderstood the policy, which discourages more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.  As it stands, I have violated nothing.  Again, I encourage you to discuss proposed changes in Talk: pages, and refrain from solely making ad hominem comments about me. Jayjg 05:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg, 3 strikes -- you're out 

message: "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)
replies: text: Perhaps it should read "Most Palestinian militant groups". Jayjg 02:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't make those kind of edits, do you? Rubs you the wrong way? Alberuni 03:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most Palestinian groups" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Israel was not allied with the United States in its war on Iraq, nor has it take part in any military action against Iraq.  Iraq is at war with a coalition primarily led by the United States, which Israel is not part of. Jayjg 02:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that Israel and the US are not allies? Israel was in an official state of war with Iraq when the US attacked Iraq. Did you forget that? Are you claiming that Israel has not contributed in any way, such as missile technology, ammunition, intelligence, access to facilities, training, etc for the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan? You know they (or is it "you all"?) have. Is Israel affiliated with al-Qaida then? Are you claiming that the War on Terror is not relevant or related to the Arab Israeli conflict despite the stated motives of al-Qaida that I cited in my edits, the "declaration of war against the Jews and Crusaders"? Are you claiming that the Israeli attacks on Palestinians are unrelated to Islamist animosity and attacks on the US and Israel? "If mine eyes offend thee...." Alberuni 02:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Quaeda has many beefs relating to Andalusia, Crusaders, etc., and though it has recently played up the Palestinian conflict in a bid to garner more world support, the Sept 11 attack was still an attack on the U.S., not Israel.  In response the U.S. and allies attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.  Israel was not involved in any of these wars. Jayjg 03:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that's the official hasbara line from Tel Aviv central office. But if opposition to Israel is only a "recent" goal of Islamist doctrine, how do you explain al-Qaida's Declaration of War against Americans (Crusaders) and Jews (Israelis) dating back to 1996 and 1998 long before the 2001 WTC attacks? "But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindu Kush mountains in Khurasan, where - by the Grace of Allah - the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the superpower was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greatest). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that has been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist/Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the night-journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory." I guess that was just a head fake, huh? Alberuni 03:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you sure that Israel was not involved in any way with the US war on Iraq and Afghanistan? You would think that Israel would be a better ally and stand up with the US in its time of need. Why wouldn't Israel marshal its resources to help the USA, its best friend in the world to attack Iraq, Israel's declared enemy with whom they were in a state of war? It really is a big mystery, isn't it Jayjg? Makes you wonder what good they are after all the $100 billion we've given them (er "you all").....I wonder why......Alberuni 03:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  International "War on Terror" against International islamist movement 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take a chill pill. In any event, it isn't wise to slander a moderator.--Josiah 22:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't wise to slander any Wikipedia editor, and it makes no difference whether or not they are a moderator.  In fact, it's a violation of several Wikipedia policies. Jayjg 22:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still waiting for Jayjg to justify his heavy handed edits and reverts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Small copyedit 

message: 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":
===Israeli views===
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.
# Could someone tell me which experts in Islamic society hold the position that Islamic law forbids Jews or Christians from being considered equal to Muslims? 
# What does "Israelis claim that these ideas still prosper on the basis of nationalism, much like the anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe" mean? This is not clear to me. Also, who are the most prominent proponents of this position?
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).
#Where does it say in Islam that non-muslims must accept the status of dhimmis if they want to live with Muslims?
#Where does it say in Islamic law that Muslims are allowed to kill Jews and Christians in Arab lands if they refuse to accept the status of dhummis?
#Which Islamic scholars upheld the status of dhimmis? Did/have all Islamic rulers implemented this status?
#What does "this image" in the sentence "Some Muslims declare, however, that this image is created falsely by passages that are taken out of context."? Further to this, which Muslims declare this? If they declare this, what passages do they say have been taken out of context?
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.
# Which Arab criticisms of the state of Israel are being talked about here?
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.
#Which liberal Israelis oppose settlements?
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.
#It is said that some Israelis fear the dismantlement of settlments. This is obviously an identifiable people group. Which Israelis are being referred to?
===Palestinian views===
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.
#Which Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state?
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.
#Are there any particular instances that can be cited of attacks on Muslims due to racism?
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.
#Who doubts wheter the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel?
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.
#Was the peace plan really written in such a way that it was an original idea? Is this NPOV?
#Which Arabs backed the peace plan?
#Which Arabs criticised the peace plan?
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.
#Are there any prominent Arabs who can be cited to have denied that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today?
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.
#Which Arabs maintain there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine?
#The next sentence: "But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state." is unclear. Is this a general statement that most Jews who arrived came with the intention of taking over, or is this the views of those "some Arabs"?
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.
#Can the allegation that "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." be clarified? Firstly, which Pro-Israeli advocates have claimed this? Secondly, is there any basis to this claim (i.e. is there any documented evidence for this)?
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.
#Which members of the PLO have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing to the Six-Day War?
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.
#"Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution." Which voices?
#"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." Which moderates were fired? When did this happen?
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.
#Which Palestinian and Arab leaders have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians?
#Which Arab and Muslim countries disagree with any form of peace process, and further hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just?
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.
#Comment: "(ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis)" seems incredibly POV to me. Shouldn't this be rephrased?
#What does "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." mean? I do not know what "silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza" is talking about. Could we clarify this statement?
#"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." Maybe I'm missing something here, but this statement does not appear to follow from the previous sentence. These appear to be two unrelated ideas... shoot me down on this one if you like because I'm sure I'm missing something. 
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.
#Can we cite:
#*which Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism?
#*which 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?
**Yes, do a google search and you'll quickly have your results. Heck, certain persons on wikipedia have expressed those views.--Josiah 14:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: 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.
#Which Palestinians do not oppose a Jewish state?
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.
#Are there any particular instances that can be cited of attacks on Muslims due to racism?
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.
#Who doubts wheter the return of refugees is compatible with the continued existence of the state of Israel?
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.
#Was the peace plan really written in such a way that it was an original idea? Is this NPOV?
#Which Arabs backed the peace plan?
#Which Arabs criticised the peace plan?
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.
#Are there any prominent Arabs who can be cited to have denied that historical grounds can justify the existence of a Jewish nation today?
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.
#Which Arabs maintain there is nothing wrong with Jewish immigration into Palestine?
#The next sentence: "But most of the Jews arriving in Palestine did so with the intention of taking it over and establishing a Jewish majority state." is unclear. Is this a general statement that most Jews who arrived came with the intention of taking over, or is this the views of those "some Arabs"?
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.
#Can the allegation that "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." be clarified? Firstly, which Pro-Israeli advocates have claimed this? Secondly, is there any basis to this claim (i.e. is there any documented evidence for this)?
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.
#Which members of the PLO have accepted the right of Israel to exist within the borders prevailing to the Six-Day War?
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.
#"Some Palestinian voices reject terrorism as a solution." Which voices?
#"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." Which moderates were fired? When did this happen?
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.
#Which Palestinian and Arab leaders have stated they believe the Palestinians are justified in carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians?
#Which Arab and Muslim countries disagree with any form of peace process, and further hold that terrorism against Israel is right and just?
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.
#Comment: "(ironically, the militant Palestinian organizations fail to make this distinction when it comes to Israelis)" seems incredibly POV to me. Shouldn't this be rephrased?
#What does "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." mean? I do not know what "silent violence of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza" is talking about. Could we clarify this statement?
#"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." Maybe I'm missing something here, but this statement does not appear to follow from the previous sentence. These appear to be two unrelated ideas... shoot me down on this one if you like because I'm sure I'm missing something. 
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.
#Can we cite:
#*which Arab publications claim Zionism to be worse than German Nazism?
#*which 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?
**Yes, do a google search and you'll quickly have your results. Heck, certain persons on wikipedia have expressed those views.--Josiah 14:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian views

message: *Yes, the 9/11 attacks and Iraq war were the direct result of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and until the Israel solves that conflict (and only they can solve it, IMO) terrorism internationally and war in the mideast in particular will be a constant. Sam Spade Arb Com election 16:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #--Josiah 18:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: 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)
replies: text: Reversions are necessary to help Wikipedia overcome Zionist bullies and POV pushers. --Alberuni 21:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: There will never be consensus while the fanatic Zionists are involved. --Alberuni 22:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It's difficult to find consensus with someone who believes the purpose of Talk: pages is to promote conspiracy theories and launch personal attacks. Jayjg 02:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have obstructed edits at every turn in order to promote your pro-Israeli POV on the pages of Wikipedia articles. --Alberuni 02:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 reverts Alberuni, will you for 5? 

message: It would be interesting to include
* A  Non-Violent Look at  Conflict & Violence by Mohandas K. Gandhi.
in the external links.
:Er, no it wouldn't. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi 

message: "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)
replies: text: Am I the only one to notice that the last phrase doesn't smell good? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say "solely the outcomes of...,", it says "at least in part, the outcomes of...".  This implies multiple factors.  Here's an interesting page to read: . Jayjg 16:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Lies 

message: 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)
replies: text: Look at the way they hog these articles as if they own them! They delete everything that comes from editors not in their "in-group" on sight then demand that "outsiders" meet their terms before they will agree to edit it back in for us. Jimbo would be rolling over in his grave - if he was dead yet. --Wiesenthaler 08:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zionist POV pushers work in team ''again''

message: 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)
:Oy vey! It's Benny Morris again. Perhaps you should read some other people, Slim! The whole idea of "dhimmitude" is based on the writings of Bat Ye'or, a rabid anti-Arab, and has become a pillar of hasbara. Historically, subjugated peoples were not treated equally to Arabs but this should be compared with the treatment of Saxons by Normans, except the Arabs actually allowed the dhimmi to keep their lands. We don't refuse to go to France because of our experiences, of course, nor are we occupying Normandy. The levy on them is understandable in the context of being a conquered people. Yes, they were banned from carrying weapons (not surprisingly, since they were the "enemy") and they were not allowed to sell alcohol to Moslems (a terrible burden that, being forced to respect Moslem customs). At times in distant history, the burden on dhimmis was harsher, but the general rule was that they lived side-by-side with Moslems unmolested (something that was not at all true the other way round!). None of it amounts to very much. Your description of Moslems "rising up" against Jewish communities does not even begin to look at the circumstances of these actions, but simply reports them as fact. Do you know the circumstances or are you simply content to report what an Israeli historian writes? Dr Zen 22:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, they were the "enemy" after living among Muslims for hundreds of years?  And Benny Morris is a highly respected scholar and historian; why do you imagine he bases his ideas on Bat Ye'or?  Anyway, your POV apologetics are interesting, but, unlike Slim, you don't appear to have any sources to back them up. Jayjg 22:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim extensively quotes Benny Morris wherever she can. I'm beginning to think she is Benny Morris. I note that you do not address any of the points I make but content yourself to yell "Slim's right. Slim cites Benny Morris." As if Benny Morris were the only authority on Muslim history extant!Dr Zen 04:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Find another, then. Jayjg 05:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dhimmi

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long View section 

message: "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)
replies: text: Fair point.  Let's remove Egypt. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  some Palestinian groups, as well as Egypt in 1973, chose war 

message: "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)
replies: text: Here are some of the easier to find links , , .  Also, Jordanian citizenship law does not allow Jews to be citizens. Jayjg 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A word of caution, Jayjg, given the talk about references above. These sources are highly POV. I hope this isn't what Fred Bauder means! We'll end up with articles that are entirely referenced to hasbara sources!Dr Zen 23:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: On those links, I see nothing about Lebanon not giving Jews "full rights and freedoms", and only uncited claims from a highly POV source about Syria and Yemen. - Mustafaa 20:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More information:  .  The first link is better. The Jews of Syria have been persecuted for years; the issue is quite famous.  I'll take out Lebanon. Jayjg 20:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Syria, the State Department says: "The Government primarily cites tense relations with Israel as the reason for barring Jews from government employment and for exempting them from military service obligations. Jews also are the only religious minority group whose passports and identity cards note their religion."  As for Yemen, the only discrimination claim I've found is one that non-Muslims aren't allowed to run for public office.  The claim about Saudi Arabia contradicts the Wikipedia article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, copied from State Department, which states that Jews live in Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi Arabia, at least, should be removed too. - Mustafaa 21:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: full rights and freedoms

message: 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  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)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? I have not changed even a word of your comments. You, OTOH, deleted mine. Stop this nonsense. Dr Zen 05:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have interspersed your words throughout my comment, so that it gives a false impression of what I intended to say.  I restored my original comment, and have assumed your intentions were good, but please leave my comments alone, so that they say exactly what I want them to say.  If you want to respond to my comments, you are free to do so, but not by sprinkling words throughout my comments, changing their meaning and impact. Jayjg 05:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a grip on yourself. My replies are in the correct places in your comments so that anyone reading it can follow the discussion. If you do not like it, find a way of refactoring it, but do not order me to allow you to hold forth unmolested. This is not a soapbox, Jayjg, and you're not writing speeches. My suggestion to you is that when you make a long comment that you expect an answer to, you break it up into numbered points, or leave spaces, or just write a series of shorter comments. And do not delete my comments! That's unforgivably rude.Dr Zen 05:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a grip yourself.  You have mangled that small (130 word) paragraph again, making it unreadable.  Please stop doing so. If you need to respond, do so in a way that is readable, and doesn't change the meaning of my words. And don't delete my comments! That's unforgivably rude. Jayjg 05:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Zen, please do not misrepresent other people