Talk:Israel/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 September 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Additions

Before I get attacked for an obviously conservative/liberal piece of racist/imperialist/whatever garbage, I was just trying to get something up here that would explain things somewhat. It's kind of bleh, but if ANYONE knows more about it than me, PLEASE add something.

It's been a while since I've studied this subject, but I think the idea that the land was given to them is erroneous, in a way. Settlement was encouraged there, but Israel had to declare its statehood, and (as is often the case) not without violence. The roots of zionism, of course, go back well before WWII, and the land itself was a serious point of contention during and after WWI, as contradictory assurances were made for the same area. The Balfour Declaration stated preference for a Jewish homeland, but the same basic area was being promised to the Arabs for their revolt against the Ottoman Empire. I think Britain also made assurances to France that it would become a French protectorate. As usual the politicians made a huge mess of something that could easily have been, well... a slightly less huge mess. DickTurpis 23:14, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

If that's the case, do you mind editing it to include some of that? My general chronology is a little shaky; I'm a bit better with the theory for why it was needed.Researcher 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure, but keep in mind I'm not what WP calls a "reliable source" (much of this is from memory going back 10 years). You should probably get some independent verification (I'd look some of it up but I'm tired). The real concern is that it is very difficult to briefly describe any aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian situation without inaccuracies due to oversimplification. DickTurpis 23:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

How many of us are reliable sources? For most of the pages I've made up (this one included!) I've pulled facts out of classes I took up to 5 years ago in the hopes that I'm right. It's still better than nothing, and if you put your own worries out here in the talk page no one should be able to accuse you of attempting to move things in a direction due to ideology. Researcher 23:39, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

What's that make my edits - I left school in '62 - everything's changed since then. I do remember that loads of members of the early Israeli government had been previously regarded as terrorists. Susan^{talk to me} 01:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I rather think that we should mention things like British involvement and the Balfour Declaration. The terrorists came from the Haganah and the Irgun. Can't quite see a good RW angle at the moment though.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 16:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

The problem with an "RW" angle is that this is so contentious, even by rational people, that it's hard to find a good angle. I put it up because there were so many links.Researcher 16:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

references

could someone add a wikipedia link with one of those "for a alternative look" or what ever thing on the side? ^{— Unsigned, by: Alien / talk / contribs} 05:02, 30 September 2007‎ (UTC)

Asia, rly?

Rly. The middle East is Asia - Egypt is sort of the wild card - it's sort of in the Middle East in terms of its politics, but very much in Africa in terms of geography. Once you get comfortable with the idea that "Asia" is an imperialist/European/Orientalist construction anyway...PFoster 21:12, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Continents are themselves an imperialist/European/Orientalist construct, anyway. While the middle east may be "in asia", I found the description strange. Why no just say it's in the Middle East? Everyone knows where that is. Asia, on the other hand... human 23:06, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Lost tribes

Would someone with better research skills than me like to examine the 'lost tribes' and the British Israel movement? Susan^purrrrr 19:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Hey, Susan, can you throw a linky reffy thingie on that new section's quote? human 21:12, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Braiman

For all of his reluctance to actually discuss anythign on this here talk page, I have to agree that what was on the page in the first place wasn't so hot. The first part was okay but not unsourced, and that bit about a "new Holocaust" was a bit inflammatory, especially since it wasn't sourced either. The second bit about the British Isles made no sense at all to me. Maybe a rewrite explaining what the heck it was referring to? --Kels 14:58, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Palestine/Israel conflict

I think it might work better if we have the articles about each country (or whatever you want to call them) be relatively neutral to slightly favorable. Then we should have an Israeli/Palestinian conflict article that analyzes the good, the bad, and the ugly. That way, neither "country" article will present one-sided snark or commentary, and the conflict article will contain both sides in one place. Any thoughts on that? (posted on both talk pages) human 19:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Call me biased, but I think it is better fit for *RationalWiki* to criticize the Muslim fundamentalism ("We will never normalize relations with Israel, we will win because Allah is with us") rather than automatically take the stance opposite to that of the Christian fundamentalists. ^{— Unsigned, by: 85.250.19.2 / talk / contribs}

As the contributor to this page that is most clearly biased towards the Palestinian cause, I wanted to respond to some problems I have with this post.

1) Emphasizing on the religious elements of Israel/Palestine is often pursued in a factually inerrant way, and it is one of the more overblown elements of the conflict. From my personal observations, it generally misleads people about the nature of the conflict. While rationalwiki has done an excellent job of pointing out the follies of religious belief, we also have an obligation as free thinkers to post the truth, even when it doesn't fit our preconceived notions. Generally, if someone calls it a "religious conflict", you can assume they have not followed the scholarship on the conflict. Similar to the past century of Irish troubles, this is a nationalist struggle, not a religious one. The rhetoric and stated goals of the PLO are not about Islam; they are about Palestinian Nationalism.

2) The claims that the Palestinian side is synonymous with "Muslim" is empirically false. If we were to emphasize on the religious elements, we'd inevitably have to focus on the Jewish side of the equation. Outside of Hamas, the biggest Islamic organization in the struggle is Islamic Jihad. These groups were not a factor until the 90's, when Israel encouraged Islamist organizations in an attempt to weaken the secular PLO. This conflict has been going on since the 1940's, and for the majority of that time period, the PLO was considered the voice of the Palestinian struggle. The PLO is not a religious organization. Emphasizing on the Muslim side of Palestinian nationalism also ignores the Christian's who are also part of the struggle for Palestinian National Identity. The second largest group in the struggle was founded by a Christian.

3) While I don't mean to get personal, your claim that "We will never normalize relations with Israel, we will win because Allah is with us" gives me the impression that you have not read any of the scholarly material on the subject. This is what I meant above when I said that emphasizing on the religious elements of the conflict misleads people about it's nature, and leads them to take factually false and uninformed positions on this conflict. The lack of recognition of Israel has been going on since the beginning of this conflict, and it is rooted in Arab nationalism, not Islamic dogma or domination. Nasser, who struggled against Israel more than any head of state, was very opposed to political Islam, and was a very progressive leader. Sadat, who undid all of Nasser's reforms and led to the Islamic insurgence in Egypt, was the leader who recognized Israel!

It is true that for Hamas and Islamist organizations, Islam has a lot to do with the recognition of Israel. However, these groups only became a factor in the 90's. This conflict has been going on for decades prior, and groups like the PLO are not Islamist organizations.

Criticisms aside, I do think it would be fair to have an article separate article for Israel, Palestine, and the Israel/Palestine conflict. While it would be very difficult to have content in either article without mentioning the conflict, I imagine it can be done by sticking to things like political parties, systems, historical figures, and things of that nature. It would also make it much easier to moderate all three articles, as they would have clearly set domains for what is appropriate, and what isn't.-Yuri ^{— Unsigned, by: MarxWasRight / talk / contribs} 22:45, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Hmm...

Yeah, the editorializing is a bit thick. If the wikipedia article is 'less biased', then by all means crib it.

By in large, some mechanism to redirect searches to wikipedia pages where topics aren't really about pseudo-science or anti-science would probably be the 'right' thing to do. It would prevent this site from losing focus and trying to be a 'wikipedia clone', or yet another 'anti-conservapedia' site (like Liberapedia).

Focusing on various claims about what Israel 'is' and 'isn't' thought to be according to various people might be a good starting point for interesting original content. Maybe without making it a 'Palestine is a VICTIM' page. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.235.105.104 / talk / contribs}

So what bothers you about our article? I note no salient comments regarding whatever your issues might be... ħuman 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No such country as "Israel"

"Israel" is correctly called Occupied Palestine. The government of Israel, and it's Judeo-American and Judeo-British puppet governments, founded a state based on terror and oppression. I refuse to recognize this terrorist state, or other Jewish terror states such as "America", and RationalWiki should do the same. ILOVEPALESTINE (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

America is a Jewish terror state? You sir are an anti-semite, a racist, and an idiot. Anyone who says otherwise is so blinded by their hatred of Israel that they cannot or are unwilling to see the blind hatred in you. Go read Mein Kampf and blow up a bus.

While I'm no fan of Israeli policies writ large, the UN and most reasonable people in the world would have other ideas on whether or not Israel is a real country.Because it is. Lots of states are based on "terror and oppression." just ask any Native Canadian, Australian Aborigine, Maori, Sami, Aino, Vietnamese Montagnard, Basque in Spain, etc.. Assholes like you are incredibly counter-productive--whether you're serious or just being an agent provocateur. Go eat a bag of cocks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is people who support "Israel" who are incredibly counter-productive, they are supports of terror and oppression far beyond anyone else. Do Sami, Basques and Native Canadians continue to be starved and terrorized to very day, as the Palestinians do? Laerynisbeautiful (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, because supporters of Palestine, Like Libya's Ghaddafi or Syria's Assad or Iran's Ahmadinejad, have done so much for world peace! Oh, and Palestinians receive thousands of tons of food aid every week, delivered by the IDF and paid for with Israeli taxes. As for "terorrized every day," there is not a Palestinian alive who would trade their current lot with the lives of someone living in Sderot, Israel, which received several hundred rocket attacks a day by the so-called peaceful Palestinians. Palestinians get unlimited free medical care in Israel's hospitals, and billions from the US, EU, Un, and, yes, Israel. Palestinians teach their children to kill and die while Israelis teach their children, of all ethnicities and faiths, to read and write and make peace and be tolerant. Palestinians are 100% Caucasian. Israel has Africans and Asians of many religions and nations of origin.

They might say yes, depending on how one defined "terrorized." UN World Food Programme research on indigenous diets would certainly back up the "starved" bit. ^{— Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs}

Does the Judeo-American government, which purposefully favors so-called "minorities" (92% of the earth's population) over white people really have a bias against indigenous peoples, the way the Israeli one does? Only if those indigenous peoples are the indigenous people of Palestine. I doubt the judeo-american government is really "racist" except in favor of the Khazar World Elite. Laerynisbeautiful (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Judeo-American government?" We're done. Go eat a bag of cocks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So the government of "America" is not Khazar-controlled, according to you? We're done. Go eat a bag of cocks. Laerynisbeautiful (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see RationalWiki living up to its high level of debate that has made this place the intellectual Mecca of the internet. - π 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mecca? What are you, one of them filthy Ay-rabs? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This place is just like Mecca, people stomp each other to death just to run around in circles here. - π 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's TOP. What were you expecting, a modicum of civility? Common courtesy? I think not. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Fuck off. - π 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And don't stop til you finish the whole bag!TKEtoolshed

Chicken is delicious. - π 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This section was so much funnier when it was just that idiot's thing and Ace saying "oh well". ħuman 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny.Biased,friggin biased,but funny

To when a funny but unbiased version? --82.57.96.247 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

I was surprised to find that map on RATIONALwiki. See this link for explanations. I suggest it be removed. Goldie Watson (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Boring. P-Foster (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wut. I guess it is, but still, I suggest it be removed as it is factually incorrect. Goldie Watson (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Or better, explain the context, background and accuracy of the map within the article itself. ^postate 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This would be a sensible solution, except that the section under review talks about Israel's history of illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and not about factually wrong maps of these events. The best--IMHO--solution would be to include a map of the current Palestinians territories that are under Israeli occupation. Goldie Watson (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

But I miss the historical aspect. The previous map may have been wrong but it had elements of truth which the replacement doesn't. Primarily the replacement comepletely ignores the gradual encroachment, the ever expanding settlements. This is not trivial. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, people

Although this is a liberal encyclopedia (thank G-d for that) perhaps you could present a slightly more accurate article on Israel and Israeli politics. As a Jew who supports Israel, I believe in a balanced view. I do not hesitate to criticize Israel when I see fit; that's free speech. But if you present a completely one-sided view, then your credibility is lost. I suggest you put some of the good points about Israel here too; I'm sure you can find them.

Also, I really dislike how, in this age, you need to hate Israel to be a liberal. And not just criticise either: hate. One's credibility in liberal circles seems to rise every time one hates on Israel. Israel's not a perfect country, and neither is the US, Canada, or-- hell, any place.ConcernedCitizen (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

please outline whatever unfair criticisms you see. Then, once you've warned everybody about the changes, either do them yourself or other editors will look into the matter and do it--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read a bit of Isreal's history and modern practices, and i have to say, I've found very little to support there. I do not think that blockades of people who have a 40% unemployment rate, cannot get access to quality health care, nor vote about the Larger State Issues (they are not citizens of Isreal, or their own country... Palestinians are some middle ground reality); Isreal is, in the sense of support from the world, economic support and it's own political stability, an "adult" who has a pigheaded child on their hands. Isreal does not need to continue the politics of the day, to enforce their rights. But i'd never edit anything... cause i'm just opinionated, not necessarily informed. :-) En attendant Godot 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Our Mossad article I think is alright. Also, I'm thinking of doing an article on Mordechai Vanunu. --User:Brxbrx/sig 21:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read a lot on Israel's history and modern practices, and find tons to support. I think blockades of a people who launch deadly rockets daily or who continue to send suicide bombers (unsuccessfully, thanks to the fence) in to murder innocent civilians on the grounds of their religion is perfectly valid, as is securing a border. I find little in the Palestinians that makes me feel sorry for them, as they continue to preach hatred to their children, encouraging them to pick up rifles and murder Jews and Israelis rather than telling them to make peace, as Israel does. I see an Israel where Muslims have the right to vote and hold office, and many do, and many use their platform to insult the very nation that elected them and gave them their rights, while other Arab politicians are actually pro-Israel and working to support their nation. I don't see a single Arab nation that gives its religious minorities one iota of the power and freedom Israel gives its. I don't see a single nation, anywhere on earth, that is as continuously bombarded with attacks from its neighbors as Israel. I don't see a single Arab nation giving aid to its Palestinian population. I don't remember Jordan treating the West Bank any better when it illegally occupied it from 1948-1967 than Israel is now, and the same goes for when Egypt illegally occupied Gaza. I don't see as many deaths in the Israeli Arab conflict, from all sides and for all the decades, as I see in, say, 1 year of the Iraq war, or one month of WWII, or even the current Syrian civil war, yet I do see a completely unwarranted level of media attention and blind hate by supposed liberal on this site. A true rationalwiki should give Israel the same respect and treatment it gives Palestine, at least, especially since Israel is a FAR more tolerant and left-wing nation than the conservative Palestinian regime. Fix this page, and add some balance. This blind hatred and one-sideness is the crap I expect from Conservapedia, not from a so-called liberal wiki. Come on indeed!202.169.173.153 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)RealLiberalsSupportIsrael

Your article about the Mossad is pretty good.

I'm going to edit the section on "Politics". It says nothing about actual Israeli politics; it's just a condemnation.

Also, in what light would you be portrying Mr. Vanunu? ConcernedCitizen (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that I didn't write the mossad article. I made a few very minor additions, that's all. As for Vanunu, I'm not sure. I'm inclined to praise him but there's always two sides to every story- though often on of those sides is dead wrong. Hopefully others will help out once I've started and make a decent article of it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reference on Israel that is far more rational than this wiki is currently being. [1] 202.169.173.153 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ (I know, sorry...)

We really need to improve this article, and add a separate piece on the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict. Everything's all scattered around. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Gay Rights

Discarding any personal opinions on Israel or the conflict, when I see that a site like "RationalWiki" which supposedly claims to represent the Liberal and Progressive view of our world, downplays the achievements of Israel on LBGT rights, I can safely say it is anything but Liberal or Progressive. Israel does not only have the most progressive attitude towards LBGT rights in the middle east, something which is not very hard to do, but it is one of the most progressive country on this issue in the world (something which is not very hard to find out if you really cared to). Yet this site ignores any of the many specific achievements of Israel on this issue, but does try to downplay it by referring to an attempt to legislate an anti-gay law, an attempt which have failed (but of course this is not mentioned here anywhere). Also, whoever wrote this tries to smear the whole country of using LBGT rights to "to justify crimes against the Palestinians" by referring to an independent gay idiot who made a false video.... Ya, very progressive and liberal this site. and "very" accurate. No wonder this article needs so many citations... well, good luck with that. I would have contributed to this article but it is doomed from the start. If you really care or have any sense of accuracy, this whole article should be discarded and re-writen from the start. ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.116.232.69 / talk / contribs} 13:46, 22 November 2011

Thank you for your contribution to the project. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who originally edited this, so I'd like to respond. First of all, I should note I am not a liberal, and tend to disagree with liberalism. I am a Marxist.

I have to admit that I am ignorant about Israel's gay rights record, and the achievements in contrast to the rest of the world. My post was not an attempt to take away from Israel's achievements with gay rights; it was to point out that this positive record has been used to justify and rationalize heinous crimes. This isn't unique to Israel, or even homosexual rights; women's rights was used by the imperialist nations in the 19th century to justify their atrocities in their colonial territories. My discussion of pink washing was not an attempt to take away from Israel's achievements in gay rights; it was to point out that it's record has been used to justify heinous acts.

With that said, I have to assume you were the person who scare quoted the "freedom flotilla". I will point out that scare quoting such a movement is not a progressive view point on Israel/Palestine; I'd argue it's an utterly reactionary stance. I will assume that your comment about Israel's records on homosexual rights is true, and I applaud that; perhaps you could contribute some more on this topic, as I'd be very interested to see how Israel's stance on gay rights compares to other Western nations. However, their positive treatment of homosexuals should not excuse Israel's crimes against the Palestinian's and it's neighbors. This is what I was trying to draw attention to.-Yuri

Likewise, Israel's treatment of the Arabs (what, no mention of the crimes the Palestinians have done to Israel, the Arabs to Israel, or the Arabs to the Palestinians? Where's your rationality?) should not be used to minimize their achievements in Gay rights, women's rights, and other issues. This website is supposed to be fair and rational, yet your Israel page is pure anti-Israel and pro-Arab, the latter ruling some of the most conservative and oppressive nations on earth. This page is RationalWiki's greatest weakness and embarrassment. Also, at no point has Israel ever used its gay rights to "justify" its actions in the West Bank and Gaza ("Heinous acts?" That's your emotionally-charged opinion, not a fact.) It simply mentions them to get more gay tourists. Gay activists around the world have widely panned the allegations of pinkwashing. A pity this site is still on the fringe.

As for how Israel compares to its neighbors, note that homosexuals are frequently brutalized, tortured, and arrested in the West Bank just for being gay, and many seek asylum in Israel. In Gaza, male homosexuality is punishable by death, as it is in most Muslim nations. Perhaps it is you using Israel to justify Arab homophobia! 202.169.173.153 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hasbara" --Akayani (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This whole page is hasbara. That totally destroys any concept of a rational or one might assume critical thought.

"Israel is the only state in the Middle East to have any kind of gay rights."

In fact making use of gay rights is hasbara in the extreme.

A gunman shot dead two people and wounded at least 15 others in an attack at a central Tel Aviv gay and lesbian center Saturday night before fleeing the scene. http://www.haaretz.com/news/two-killed-in-shooting-at-tel-aviv-gay-center-1.281193

Two gay Palestinians who lived in Gaza and were in a relationship were killed when an Israeli bomb directly hit their apartment building http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/palestinian-gay-couple-killed-israeli-gaza-bombing201112

The right to be shot isn't part of gay rights. To suggest this makes them better on human rights than another state in the Middle East is highly questionable.

Further... In 1951, a revision of the Jordanian Criminal Code decriminalized private, adult, non-commercial, and consensual sodomy, with the age of consent set at 16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jordan

Jordan was 20 years ahead of Australia on this.

The State of Israel inherited its sodomy or "buggery" law from British influence, but there is no record that it was ever enforced against homosexual acts that took place between consenting adults in private. In 1963, the attorney general declared that this law would not be enforced; however, in certain cases defendants were found guilty of "sodomy" (which according to Israeli law includes oral sex as well), apparently by way of plea bargains: those defendants had been indicted for more serious sexual offences. There were also cases of soldiers tried for homosexual acts in military courts. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled, in the 1960s, that the law should not be applied to acts between consenting adults in private. The ban on consensual same-sex sexual acts was formally repealed by the national legislative assembly (Knesset) in 1988. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

So Jordan was 37 years ahead of Israel in this important aspect of criminal law.

To need to stoop to using Gay Rights as a means to prove human rights in Israel is pathetic. Israel has clearly developed into an apartheid military theocracy and has very little resemblance to a democratic state. Israel has no fixed boarders, no constitution, lacks full representation in voters, ignores requests from the UN...

If this wiki is to represent 'truths' then this whole page of hasbara is a total failure.

Please explain what the word ' hasbara' means. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page you cite has a tag saying it's unreferenced and therefore it's not a valid source. Furthermore if this page is accurate what Jordan permits over honour killings etc is barbaric. Criminal laws. The shooting at a LGBT Center in Tel Aviv was illegal and the police are hunting the criminal/criminals responsible. Israelis have as much freedom to attend LGBT Centers as Americans have to watch Batman movies. Israeli bombing in :Palestine doesn't discriminate against gays. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hasbara is sorta Isreali public relations. How you "sell yourself". In this case he's clearly trying to say that everything we write about gays is a propaganda movement by Isreael (or the US, or the wiki? not sure) to make them look better on the "human rights" issues, by highlighting the fact that times are still tough for gays. Your take down was quite good! :-)Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There can be discussion about whether blogs like Patheos are good enough to use as sources but a webpage that clearly states, "This section needs additional citations for verification." is certainly not a reliable source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, unless you are talking about "the internt's reaction" to something, blogs are almost never quality sources of anything. You need to go into the blog article, and find what he or she is sourcing, then go there. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"the homophobia of the freedom flotilla"

There should probably be some mention of what the hell the freedom flotilla was. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect, the information about the first freedom flotilla was irrelevant to the topic at hand. I added it because the person who previously edited it had put it in scare quotes and made statements that don't match up with the historical record of the Freedom Flotilla. To give an example, said person said the video came from the 2010 flotilla, when it was in fact from the 2011 one.

While it would be an interesting event to discuss, it would probably deserve it's own article, or to be placed in one on the Israel/Palestine conflict, as opposed to this article. As it stands, the flotilla information doesn't seem to fit into any established categories on this page.-Yuri ^{— Unsigned, by: MarxWasRight / talk / contribs} 22:51, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Having already edited the main article, I'd like to shed some additional light to the formation, role, and importance of the SS Handschar. The article previously stated that Bosnian Muslims were renowned for their brutality, or was meant to state that the said division was renowned for brutality. Neither of the two possible interpretations (the sentence was poorly constructed) is true.

The greatest crimes committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during World War II, whether in scale or brutality, were committed by Ustasha (Catholic Croat) or Chetnik (Orthodox Serb) troops, and were often committed against Bosnian Muslim populace. By 1943. Bosnian Muslims suffered over 100,000 casualties and suffered from frequent persecution at the hands of these formations. The desire to be able to defend their homes was a notable factor making their recruitment into an SS Division possible in the first place, in spite of the declaration issued by local Muslim clerics forbidding any such action.

The unit is also notable for mutiny and desertion. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the unit was in any way notable for brutality, especially in comparison with other SS units or already mentioned Ustasha and Chetnik forces.

For further reading visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_%281st_Croatian%29 ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.197.143.111 / talk / contribs} 16:34, 6 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Human rights

A lot of that section seems to use the not as bad as argument by saying "Israeli human rights are better than most Arab states". I don't have any suggestions at the moment for improvement, as I know little about this subject, but I thought it might be worth pointing out. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest feedback

The high level of vitriol and hyperbole used in this page and by anti-Israel activists demands a "reality check." Describing Israel as some mega-oppressor when Arab crimes 1) against Israel 2) Against Palestinians 3) Against their own people, particularly minorities, are always far worse and more extreme than anything Israel has ever done is not rational, not ethical, and not fair. It is important to put Israel's actions into context (it is up against the entire Arab world, an immense and wealthy and very racist entity that has repeatedly invaded Israel and has even occupied the land that was supposed to Palestine unapologetically, and with far more brutal policies than Israel has). It is also important, in the interest of rationalism, to not let biased language and emotional/opinionated/POV text interfere with the truth. This page is a mess and a disgrace to liberalism and rationalism. I understand that many here blindly hate Israel and will say anything to portray her negatively, but they are doing so in an offensive way with many deviations from the fact that they need pro-Israel rationalist voices to tone down until we reach a tolerant medium.^{— Unsigned, by: 202.169.173.153 / talk / contribs}

I've never seen so much not as bad as in my entire life. And this is coming from someone whose family had to escape Eastern Europe in WWII to the West due to Jewish ancestry, and still supports an Israeli state. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Using circular logic, Israel refuses to give up those lands, stating they need it for their own protection; yet a key reason they are attacked is the illegal possession of the lands.

There are a bunch of justifications for the occupation that will get mentioned, from the security aspects brought up here to the idea that "it's ours because God says so." It's too complex an issue to just leave hanging like that. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all circular. The security justification is used for Israel retaining territory captures in 1967. Israel was first attacked in 1948. Moreover, Israel offered to trade that land back to Syria, Egypt, and Jordan for peace after the '67 war and was rebuffed. When Egypt and Jordan did finally agree to make peace, they weren't interested in Gaza and the West Bank. Doesn't excuse the Israeli occupation of it, but the issue is more complicated than you seem to realize. Zt205 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the phrase is wrong and self-fulfilling prophecy is more accurate, but the overall point is right. The fighting in 1948 was mutual and had going on at a lower intensity for many years and before the war actually started Israel did start ethnically cleansing Palestinians in and around its future territory. it wasn't a case of Israel being attacked.

Also Israel only made minor efforts at a peace deal post '67 for about 4 months between June and October and their proposal had a variety of unacceptable conditions like annexing Gaza and portions of the West Bank. For instance in their book Israeli rejectionism a hidden agenda in the Middle East peace process both of the authors (Both former Zionist IDF veterans) state how it was Israel failing to take action and meaningfully try and swap the occupied land in exchange for peace which specifically made them doubt and question their Zionist ideology because they couldn't believe Israel would choose a land-grab over peace. Plenty of other authors, like Ahron Bregman and Norman Finkelstein, have also pointed out how Israel simply has not made meaningful efforts at peace.

In truth Israel prefers land to peace and has always been happy to continue its occupation because it thinks the longer it waits the stronger its bargaining position would be. --188.122.42.164 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

More edits

Can we talk these changes over instead of just reverting them? Balaam (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, most of them were not really needed changes along the lines of "terrible thing but others say/did y terrible thing or want to do Z terrible thing"--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 19:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The goal of RationalWiki is to be accurate. Please engage in discussion about the recent changes instead of just deleting them outright. I strongly believe they can be defended as more accurate than how it was before. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎152.62.109.61 / talk / contribs}

Whatever y'all decide to do with the article, please stop putting that stupid quote from some unnamed YouTube user back in. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The history is wrong

The Balfour declaration is integrated in the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine (an international instrument signed and ratified in every country the world over and therefore binding international law):

Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country

and more specifically in Article 6 of the mandate document:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The way that the competing promises to the jews and arabs were compared was by abrogating the promise to the arabs on account of the fact that the arabs received like 99.999 percent of the middle east.

Moreover, the 1920s white paper did not restrict immigration. That was the one that Lloyd George called "perfidy" and the Liberal MP James Rothschild stated during the parliamentary debate that "for the majority of the Jews who go to Palestine it is a question of migration or of physical extinction". That's the main reason for the jewish organizations to move on to full nationalist ambitions. Menachem Begin in 1944, in his notice of re-engagement of hostilities (with the european war all but over) with the british:

The White Paper is still in effect. It is enforced, despite the betrayal of the Arabs and the loyalty of the Jews; despite the mass enlisting to the British Army; despite the ceasefire and the quiet in The Land of Israel; despite the massacre of masses of the Jewish people in Europe....

The facts are simple and horrible as one. Over the last four years of the war we have lost millions of the best of our people; millions more are in danger of eradication. And The Land of Israel is closed off and quarantined because the British rule it, realizing the White Paper, and strives for the destruction of our people's last hope.

Indeed, the jews were willing to live entirely under british sovereignty as members of a crown possession so long as the aforementioned terms of the mandate were held up (the document mandates the facilitation of 'close settlement of the land' by the jews). The desire for a state rather than something less-than-a-state only arises after the white paper and a feeling that the British betrayed the Jews by choosing to ally themselves with the 'treacherous arabs' instead of with the Jews who fought patriotically with them in the war.

^{— Unsigned, by: 174.44.174.192 / talk / contribs} 13:51, 1 November 2013‎

What the hell's a USS Liberty conspiracy endorsement doing on this site?

It's been over four decades, and none of the documents revealed on the events have shown it was anything more than a friendly fire accident. Friendly fire accidents happen all the time to even the most powerful military forces and often in the most embarrassing ways possible. During World War II, Operation Wikinger, a German friendly fire incident killed nearly 600 people, and it wasn't even close to the worst friendly fire incident of that war alone.^{— Unsigned, by: *Asterisk* / talk / contribs}

Friendly fire "accident" my ass. It was a sustained attack. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy was killed by Lyndon Johnson! Mossad did 9/11! Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist! He had six letters in his first, middle, and last names!

Fuck you, I'm changing it. For that matter, I'm building a page just for the USS Liberty *Asterisk* (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Things like this happen all the time."
• "It is not as bad as several other such incidents."
• "Think of these other unrelated bits of lunacy!"

None of that has anything to do with the murder of neutral noncombatants, followed by an "oops, our bad. We thought you were Egyptians, or something." The IDF is, in general, too smart and capable for that kind of bullshit to be believable. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No military on the planet's too smart for anything, they're just barely smart enough to keep shit like this from happening even more often. Including the Israeli's. Besides, for the Liberty conspiracy to be valid, it'd take an extraordinary amount of evidence which contradicts all the serious inquiries showing it was just a friendly fire attack. I don't know when the Rationalwiki became a conspiracy site, but on Planet Earth, serious people listen to serious evidence. *Asterisk* (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, your reversal of my points just keeps the unsourced bullshit of the Liberty conspiracy being real without sourcing or backing it up. Unless there's some sort of serious source for this groundless theory that contradicts the real research that's gone on, this is supreme bullshit. *Asterisk* (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Both parties (at the diplomatic level, not the military) had an interest in glossing over the incident as accidental, an unfortunate outcome in the fog of war. Given that indisputable fact, subsequent inquiries have suffered from, shall we say, a systemic bias. Simply put, the Israelis did not want a signals intelligence gathering ship in the neighborhood when they *cough*may have been*cough* launching pre-emptive air sorties. Source? A fellow who had his ear to the ground, working in mid-east intelligence on one side of the Potomac or another, in the relevant time frame.

Interestingly enough, when I was having a similar discussion with a sabra co-worker, he insisted that the IDF was justified in taking out a spy vessel just off their coast, saying "What if Israel had such a listening station five miles from the Pentagon?"

I showed him a sectional chart of the northern VA / DC area, pointing out my brother's house within that radius, and told him he would be welcome to dinner some time, and could bring his short-wave receiver, if he liked. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source How about Dean Rusk. As I Saw It. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990. ISBN 0-14-015391-8 page 388.

Of course, if the US Secretary of State at the time is a deluded dupe.... Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have proof God exists

When Gaza shot a rocket at Israel a strong wind a few seconds before it hit a strong wind blew it into the sea. god did it it cant be a coincidence174.239.226.66 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What a cool story. {{User:Weaseloid/sig|

Its not fake i have proof http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=24811174.239.226.66 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I was also wondering if this was an act of God.--TemplarJLS (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah is there any other reason a "strong wind" would deflect those missles?174.25.30.51 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I ask someone to refute this news page, my edits get refuted, and Miekal even locked his User Page! so much for RATIONAL wiki!--174.25.30.51 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And CHUG! Maxus (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has any refutation? Really?--TemplarJLS (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure; god isn't real and the wind just happened to blow like it does.--Miekal 04:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I read this news story: http://elitedaily.com/news/world/iron-dome-guy-says-hand-god-intervened/699618/

Apparently, this is an example of Correlation does not equal Causation.^{— Unsigned, by: User:TemplarJLS / talk / contribs}

(EC) "God caused the rocket to blow into the sea" is the positive claim that requires proof. Even if that were not true, as Miekal points out, there are indeed many valid reasons that the wind could blow a missile into the sea, more or less because the wind does tend to push things. - Grant (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really an example of "correlation does not equal causation" at all, since there's nothing to correlate. The wind blew a missile into the sea. That's the be all and end all of it. For there to exist a correlation, there must be two things that are correlated. - Grant (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

One question: Why didn't He stop any other missiles hitting Israel?-- Forerunner (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To busy fixing sports matches and embarrassing liberal secularists..--Miekal 05:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What wierds me out, however, is the fact that the wind was suddenly started to blow the missle into the sea a mere few seconds before it hit, then stopped right after. Coincidence?--TemplarJLS (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also notiaed in the same article, they claim a hamas commander said that their God is changing all their rockets direction in mid air, and that's why they fail to claim many casualties.--TemplarJLS (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, coincidence. Unlikely events happen all the time. - Grant (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bible Propbhecy

Would Bible Prophecy be relevant on this page?

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/israel/apple_of_Gods_eye.htm

This place talks about the end tiimes happening because of Bible Prophecy saying the Israelites will return home when the End begins.

http://watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/1948PropheciesFulfilled.htm

And this one claims that ten (ten!) prophecies were fulfilled just because of the Israelites returning to their "home".--サトセレ (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we officially call Israel an apartheid state now?

This is very troubling information coming out of Israel, the Arabs were already an openly oppressed people in the country, this new legislature will only make things worse. BlackProg (talk) 15:12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am very critical of Israel and more often than not will defend Palestinians' right to defend themselves. However, the apartheid label should be reserved for the West Bank and Gaza living under military occupation. The separation is between Jewish settlers and Palestinians, not Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs living within the Green Line. For more on this crucial distinction that often gets lost among Israel's apologists, see Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" ^{— Unsigned, by: 198.7.241.78 / talk / contribs}

Israel left Gaza--Arisboch (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's funny. 98.165.31.153 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish, it were funny, cause now the Hamas and DAESH-operatives are there.--Arisboch (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really funny when innocent people are murdered by rival zealots. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I denied it to be funny?--Arisboch (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant for the one above. Re-indenting appropriately... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem :)--Arisboch (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the IP means to deny the current rather hellish situation in Gaza. More specifically, despite Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement, it has made several violent military forays into the area, killing many civilians. So a sarcastic "That's funny" doesn't seem completely out of place. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch's analysis is respectfully flawed. The only country who takes the position that Israel does not occupy Gaza is, well, Israel. The UN, human rights organizations (Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, etc.), US state department, Red Cross, and the international community designate Gaza still as occupied territory for the following reasons: Israel controls what goes in and out of Gaza (except for the Rafah border), assassinates militants and conducts raids to sometimes provoke a reaction (November 4th raid when Hamas was obliging by the ceasefire come to mind), maintains buffer zones over a percentge of Gazan territory, controls the airspace, maintains control over the waters, and is in control of the population registry while maintaining a trade-embargo/blockade on the enclave. Even if we accepted for argument's sake that Israel does not occupy Gaza and is instead defending itself against a foreign country rather than reinforcing its will against those who resist the occupation, Israel would still be occupying the West Bank which gives Palestinins in Gaza a case for resisting and Israel still assassinates militants in Gaza to provoke a reaction; Israel has done this repeatedly to maintain its deterrence capacity, such as before the 6 Day War in 1967 by entering tractors into demilitarized zones in Syria, provoking the PLO with repeated raids during a 9-month ceasefire before the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, attempting to assassinate Khaled Meshall when he offered a truce to Israel through Jordan, among others. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.7.212.58 / talk / contribs} 21:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Slurm und Drang (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and Palestine has a long history of violence towards Israel. Including intense provocation like the November 4th 2008 incident where there was an active plot by shooters to kill and kidnap soldiers Hamas was actively refusing to do anything about. Hamas and PLO are not blameless for actively ignoring internal security, and funneling money to those executing attacks, while claiming they are innocently being attacked. If Mexico was funding extremists sending in missiles, suicide bombers, and gunman while giving the US the finger when asked to do something about it...for over 5 decades...I can't see the reaction being much different. Maybe if they used the money to build infrastructure instead of weapons, use money for relief instead of lining officials (like Arafat's) pockets, and stopped getting baited to blame Israel because Hamas violently wrested control from the legitimate government...fewer people would be dead too. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

EmeraldCity's analysis is also woefully inadequate and attempts to place a false equivalency for onus of the conflict on the Palestinians when the actual record reveals otherwise. EmeraldCity masks the incident on November 4 as provocation, but gives no evidence that there was a lot to kidnap soldiers other than maybe from the IDF press release. EmeraldCity misrepresents the incident because the raid was conducted against Hamas militants, rather than a rogue group that Hamas was actually suppressing as attested by Israeli officials. Even after Israel conducted the raid, Israeli internatl security chief Yuval Diskin in an article in the Jerusalem Post in 2008 mentioned explicitly that Hamas was “interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel". Again, his words, not mine. Former IDF commander in Gaza Shmuel Zakai made that point that Hamas would have accepted a “bargain” in which it “would halt the fi re in exchange for easing of . . . Israeli policies [that] have kept a choke hold on the economy of the Strip”. Again, his words not mine. Even if we accepted for argument's sake that Israel was acting defensively on that day, the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center mentioned that the Hamas rockets following the November 4th incident were "in retaliation". Again their words, not mine.

EmeraldCity also misrepresents the purpose of the creation of the Palestinian Authority during Oslo and portrays them as complicit in acts of terrorism. In actuality, the Palestinian Authority was created to suppress other Palestinian movements like Hamas. It is not without irony that Amnesty and HRW, when evaluating the human rights under the PA, made the point that pressure was being exerted by the US and Israel to suppress Palestinian movements. Just yesterday, the Palestinian Authority actually arrested some 106 Hamas members. EmeraldCity also omits what actually triggered Palestinian violence which spiraled out of control. Shlomo Ben-Ami, an ex-foreign minister of Israel at the time, mentioned, "Israel’s disproportionate response to what had started as a popular uprising with young unarmed men confronting Israeli soldiers armed with lethal weapons fueled the intifada beyond control and turned it into an all-out war".

Finally, EmeraldCity takes the assumption that Hamas is responsible for the situation in Gaza after wrestling control from the legitimate government in 2007 during a coup. Again, EmeraldCity misrepresents what actually occurred. Hamas was the democratically elected government of the Palestinians in the 2006 elections and are thus the legitimate government. What actually happenned? The US and Israel, so keen on wanting to protect "Democracy" in the region, assisted Fatah in launching an anti-democratic coup to remove Hamas from power as a way to punish Palestinians for voting the wrong way. As David Rose in VanityFair puts it, "With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever". ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.7.212.58 / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Tell me, what protests were there of the 400,000 Palestinians that were ethnically cleansed in 1990-91... in Kuwait? What UN resolutions? Please do everyone a favor and stop pretending that all the people criticizing Israel are doing so because they give two figs about the Palestinians themselves. CorruptUser (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Where were you during the Gulf War protesting their treatment? Where are you to protest in the streets about doing something to stop Assad's massacres of Syrian civilians during the current war? Why are you singling out Kuwait but ignoring the oil fields that Saddam destoyed on which Kuwait had to rebuild its economy? Are you some anti-Kuwait bigot? Why are you singling out Palestinians treated by Kuwait for criticism but give Israel a free pass? I'm asking these questions because you should preach what you practice in terms of suspecting people of improper motives. Your argument is flawed in two respects. First, Kuwait's relations with the Palestinians isn't relevant to the topic and you know it. If there were a protest on campus against the apartheid regime for its treatment of blacks, it'd be irrelevant to bring Idi Amin's crimes against blacks because it's changing the subject. Does that mean rallying against apartheid was less legitimate because they didn't focus on Idi Amin's crimes in Africa? Who are you to say who can be criticized and who can't? You should be aware that David Cameron made the point during the intervention in Libya that just because you help one country from the reign of terror doesn't mean you enthusiastically support or are complicit in the crimes of other countries. And you should be intellectually honest to know that. When is one cause for improving human rights less legitimate than another? Second, your argument is a form of nasty ad-hominem attack that assumes any person who criticizes or protest Israel's military operations is motivated by anti-semitism because they focus disproportionate criticism on Israel. Unfortunately, that's about as convincing as saying that people who criticize Saudi Arabia are motivated by Islamophobia because they selectively single out that country's human rights while ignoring the far greater crimes committed by the Ba'ath Party under Saddam and Assad. Or it's about as convincing as the people who cry Islamophobia anytime Islam is criticized because they focus on one religion compared to the crimes of other religious fundamentalists today. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.7.212.58 / talk / contribs}

Seriously, lay of the damn speed. You are going thrity directions at once and JAQing off. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Animalian, is that you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Biased?

I am removing the statement "(and functioning democracy, and rules against beating women)" because both claims are completely false. The first claim is refuted by the existence of Lebanon and Tunisia, flawed as they may be. The second requires a quick google search to find laws like this. Please site a source for the claim that Israel is the only country with rights for LGBT people (I wouldn't be surprised, but still). 74.194.213.129 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Israel § Summary table Gonna fix the sentence about "being the only democracy". --Arisboch (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What should be uncontroversial is the fact that Israel is the oldest democracy in the region and the only one without a history of civil war and/or military coups... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Torture

I've removed the section the BoN added on torture because it's more complicated than that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems obessed with calling Israel "occupiers" as often as possible

I see that removing the word "occupied" where it is absolutely nonsensical (describing the borders of mandatory Palestine as initially set up) is somehow controversial... What gives? It appears as if there were some need to declare the word occupied as often as possible. Do the US currently occupy native American lands? Does Germany currently occupy Frisian and Sorbian land? Does NATO-presence in Kosovo constitute an "occupation"? And in case you were wondering, the technical term for a territory one claimant says A about and another claimant says B about is "disputed" at least in all cases not involving Jews.... But I digress. Point is: If we (loosely) define occupation as the presence of (foreign) military forces on "your" soil, the Gaza strip and " Zone A" (as per the Oslo agreements) are as of now not in fact occupied. So please explain what exactly you mean by the word "occupied" and don't just recycle anti-Zionist talking points. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the international community, the Palestinian territories are ilegally occupied by Israel: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx --Gh1900 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also part of the UN Security Council definition. Alternately, it's a description that's accurate based on the Six-Day War.MarmotHead (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel maintains effective control of the Gaza Strip through control of the borders, airspace, waters, population registry, and buffer zones. I normally try to avoid comparisons with Nazis, but according to your definition, the Warsaw Ghetto would not be considered occupied on account of the lack of foreign troops stationed in the ghetto and because they were ruled by the administrative council the Judenrat. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, in an Israel-related discussion, some dumb fuck fulfilling Godwin's Law is always around the corner.--Arisboch (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaza is currently occupied - by Hamas. At least if you ask Fatah... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but whose occupied territory? Jordan/Egypt? Or a state that didn't exist in 1967? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's disputed Territory if there ever was one... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The OPT being occupied is one of the most agreed upon facets of all international politics and law and is the specific legal definition of it. Using the phrase disputed territory in this instance is redundant because international law (which makes the acquisition of land by force illegal) makes it clear that Israel cannot be the legitimate owners of the land and if we use it here then we'll have to use it in every circumstance where one nation invades and occupies (or annexes another) because by definition there will be a 'dispute'. --Overhead (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Do tell who the "legitimate" owners of this particular piece of real estate are. Furthermore, something being "disputed" is a neutral fact, it does not matter how spurious the "dispute" may be. China (both mainland and Taiwan) has been "disputed" between the ROC and PRC for over six decades now. A dispute arises whenever two or more entities of international law cannot agree as to the status of some piece of real estate. It could be as simple as that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So, because the OPT were originally conquered by Israel from Egypt and Jordan but if relinquished would probably become an independent Palestinian state (or two), they're not really occupied by Israel. Yup, sounds legit... ScepticWombat (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Germany for one was occupied between 1945 and 1990, because even the West-German government said as much and no international player said otherwise. Berlin however was a different matter. With East-Berlin being claimed as a capital of East Germany and West-Berlin being de facto part of West Germany though the letter of the law said otherwise. The problem about the disputed territories is: There is no letter of the law to follow. There is no Palestinian state and every other nation in existence (but Israel) does not currently claim administration of the West Bank or Gaza. This is of course further complicated by Gaza being ruled (rather unlawfully) by Hamas... I think the term "disputed" is the best we can do while avoiding flame-wars. You may mention the Israeli police and military presence, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's just plain Israel, why are the residents born there, with ancestors there going back centuries not considered Israeli citizens, with all the rights that entails? It's egregiously stupid to pretend it's anything but an occupation. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Politics, I guess... There are third generation "immigrants" who don't have the corresponding citizenship in more countries than I could easily count... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In a related bit of semantic silliness, since at least the late 20th century it has been politically correct to call pickles "sour cucumbers" in Hebrew, since the same word (kavush) refers both to the tight containment used in pickling, and to occupation of a piece of territory. MaillardFillmore (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I dispute your claim. The last "democratic" country I can recall that had this problem on this scale was apartheid South Africa. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Or Germany (although it is rather easy to get the German citizenship and e.g. my parents and me did). Or Japan. Or Switzerland. Or pretty much every country, who hasn't such easy (not that easy, though) obtainable citizenship like Germany...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to cut to the heart of the matter: What do you call an area that has been conquered in a war, hasn't been annexed by the conquering state, isn't recognised by any other state as part of the conquering state's territory, and yet remains under the control of that conquering state? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some weird-ass limbo shit, that only garners attention by politicians, cause there's oil and stuff in the neighborhood?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Without respect to the actual content of this argument, the "look at how disconnected and uncaring I am about this issue" routine works better when you're not actively defending a view about it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Regarding the "weird-ass limbo shit"] Nope, it's called occupation - especially as Israel has repeatedly denied that even the special status granted to Eastern Jerusalem constitutes annexation. Inventing all kinds of prettifying euphemisms for it simply obscures the actual state of affairs. You could call the territories disputed if Israel actually annexed them - then they would have the same status as other territories claimed by two states and the question of occupation would basically come down to which state received greater international recognition of its claims. But territory that isn't claimed by a state, isn't internationally recognised as part of that state, yet remains under the control of this state, thanks in no small to a massive military presence, can hardly be called anything but an occupied territory. So, the factually and judicially correct term remains "the occupied territories" (or "occupied Palestinian territories" if you want to be more specific, in which "Palestinian" could simply refer to a geographic and ethnic indicator or implicit support for a Palestinian state). Not to mention that it's the far more prevalent term for the territory in question.

Oh and btw, and Germany wasn't occupied until 1990, as both Germanies were recognised as sovereign states (we can quibble whether this should be dated from 1949 or the early 1950s) which had (more or less voluntarily) agreed to the the large concentrations of NATO/Warsaw Pact troops on their respective territories. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The World Court, Red Cross, human rights organizations, US State Department and the international community consider the territories occupied. The only country who disagrees with this is Israel. To say the area is disputed is a gross application of false equivalence because no other country disputes that the territories are occupied. It would be as if some apologist made an article on South Africa claiming that the Bantustans were legitimate according to SA's perspective even though the international community never recognized them. The apologetics for conquering a territory in a war and then building settlements in grave violation of the Geneva Conventions needs to stop, really. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, since everyone is saying it, it is true, then, right (the recognition of borders and states was and is a political question, not a juridical one, since there isn't a World Government or World Judiciary (the World Court doesn't count, since it's just a arbitrary court between countries and no country can be "dragged" in front of the judge like it is with any real court))?? And (almost) every country's borders were drawn and redrawn by war and conquest, (almost) no exceptions.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it argumentum ad populum. The groups I listed above considered the legal implications of control over the Palestinian territories, and consider the territories occupied. Why not? The World Court did have judges sympathetic to Israel on the question of the West Bank barrier, and after going through the legal implications and evidence, consider the entire territories occupied and hold that Palestinians have a right to self determination much like Israel has a right to self determination on the 67 borders. Israel already has 78% sovereignty over Mandantory Palestine. It's a bit kicking dirt in the face to expect Palestinians to have sovereignty in less than 22% of the territory they've been living on for some centuries. And no it's not a political question. You cannot break Geneva Conventions and expect no repercussions. This isn't the 19th and 20th century anymore. You can't use past examples of conquest to justify a current conquest, this is the 21st century where building settlements in occupied territory has long been recognized as illegal and as an act of aggression. Just because you don't like the law people rule doesn't give you the right to break it. Palestinians do not have a right to take Israel's territory in its legal borders. The same applies to Israel. Either you uphold both people's self determination or you hypocritically deny one person's self determination for a political agenda. That's why they have repeatedly called for two states on the 67 borders in order to acknowledge both people's right to self determination. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, are you saying that international law cease to exist when there is no strict enforcement, or any single state doesn't comply with it? Also, you seem to miss the point that international recognition of sovereignty is defined in terms of mutual and broad recognition by other states, so it's actually a relevant point to raise the lack of any such widespread recognition of Israeli claims on the occupied territories (a claim that is rather odd, since, as I've already pointed out, Israel refuses to simply annex the territories).

The parallel between the World Court and any real court is also a false equivalence because it fails to recognise the fact that there's not a world government and thus the international level doesn't necessarily work in a way similar to the national one. This also seems to end up arguing that the lack of a world government and the fact that international law typically requires a state's consent in order to be applicable to it (though there are exceptions) means that international law doesn't really exist.

Also, as ChrisAmiss pointed out, an appeal to the fact that in the past it was seen as a-okay to nick other people's land isn't really a very good argument in favour of continuing this approach. Quite aside from the quite nasty consequences of such a "might makes right"-logic, humans have done lots of shit in the past that we now (and I think rightly) deplore and I suspect that Israel both is and ought to be extremely aware of this... For instance, I doubt that Arisboch is applauding the Russian conquest (by proxy, so to speak) of Crimea, yet that has more legal window dressing to back it up (a dubious referendum and a formal annexation) than anything in the occupied territories, not to mention that it reversed a far more recent territorial loss as Crimea had only been Ukrainian since 1954. But perhaps I'm wrong and Arisboch is just as sanguine about the Russian "reconquista" of its "traditional lands" as about Israel's? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A law that is not enforced might as well not be there at all, it would make no difference and a "law", where both parties have to agree upon it's enforcement is a treaty, not a law (unless you redefine the meaning of "law", when we're talking about "international law", cause there is no World State with the Three Branches (executive, legislative and judiciary)). Recognition is basically "might is right" or, rather, "horse-trading makes right" (Taiwan). The sad fact is, that in international relations, it's still basically "might is right", just clothed in nice words (about Crimea, how recent has a loss of land to be, before it becomes set in stone? 50 years? 60 years? 80 years? 100 years? 2000 years? How long will Russia have to hold in to it, until everyone just accepts it beyond some token "non-recognition"?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If no part of Germany was occupied during the era of (roughly) 1945 to 1990, why than was there a Besatzungsstatut (roughly "occupation treaty") signed between Adenauer and the Western allies in 1955? Furthermore the allies did reserve (and in some cases exercise) a number of "special rights" with regards to Germany. Among them the prison for Nazi war criminals that was maintained jointly by all allied powers or the legal fiction of joint administration of Berlin (which nonetheless led to the odd consequence of all people in West Berlin being ineligible for German military service). West-Germany was occupied if ever a place was. The fact that they themselves agreed with said occupation makes it all the more evident. And regarding the argument of the international court: You kind of contradict yourself. First you claim it is a court like any other and than you say it isn't. And of course nations cannot be judged the same way in courts as people are. That's just the very nature of it. If a single person does not accept a verdict and goes on a rampage, sooner or later (s)he will be caught and punished (unless it is a really crappy country like Somalia where courts don't matter). If I rule a country and my country does not accept the international court, the only ones who can even begin to try and enforce the verdict are other countries. Take the example of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. They got into a minor debate over a road next to the Rio San Juan (the border between both countries). Nicaragua sued Costa Rica in front of the Central American Court (a minor international court). The court found in favor of Nicaragua, but Costa Rica basically said "Fuck you" and still does not comply with the verdict. However, Costa Rica is currently suing Nicaragua in front of the international court (in the Hague) over some trees Nicaragua cut down on a disputed island that - according to google maps at the time - may well have been Nicaraguan territory after all... International law is not at all unlike small kids. And the only thing you can rely on is childish tit for tat. US citizens for example are fingerprinted and retina scanned upon entry to Brazil. Why? Cause Brazilian citizens undergo the same treatment in the US... Yes. It's that childish. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

International law and laws of the conduct of war aren't perfect, but they're worthy liberal standards to abide by for a better, more peaceful world. International law hasn't always failed as pessimistic as the above two posters seem to postulate. Recall that the Bantustans received no recognition and South Africa eventually became an pluralistic society. Indonesia ended up withdrawing from East Timor after a 24 year occupation after harsh criticism of its occupation. Iraq, with some military fiangling admittedly, was forced to withdraw to Kuwait after the UNSC allowed for the operation. Libya had a no fly zone and intervention implemented to protect civilians. Again, it isn't perfect, but with the low amount of deaths in warfare today compared to the earlier world wars and greater recognition of people's independence movements in the 20th century, abiding by international lawn for principle sake isn't a bad thing. I don't accept the argument of might is right, because I doubt the above posters would be okay with the hypothetical of a Palestinian army becoming well-organized enough to defeat Israel in a war, and occupying and annexing its territory. Might makes right after all. If that would not be morally acceptable, the same standard should be applied to Israel's occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Most, if not all of these examples were not motivated by any "international law", but by countries and/or governments doing, what they profit off and using international law as a fig leaf.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Very debatable. The Gulf War I will concede was about the Gulf states wanting to maintain stability, and Saddam's invasion threatened OPEC relationships with the US/EU. The war in Libya wasn't really about profits because Western companies flocked in after sanction on Qaddafi were lifted in 2003 or so, as Juan Cole explains here, source:http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html. The withdrawal of Indonesia from East Timor was more brought about by public pressure and Clinton deciding enough was enough. South Africa had sanctions placed upon it because, well, it was probably the only country by then that was explicit about racial segregation long after it was seen as extremely immoral. Investing in South Africa was seen as consolidating an immoral regime and politically untenable, so I would say that owes more to public pressure than profit. In Israel's case, the EU may or may not enact sanctions on the settlements, so it's not out of the realm for companies to decide investing in settlements is a bad idea for argument's sake. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this nonsense??

A militia is a completely neutral term and most self-defense groups are such. Just cause some journalists are being stupid doesn't mean, we have to be.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, leave militia in there - it is an appropriate description. Also, we don't need little quips which attempt to justify blowing up the King David Hotel. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The question "Why would anybody blow up the King David Hotel?" is a legitimate one. We would be remiss if we didn't hint towards possible motives. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It already did. But I have now made it very clear. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No. That does not make it clearer. "Has to be seen in that context" is not the same as "is perfectly okay because of this" but rather "would not have happened if circumstances had been very different" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Irgun decided that Britain was the enemy and blew up the King David Hotel because the British were headquartered there. What could be clearer than that? "Has to be seen in that context" hints at justification of a terrorist act.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Only if you want to see it like that. And given that the Brits were sending Shoah survivors back to camps in Germany at a time contemporary to the attacks, does merit mentioning. Whether you reject the means Irgun took (which I do) or not. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete before, added clearer, accurate info

This article needed more sourcing, as well as more data showing that, e.g., the White Paper plan was not a matter of Arab intransigence any more than it was of Zionist objections to immigration and other restrictions, which led to Zionist terrorism. The British Government material is good sourcing for that. Moreover, the first paragraph had been opaque on the matter of the capital and the controversy surrounding it. I fixed all that and can't understand why there would be objections, but please set them forth. Also, the matter of Africans/blacks in Israel is not as rosy as the previous version would have it. Truth does matter.---Mona- (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does racism exist in Israel? Of course it does. Is it significantly worse than in any other Western nation? No. A majority of Israeli Arabs (even those opposed to Zionism and pretty much everything Jewish about Israel) say they would rather live in Israel "then any other state in the world". So the discrimination (which does exist, no doubt about it - as a matter of fact the discrimination Jewish Arabs experienced in their early years in Israel is a major factor in the rise of Likud) can't be all that horrible. In fact, most Israeli Arabs say they would rather stay Israeli citizens than become citizens of some Palestinian state, if such were ever established. Furthermore, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, for all intents and purposes. Yes, some embassies are in Tel Aviv, but all governmental institutions, including the Knesset, the Supreme Court and the dwellings of the President and the Prime Minister are all in Jerusalem. And as for the white paper: Jews were being murdered at the time all over Europe. The British knew that, the Jews knew that and the Arabs knew it as well. The white paper constitutes proof positive that all who supported it were accessories to mass murder. No Jew in their right mind could have supported the white paper. And the Brits knew that. But they wanted Arab sympathies and (rightly) thought that the Jews would come to some grudging cooperation with them no matter what. The Jews simply had no alternative. And the few who took an alternative view have been called bad names by you or someone who holds similar opinions to yours. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Some embassies being all of them. Jerusalem may be the de facto capital of Israel due to its own actions, but the rest of the world disagrees legally. Monas version is more accurate to this point than yours, and would be a better base for improvement. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to get some compromise going so Avenger wouldn't feel his concerns were being ignored. But Paravant's wording re: the capital really is the best. As for Avengers' points about the White Paper, again he mistakes citing historical facts with documentation as "calling people names." The British should never have been "given" Palestine by the League of Nations to "oversee" and divvy up. But they were, and they were trying to socially engineer a state of affairs pleasing to both Zionist and the indigenous Arabs. Unsurprisingly, this failed miserably, but the fault for that is not remotely all to be laid at the feet of the Arabs! Especially when Jewish immigration illegally exceeded the White Paper quotas and the Zionists went totally terrorist. Those facts are part of history.---Mona- (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears Mona was not aware that the name calling referred to some user somewhere calling the "Stern Gang" (I will use the term the British used to insult them as it is more widely known thaen their own term) fascist and many other things. They were in fact the only ones who said "fuck the war, let's fight the British and if we have to ally with the Nazis to win, so be it". The Nazis of course rather preferred to Antisemites like al-Houseini on their side instead of Jews... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"The" Zionists... Well, some Zionists regarded actions by the British that were knowingly and willingly endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews to be worth fighting against. The majority of Zionists at that time believed there still to be enough common ground with the British. You know exactly what happened to the Jews that tried to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine "illegally" who failed. May I ask whether you agree with Viktor Orbán's policies vis-a-vis the current refugees from Syria? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

42.---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one answer. Another one, asked by a very rationally thinking person, a physicist who was once my boss, came out of the blue, when I called him and said I had a question. Over the phone without hearing the question he asked: „And what is the answer to the question?“. The answer, in the spur of the moment was „It's all for nothing“. We were both joking, but he agreed. Forgive me for telling anecdotes, but this pretty much summarizes my opinion of the process here. The response to the article's incompleteness seems to have been to cut it down without any good reason. How is that making it more complete? The cuts appear calculated to slant it. Please don't sow more than you or anyone else would like to reap. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk)

I'll let the substantive reasons given in the FR speak for themselves, when given. Some of the simple cleaning up didn't merit stating other reasons. Avenger didn't offer rationales or engage in discussion of edits on this talk page today, so things went forward without him. And Sorte, I am editing wiki articles; this hardly calls for portentous cautions about reaping and sowing!---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

They do speak for themselves. It's called tilting the balance in one's favour, apparently having this as a job. But you are obviously going to make it a project to ignore any calls for not going on. Reaping and sowing was a reference to your earlier activities and you were by no means blameless. Nobody really liked that. Or did you? Anyway, since you will not pay heed to reason, I suggest that you demolish the Israel-article to your heart's content and then insert a few pages of material about Israel here. It probably was next on your list anyway. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, Sorte, this elliptical, oblique communication style of yours is definitely not my thing. It's all far too fraught and Baroque -- if you can't just directly speak your piece, well, then we will not be able to communicate. I'm editing RW articles where I feel competent and comfortable in my knowledge base. If you see more to it -- something vaguely sinister -- well, I can't help you.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So to get your position on the record you neither care for the Jewish refugees of the past nor for the Syrian refugees of the present enough to even dignify the question with a significant response? That's a new low, even for you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was being clear, taking your word for for it that you are intelligent, well-read, educated and hard-working. OK, for your piece of mind I'll boil it down. When all is said and done you are pursuing a vendetta driven by hatred. That is never good. For the source of that, see your own description. You seem to be able to edit RW almost full time in the secure knowledge that nobody will be able to compete with your output and single-mindedness for the time being. I couldn't make any substantial contributions in this field, because I have, on the whole, different interests and my spots of expertise would interest nobody here. Still, one day we will both be forgotten and by some roll of the dice somebody in your position but with opposed views will reedit the whole thing. Then repeat. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: If anybody else was not clear about my meaning I would ask them to do me a favour and say so. A simple „understood“ or „Not understood“ will do. Thanks in advance. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just adding two quotes, which should be impossible to misunderstand.

„The response to the article's incompleteness seems to have been to cut it down without any good reason. How is that making it more complete? The cuts appear calculated to slant it.“

„They do speak for themselves. It's called tilting the balance in one's favour, apparently having this as a job.“

Is it possible not to understand this? You are being evasive, when claiming not to understand. As for any verbal baggage, I don't claim to be a great writer, but a widely read lawyer should have no problem understanding any of it. Or perhaps there is a lack of intelligence. I don't personally believe that you are not widely read, I don't believe that you are not a lawyer and I don't believe that you do not possess an intellect. And don't let the double negatives confuse you. What remains is that you willfully claim not to understand, when in fact you actually have. If that is not the case, then some of your assertions (being a lawyer, being widely read, being intelligent) must be questioned. (By the way, being widely read is not really the same thing as being well-read, just as having gone to school is no guarantee that one is educated.) I can be no clearer. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"I can be no clearer." That's unfortunate. What you and Avenger both lack the honesty to forthrightly state is you want facts suppressed if they do not work to the advantage of Zionism and/or the State of Israel. To be conversant with the facts and establish them is to hold "hatred." Actually, this showcases terrifying hatred. As does this. You were saying?---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a downright lie that you have not understood. If you haven't, you're an idiot, and idiots of that scale are not comon. You are still playing games. I have been honest. You have been devious when it suits you. And you have cursed like a sailor when you were in the mood. I've never said f***, you have on many occasions. On the whole you eare not taking the high road and you are morally no better than any of us. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Yeah, I do on occasion use the word "fuck." And "bullshit." As well as "bitch" and "asshole." These are not the hallmarks of hatred, however. It's just how I sometimes roll. Big (ahem) fucking deal!---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And yet again you split hairs and avoid the main thing. The real questions are two. Are you an idiot? I believe not, so it follows that you are being deliberately obtuse. And your honesty, well, who are you to claim honesty in view of many statements, but you needn't look any further than this thread? But you have already answered this yourself. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See you later, I suppose. Leaving in disgust for the moment. You may have been schooled, but you are not educated, you are not well read and most of all, you lack civilization in the entire meaning of the word. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been reduced to simply hurling (many and long) insults, Sorte. Even without the word "fuck" in the mix that's hardly indicative of clear thinking. ---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I feared Sorte's points are correct and it has been due time someone utters them, but it does not gets us closer to Mona answering any of our questions. It appears the one who wants to "suppress" things that "don't suit her" (like the editing privileges of myself and Arisboch) is neither my humble self nor Sorte Slyngel. But that may just be the Zionist occupants of my brain talking. After all, logic has often been associated with Jews Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: I wasn't hurling insults. I stated the obvious. I'm sorry you can't defend yourself rationally, but that is your problem. As for swearing, that is does not in itself detract from content, but it does show a lack of culture. Get well. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: I forgot to ask: Why is it so difficult to answer simple question with a „Yes“ or „No“? I'm rather sure I know the answer, but I'd like to hear it from you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Avenger, you lost your ability to freely edit pages at a whim by being a massive tool, and Arisboch because he would not stop edit warring. It had nothing to do with your views, so stop that nonsense, jesus christ. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I lost my sysop rights, so that Mona could turn Zionism into shit without any significant opposition.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, sure thing; I'm "uncultured." So be it. As are a number of other folk here. It's just awful, and Sr. Mary Ignatius is gonna rap our collective knuckles with her fucking ruler! Now Sorte, what are these sincere questions of yours you feel are in urgent need of my answering? Or were you truly wanting me to answer whether I am an idiot?---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Evading again. If you truly have not understood, then you are an idiot. I don't believe you are which makes you dishonest. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, I have not seen any serious inquiries addressed to me by you -- certainly not ones I have not already answered. If you have them, please (re)state them.---Mona- (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Patience, you'll have them. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I already had them and had somehow failed to answer? Just direct me to where these "unanswered" questions were already posed here.---Mona- (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you two going to actually suggest actionable changes to the article, or just continue tone policing and what I believe is some hybrid of demonization/Danth's Law/loaded language/style over substance?Whatever it's called when you just repeat "I'm sorry you're so stupid" without actually ever making a logical point...

Read, Krytenkoro, and please sign. I'm taking a break for reasons of health. I'll be back (no joke intended). This has been a sustained analysis for my part, however you may understand the words. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I did read, and more than half of your posts in this section are "are you still beating your wife"-isms about Mona answering your two super-special questions. I can't find any actual, demonstrating-that-you're-discussing-in-good-faith proposals to revise the article in this entire section. If you're referring to a suggestion elsewhere, simply repeat it instead of going on and on about how erudite and shiny you are.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Krytenkoro, I did make several changes to the article and then the objection Sorte raised, well, you can see they mostly have to do with claims that I'm full of hate and won't answer questions, and such. I've been willing to entertain sincere questions but not most of the loaded ones s/he's been posing. If s/he's done, I assure you, so am I.---Mona- (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for the unintended insult -- by "you two", I was referring to Sorte and BoN, whose entire contribution to this section seems to be "Mona is a racist asshole and probably kicks puppies" instead of actually providing point/counterpoints relevant to revising the article.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@KrytenKoro: My questions and statements have not been about „Are you still beating your wife?“ They should obviously be „Why are you still beating your wife?“. I suggest you read Mona's description of herself on her own talk page. As for me and Avenger, I'd think Arisboch should be insulted being left out. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just to put this as clearly as I can:

1. Even in the fevered universe where your accusation against Mona is actually correct, her alleged racism and your explanations for it aren't going in the bloody article, so harping on them is an absolute derailment.
2. I'm not gonna read her talk page, because that has nothing to do with this article.
3. Arisboch isn't busy being a time-wasting prick on this talk page. I have no (fundamental) problem with those who are pro-Israel, I have a problem with people being disingenuous fuckwads pretending they are contributing while purposefully wasting everyone's time.

PS: Just asking: Where have I gone on about „how erudite and shiny“ I am? Just asking. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are three. Most of it is in the theme of "You're not as intelligent, well-read, educated, or hard-working as I am, and also I am friends with very smart people and we do smart people things together." In other words "You should do what I say because I'm very smart, trust me, even though I'm not actually engaging in discussion or rebuttal of any substantive, relevant claims."

• "As for any verbal baggage, I don't claim to be a great writer, but a widely read lawyer should have no problem understanding any of it."
• "I thought I was being clear, taking your word for for it that you are intelligent, well-read, educated and hard-working. OK, for your piece of mind I'll boil it down."
• "That's one answer. Another one, asked by a very rationally thinking person, a physicist who was once my boss, came out of the blue, when I called him and said I had a question. Over the phone without hearing the question he asked: „And what is the answer to the question?“. The answer, in the spur of the moment was „It's all for nothing“. We were both joking, but he agreed."

Please, for the love of God, either shit or get off the pot.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. What, specifically, do you feel should be added/removed/revised within the article? Please provide samples of how the new write-up should be phrased.
2. What sources do you have to support your suggested version of the page?
3. What makes those sources more reliable than the ones being used now?KrytenKoro (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Another one is unable to comprehend. I've never boasted about anything except perhaps having seen a lot of things before. My writing style really is influenced by the way I write in Icelandic. If you do not understand then I should change the style and you should think harder. As for my English it is just what I learned, no more no less. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, are you able to see how you writing an entire post about how I'm "too stupid" and your English "is great" is totally irrelevant to making changes to this article? That's the point that I've been driving at, which you seem to be avoiding. You've spent a lot of time talking about how awesome you are and how much your ideological opponents suck without once saying something relevant to writing the article. I pointed it out above and you simply replied with more of the same, apparently unaware of the irony.

You don't like the article and you don't like Mona. We all get that. What are you actually proposing be done about that?KrytenKoro (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Just a short one to clarify things for KrytenKoro, who seems to have come out of hibernation, although on the northern hemisphere it's the wrong time of the year.

• Point One: I have intelligent friends. Sue me.
• Point Two: I was trying to be clear, but Mona tries hard not to understand. That is her problem and yours.
• Point Three: I tell stories. I have stated so plainly. What is wrong with that?

Regarding the toilet, I'd like to suggest that you go back there whence you came. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never said my English is great. On the contrary. I can write what I know in English, I can write what I want in Icelandic, with a refernce to Antti Tuuri. Please go back to sleep. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, Sorte, I decidedly do not "have a problem." No, the problem is that you can't offer any substantive objections to my edits and are waxing all oblique, insulting and ultimately, very silly. That I do understand.---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're committed to derailing discussion even when explicitly asked to be on-topic. Great. To be absolutely clear about this: I do not give a shit whether your English is good or not. I am not criticizing your fluency, I am pointing out that you've spent more time congratulating yourself about your fluency and other things, than actually discussing relevant topics, and asking you if you have anything substantive to contribute. Your repeated refusal to actually clarify what, in particular, you want the article to say makes it clear that you have no desire to engage in good faith.

Those who are regulars here: what's the preferred protocol with trolls like this? Hat the section, block the user, ignore and let him sputter, what?KrytenKoro (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been oblique and I haven't congratulated myself. You're definitely reading too much between the lines. But to give an actual oblique quote: „Asellina and her employees vote.“ Graffito found in Pompeii. Get off your horse. Cheers. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte hadn't done anything meriting a block. Ignore him/her. That's what I intend to do from now on after realizing s/he is full of bad faith bullshit. (The naughty word will cause Sorte to clutch his/her [cultured, no doubt] pearls!)---Mona- (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A perfectly neutral statement. I'm a he just as you are a she. My anatomy does indeed make it easy to grab my pearls, but I refrained. So do not worry. As for being cultivated, well, have you shown anything resembling culture? I honestly thought we had made peace in good faith, but then you proved to have been less than honest. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I read the Israel article with great attention just now. I must admit, that it seems to be OK as it is. Further additions don't seem to be required. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the white paper did not "work"

Is a good thing. The unfortunately makes it sound like we are terribly sorry that the Mandate of Palestine provided shelter refuge and a save haven for the Jews that did manage to get there. The white paper was probably one of the most heinous pieces of British foreign policy. In a sense even worse thaen Munich 1938, because in Munich it was at least genuine concern for peace that motivated the British government. The White Paper was published with eyes wide open to the coming disaster and the British response was basically "Ah fuck 'em, we need the Arab support more thaen some Jews". Fighting against the White Paper was a noble act in and of itself, the fact that not all actions undertaken against it notwithstanding. If those who fought the White Paper were terrorist, what should we call the Arab murderers of 1936? Civil libertarians? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The British occupation was dictated by concerns for their empire of course and they really were scared, wavering and subservient to the Arab elite's interests. Not that they cared either way about individual Arabs or Jews. With exceptions, see this guy who at least had the courage of his convictions. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Shifting the blame

I thought I had removed the word „Jewish“ from the passage about the White Paper, which had as I recall been altered again to „Jewish political violence“. Leave this be as it is, please. It is not the prerogative of any one person to monopolize articles, even if they have stated that wish. Talking about „Jewish political violence“ alone is trick to shift the blame to one side only, and not a clever on at that.Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The British left Palestine specifically because of Zionist, Jewish terrorists. Which is to say, the terrorists got what they wanted. It's an example of terrorism working.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stay away with your rhetoric and partisanship. There are two sides to everything and you are not nearly as clever as you think, although that comes as a surprise only to you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're the one trying to shift the blame, Sorte. Away from Zionist extremists that is. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Sorte, see all the documentation in the Zionism article in the "Zionist terrorism" section. The British SAID they left because of Zionist terrorism. Zionistst themslves admit that. It's all documented at the Zionism article.---Mona- (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So there was no Arab terrorism? The British never had a grip on things as history shows and they usually wrote history to suit themselves. The mandate was not theirs anyway. But racism should not have a home here, as you should know - proud as you are of your gray stuff in your skull. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There was Arab terrorism, but it was less and not what drove the Brits out. Zionists made it impossible for the Brits to govern. They sent bombs to Brits in Palestine and in the UK. (Indeed, they apparently sent one to Harry Truman as well.) Zionists AGREE their terrorism got the Brits out. Again, see the terrorism section at the Zionism page.---Mona- (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(ec)„We“ don't agree? You're not royal in any sense of the word. Whatever „Zionists“ say, they too have their reasons for rewriting history, and just as with „Anti-Zionists“ they are a religion with many sects. You seem to belong to the more violent sects of your creed. Nobody speaks for them all, even if you wish to do so and even if people on all sides have tried to. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, 142.124.55.236 is not part of me. And Chris also has not agreed with your edits. Now, will you listen to yourself?! You are arguing against history that both the Brits and Zionists agree upon because, blah blah reasons blah blah. That's deranged.---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Brits so that to blame "the Zionists", "The Zionists" do that to take the credit of "freeing Eretz Israel from the British" and you of course agree with that, cause it gives you one more way to take a shit on Israel or "The Zionists™"--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I had your comment on your talk page in mind. As for deranged, I have seen a number of those and you fit right in. You have at least demonstrated megalomania. And here you show your respect for others. „blah blah reasons blah blah“. You're absolutely right. Reasons are not your forte, and neither is thinking. I do accept that you can absorb and memorize, but you don't seem to be able to do anything with your acquired knowledge. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant your edit comment. That doesn't make you any less in the wrong. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, this consensus as to facts is not what the Brits and Zionists say it is because blah blah reasons blah blah reasons. I see.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

because blah blah reasons blah blah reasons. I see.- -Mona- Stop pretending, as if your Hamas view of history is anything like fact, you fuckface.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Arisboch, you are wholly irrational and nothing but a bag of unpleasant emotion on this topic or anything related thereto.---Mona- (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sorte has an accurate analysis of the conflict with regard to terrorism. And this is speaking from evidence. I'll quote historian Benny Morris on the events in 1948: "Two of the three major Arab massacres of Jews...were revenge attacks triggered by Jewish atrocities against Arabs. On the other hand, Jewish atrocities against Arabs...were generally unconnected to or lacked any previous, direct Arab provocation". That is not to justify violence. However, if we're taking a serious view of history, we can't leave other factors go unnoticed. As far as terrorism in the 1930s, Benny Morris in Righteous Victims also merits quoting when it came to targeting civilians indiscriminately, such as how Arab violence and terrorism in the mid 1930s "triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict". Thus, Zionists militias first targeted civilians indiscriminately. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Another round of victim blaming, as always with a Jewish name on the label as a nice form of tokenism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be called Zionist political violence rather than Jewish political violence personally. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris: GMTA -- I had already changed it to " Zionist terrorism."---Mona- (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Chris does have a point. Ms. M. on the other hand has shown her total disregard for anything but herself, and is a crystal clear example of binary thinking, as it is called. According to her, she's never wrong. But I'll leave her with a little gift.

Du bist min, ich bin din:

des solt du gewis sin.

du bist beslozzen

in minem herzen:

verlorn ist das sluzzelin:

du muost och immer darinne sin.

Cheerio darling Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...

I thought this here site is rather on the "borders are just like your opinion, man" side of the immigration debate. Why thaen is the infamous white paper (in essence an anti-immigration treatise that would be rejected out of hand if Trump-a-Trump were to propose it regarding Mexicans) celebrated here as a valiant but futile attempt by the British to do something noble? When it in essence was nothing more thaen complicity to genocide by not providing a safe place of refuge when such a thing would have been in their power... Or am I missing something? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just being curious, why do you consistently use the spelling „thaen“? Anyway, I'm wondering with you. Still, I think my parting words to her Majesty were really sweet. Don't you agree? :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Too sweet for my taste. And as for "thaen" there are really two answers. A short honest one and the one I am gonna give you now: I think then and than are basically the same word and have historically been the same word and are often represented as the same word in other indo-european languages. As the ligature æ is too much of a pain in the ass to look up every single time, I make do with thaen ;-). I hope that at some point in time my weird idiosyncratic spelling will spread making people like [insert name here] get eye cancer when they see the spelling we now consider to be correct. Just like "@" has indeed become a "normal" letter in parts of the Spanish speaking world (e.g. con tod@s y por el bien de tod@s - with everybody (m/f) and for the good of everybody (m/f)). Much to the chagrin of chauvinists Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

For æ press Alt+0230. For œ it's Alt+0156. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work me ;( (either due to me using Linux, due to me using thw Firefox or both), but I always insert such special characters from the Wikipedia-articles about them (e.g. for æ, enter "ae" into the wikipedia search and copy the special character from the article). --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think my initial question deserves being answered by some of our resident anti-Zionists. I'd like to hear their input... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I use Windows, so this should work for Avenger if he does too. It's enough to do it once and then copy. And then we have Character Map, which I'm sure has a counterpart in Linux. Firefox doesn't limit the characters - one can use a Unicode font and all is well. Then and than are the same word, so to speak, related to German dann and denn. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Even under Windows, the Wikipedia-method is at least easier to memorize (there are also addons for Firefox, where you can save often-used characters not readily present on your keyboard, I suspect, it's the same with the Internet Exploder).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the original question, don't expect any answers. Mona does not regard all lives as equal. That should be abundantly clear by now. That is the state of mind that makes one a fanatic and cold towards any causes other than the one blindly singled out. And, as an additional remark, she takes Chomsky seriously, which is quite enough to mandate a trip to a specialist. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Internet Explorer! Get thee away!!! I would never stoop to the level of using that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:) Me neither, under Windows, I use the 64bit-fork of Firefox, Waterox, cause the guys at the Mozilla Foundation are to fucking lazy to release decent 64bit-version of Firefox or Thumderbird for Windoze (FOSSMail is the 64bit-Thunderbird-alternative for Windows).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee... get back to your geek-cave in ... some place (just proving I can be nasty even to people I consider friends ;-) ). I am just saying this because I am too stoopid when it comes to PCs... and I am jealous of your knowledge Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The voice of an actual Arab Israeli who has to fear for his live for having said them.

Most of the text is in German, but the English version is also presented and accessible. this is what got the story going. Here his disappearance and threats against his live (including those made by relatives) are detailed. And here he has access to social media again and deems it safe to post a "yep still alive". I hope that none of the users of this here wiki will now stoop to issuing their own death threats, as Hamas and their sympathizers have probably already sent out too many of them. Just for someone saying what 77% of Israeli Arabs actually believe: That they would not like to live in any other country thaen Israel. And of course he also said some other things. Things that should come naturally from saying "I want to live in no other place but Israel" but don't necessarily. Let's applaud this brave young Arab. I for one support the right of this young man to live in peace and security in the only place he will ever call truly home. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A person's ethnicity/nationality doesn't make his political views any more factually correct. Come on now, are we really going down that route? Would you apply the same standard of a black man who criticized the BLM movement or believe the police are in the moral right when it comes to disrupting protests? What about a Jew who criticizes Israel? ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard you make this argument when Mona goes around quoting Jews. Also you don't care that and Arab who lives in Israel has to fear for his life? I thought you cared about those people... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I apply a different standard of evidence than Mona does. I don't agree with some of the sources she uses, so that's not my issue. I do, but I also like to stick to the facts in regards to who initiates conflicts and who doesn't, so I think this person is gullible with regard to his political views, but that's my opinion. As to the issue of death threats, I personally wouldn't make them. However, being that I call myself a free speech absolutist who thinks even the harshest forms of speech should be protected (right to incitement) without consequence, I believe in protecting the rights to insult/threaten someone even if that may seem like it infringes on the rights of others. I'm uncomfortable with making exceptions to free speech, so that's my position. So if a Jewish settler makes threats against Palestinians, I'd find it distasteful and concerning, but unless it takes the form of actual physical harm, I believe he or she is in the legal right to make that kind of speech. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I don't think we have different standards of evidence. In fact, I know we do not. I demand facts from reliable sources. You simply do not accept activist journalists as reliable sources and I do if they have earned a reputation for accuracy. Avenger can cite German things I can't access to his heart's content; it doesn't change the reality of what Israel has been doing to Arabs for many decades. Finally, I completely agree with you on free speech and have also been slammed for being a free speech "absolutist." In fact, I defended white supremacists in court when their speech was infringed by the state and would do it again.---Mona- (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I say to all self-described free speech absolutists out there: Fine, do you join me in doing the dirty work of letting Nazis not just walk through town without anybody saying a word against them? If it comes to me Nazis can have their rally. But they will have to live with antifascists drowning them out and not letting them go very far. And I'll be among them if I can. And as for you so blatantly dismissing a person who has spent all of his young live in Israel: Where is your Middle East expertise coming from? Have you been to Israel? Do you have access to any sources this young brave man can't access? If so are they relevant and how? And Mona: I am sorry to hear that you are to stupid to learn German (hey, you started hitting me for my supposed lack of intellect, I'm not the monolingual lawyer struggling with English around here). I might google a bit further for you, but right now I can't be fucking bothered. I know for a fact that several users around here know a bit of German and could either translate it for you, search for it at another page or do the horrible work of scrolling down a bit. Also also, Proxies are a thing, yaknow. It's how I get me some daily show... Speaking of which.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should prowl through town. Well okay, my issue was with his political views in regards to the Israel - Hamas conflict based on a quick google search. You don't need experience living somewhere to have an informed opinion about it. For example, you didn't need to live in Vietnam to understand what the US was doing included major war crimes and to make the political analysis that the US was engaged in a war of aggression. I rely on historical books, non-partisan news sources generally, and human rights reports for my Middle East expertise. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, you pig-ignorant moron, failure to speak German does not render one monolingual, and I am in fact reasonably fluent in, and can read, a second language. God, you are so fucking stupid. ---Mona- (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well I profusely apologize for having failed to detect your fluency in a language you have so far not even alluded to. (See that's what grown ups do: Apologize for factual inaccuracy) Would you care to share with a waiting world the language you are so proficient in? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yet someone who is actually living there and has access to a host of Hebrew and Arab language sources neither of us can even dream of begs to differ and not only dismisses the claims of Israeli Apartheid (of which he would be a victim if it were real) out of hand, he also encourages his follow Arabs to join the IDF and do what you and Mona have repeatedly called war crimes. Now a question for you: Why does he do that? And after having given an answer might you answer the question of whether it matters that there are Jews that hate Israel? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The individual is not immune from criticism on the basis of his residence. He is subject to criticism depending on the issues he's talking about and whether he's factually correct in his analysis of those issues. Where he lives is irrelevant and a distraction. What matters to me are the facts. This individual could say something that states verbatim the press release of the IDF. That wouldn't give him more credibility, rather it would make him look gullible. We should evaluate the factual details and context of what a person says rather than reach conclusions on the basis of his or her nationality. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So you in essence dismiss arguments from authority on the issue of Apartheid with regards to Israel? Because you implicitly dismissed the authority of an Arab Israeli citizen (who should know whether he is in fact a victim of Apartheid) to judge whether he is a victim of Apartheid... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Apartheid wasn't one of the issues I brought up when it came to disagreeing with him and it's a separate topic. There are other Arabs who live in Israel who may disagree with you and him. I don't want to get into a long spiel about apartheid, but within Israel's borders (behind the 67 line), I don't think they practice apartheid. The West Bank on the other hand is different with regards to the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Jewish settlers who live next door to them in those same territories (despite the settlers living beyond the 67 Green Line). You can check the apartheid article and the sources I cited for that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet he calls for his fellow Arab Israelis to join the IDF. And it is save to assume that he things the IDF are the good guys in this one... Are you going to dismiss this as well? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mona, just to make sure. „... pig-ignorant moron“? Look who's talking. You might as well be monolingual. The ability to speak a second language does not make you a genius. And you are really the person I've had the misfortune to meet for the last couple of years who has the highest and most unjustified opinions of him- or herself. In your world, you are simply superior. That is abundantly clear. And you are wrong about that. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok.---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. You're not the first of your kind I've met and you won't be the last, but it is always something of a surprise, in your words how really „fucking stupid“ people can be, and to clarify, I'm not talking about Avenger, just in case that needed to be mentioned. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. ---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks even a person with my feeble grasp on the English language could've guessed who you were referring to ;-) Nichts für ungut... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, I think you're confusing opinion with fact. There are Jews who think Palestinians have a right to defend themselves as well. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

By stabbing random Israelis and throwing stones at random Israelis? That kinda stuff is bad for the perp's health, could lead to lethal lead-poisoning, IYKWIM...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Civilians no, but soldiers yes. Soldiers are a legitimate target. There were 5 soldiers who Palestinians attempted to stab today I believe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there a terrorist attack on a British soldier a couple of years ago? It was something to do with a hatchet, if I remember the reports correctly... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mufti picture

Someone deleted it as not belonging and clogging page. Sorte Slyngel added it back with a misleading caption. Arisboch reverted to the misleading caption. I've reverted to the accurate one, especially indicated in light of Netanyahu's latest Holocaust denialist idiocy involving the Mufti.---Mona- (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't give less of a fuck, what Bibi said about him. He was a Nazi collaborator and would've been hanging from a fucking rope, if the French would've let him escape to curry favor with the Arab.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Bibi has stirred up the Zionist street with this Mufti bullshit. What you care about isn't the issue. But for reasons I added in the summary I deleted the picture, which should have been done anyway.---Mona- (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He did? How the fuck did he do that? By saying to act with restraint and against these fuckers, who target Arab civilians and some random African guy? What the fuck are talking about?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu is many things, but stupid is not one of them. When he hates the Palestinians more than he does Hitler-- and so resorts to denialist lies --he's gone far down the dehumanizing-them hole. For a reason.---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dehumanizing? When and what did he say anything even remotely dehumanizing about the Palestinians?! --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, again, on any issue touching on Israel or Zionism, debating you is like debating a creationist. If you don't see that making the Mufti out to be worse than Hitler -- in a speech to Zionists about Israel's current oppression of the Palestinians -- is to dehumanize them with a vicious lie, I can't help you.---Mona- (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's dehumanizing, cause Her Holeyness Mona the 1948th said so. Cool argument.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona are you seriously saying that the Mufti was not relevant? Or that he did not collaborate with Hitler? Or that he did not hate Jews? All of these things are well established facts. Which you claim Zionists don't own, so there ya go... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, you have not addressed why the Mufti's picture belongs on the Israel page. But if your facts are correct you should start an article on the Mufti.---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, then Mona, how about you go and repair your Apartheid article, and move the irrelevant stuff to a new one. Are you trying to break some kind of record in hypocrisy? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure the current record holder is "not an Antisemite, but..." Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Zionists often use the Mufti as anti-Palestinians talking point, lie about Arabs and Nazis

As Matt Duss has written:

In a similar vein, [Zionist and neocon Joshua] Muravchik quotes Six Days in June: Israel’s Fight for Survival, written by Robert J. Donovan and the staff of the Los Angeles Times, as saying that “[t]he Arabs, on the whole, sided with the Nazis with whom they shared common hatreds.” Again, this is contradicted by the scholarly consensus on the issue (at least he includes a footnote this time, even if it’s somewhat odd to base so broad a claim on one out-of-print book from the 1960s). In reality, the historical record on this subject “is a complex, mixed, and nuanced one,” as Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, wrote in a June 2014 piece marking the anniversary of D-Day, “but the overarching fact is that Arab and Muslim involvement in the war was overwhelmingly on the Allied side, and was a significant factor in fighting on the ground.” Ibish notes that a total of around 6,000 Arabs are estimated to have fought on the Axis side, whereas tens of thousands fought and died on the Allied side, including 9,000 Palestinians in the British army alone.

It is true, as Muravchik recounts, that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, sought an alliance with the Nazis in hopes of gaining advantage against British and Zionist forces in Palestine. But while his work recruiting Bosnian Muslims to the fascist cause is indefensible, al-Husseini’s pro-Hitler propaganda found little traction among its intended audience...

Our article should not support Zionist false propaganda meant to dehumanize the Palestinians.---Mona- (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling al-Husseini what he was (a Nazi war criminal, mass murderer and terrorist leader) is dehumanizing to the Palestinians?! What the fuck are you talking about?! You know, this sounds to me like extremely offensive towards the Palestinians, just like saying, that claiming, that Hitler has only got one ball is an insult to Germany. You fucking done goofed more than Bibi has!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't a Nazi, he was a Nazi-sympathizer. He was that because he saw it as a way of ending Zionist immigration to Palestine, of killing Jews before or after they got there. (Which, while heinous, is a more rational reason than Hitler's fevered hatred based on bullshit fantasy.) And he had almost no sway with his Palestinians audience that overwhelmingly fought against the Nazis.---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

that overwhelmingly fought against the Nazis- -Mona- ^{[citation needed]} (and back than, who called the Arabs living in this part of the Levante "Palestinians"?? Rewriting history, are we?)--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Husseini fucking recruited SS "volunteers" for Hitler. In Bosnia. Hundreds of miles away from the Mandate. And Al Husseini knew about the Shoah and tacitly approved of it, if not outright endorsed it. But of course, saying so would shine the ugly light of truth on current and former Palestinian leaders, who are all in form or another political heirs to Arafat, who was in turn the designated political heir of the Mufti... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Bosnia is not Israel. The article is about Israel.---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be stupid dipshit. Al Husseini went out of his way to help the Nazis. That's why he went to Bosnia (and Berlin) in the fucking first place. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And Arafat's heir is Abu Mazen, who tries to whip up a 3rd intifada like Arafat did.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You have insulted the Palestinian gerontocracy (last elected a decade ago). How dare you? You will now be sown into twenty meters of ugly Palestinian cloth that is surplus production from China "real" Palestinian "refugees" suffering under da occupayshn! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘„(Which, while heinous, is a more rational reason than Hitler's fevered hatred based on bullshit fantasy.)“. So that's OK then? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Husseini is relevant

Because he is - to this day - a well known and respected figure in the Arab world. Because there can be no doubt about his hatred towards Jews and because he openly collaborated with Hitler. There is no sane reason to excise an image of the Arab leader in the mandate at the time of partition. Unless Mona deems the image of Ben Gurion unnecessary as well. And Mona: stop edit warring. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How is he so relevant to Israel to merit a picture on the Israel page? I and at least one other don't think it is merited. Don't recall who deleted the picture first, but it wasn't me. Either way, if the picture is to be included it needs to have the non-misleading caption.---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It was not fucking misleading, you just want to white-wash a Nazi war criminal, cause he is, according to you, Palestinian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona, are you so really stinking stupid? Leave the grand mufti be. He deserves to be there, and you show yourself to be more of a hypocrite than ever. Do you want an edit war? Piss off. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

When discussing the period of the mandate two locals are most important: Ben Gurion as the most important Jewish leader (there were others) and Main Hajj al Husseini as the most important Arab leader (there were others). Thankfully for the Jews, Ben Gurion emerged on top of the heap in the internal power struggles, as he really was a gifted politician in difficult times (amazingly enough he even managed to make friends with Adenauer). Sadly for the Arabs - and for the Jews as well - al Husseini, the most incompetent, least able to compromise and most virulently antisemitic Arab leader emerged victorious from their power struggles. Imagine a world without al Husseini... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC

Sorry Mona, Jews trump brown people in PC victim cards. PM Schlomo Shekelstein for a rule sheet. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@BoN: How is that supposed to be relevant, in fact what do you mean? The Mufti was all of those things. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This punk is supposedly one of the army of socks of Mikemikev, an infamous neo-nazis internet troll across numerous sites, ignore him.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Husseini did collaborate with the Nazis to secure the Fuhrer's support for Arab independence, but that's as far as his connection with the Nazis go at least according to the consensus of historians. Husseini didn't construct gas chambers. Husseini didn't provide the poison gas used in the chambers. The main historian on the Holocaust Raul Hilberg scoffed at the notion that Husseini influenced Hitler, calling it "unlikely" and devoting only one sentence to him in his three volume study with regard to the extermination of the Jews. If we're going to be fair, we should also include a telegram sent by the Stern Gang to collaborate with the Nazis in the early 1940s or include Ben-Gurion's statement that he would only take in half the Jewish refugees after the Kristallnacht in order to bolster the cause of Zionism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Husseini didn't give Hitler the idea to the Shoa, but he was a Nazi war criminal and a terrorist leader. The comparison with Stern is even more idiotic than Bibi's words, though, since Stern's only connection to the Nazis was sending them coupla letters (which made more or less anyone else in the Jewish underground in in Mandate Palestine think, that Stern had his head up his ass), and not, like Husseini's, actively and willingly collaborating with them and committing war crimes under their command.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could include the memorandum the German Zionist Federation sent to the Nazis claiming to understand their fine desire for a Christian, Aryan nation, and declaring the Jewish people sought the same sort of Jewish nation. The GZF rejected Jewish assimilation and felt Jews should pattern themselves after the Nazi model. Should we include that as well?---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly did they wrote to whom exactly, how much influence did they have and so on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by Nazi war criminal? And no it's not an idiotic comparison. I can get the telegram specifying the request of a strategic alliance, unless of of course we want to whitewash all collaborators and would-be collaborators. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch: Serious questions? Was the Mufti formally charged as a Nazi war criminal? Did the Mossad target him and try to get him to stand trial in Israel?---Mona- (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He was charged and he would've hanged, if the French didn't let him escape to Egypt.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Mona re unimportant footnotes in history: Please do, and make sure you include the thank-you telegram Christian X. sent Hitler. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the outdent template is superfluous right here... We should also mention that Marx sent a telegram to Lincoln congratulating him on reelection. Which proves that the GOP is a giant communist conspiracy Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte translated:"No, I have no evidence the Mufti was charged by anyone as a Nazi war criminal."---Mona- (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hitler was never charged with any war crimes either. Don't be more stupid thaen you already are, Mona Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the goddamn Wikipedia article about him.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a good source for a controversial political conflict. I would recommend academic books on the subject instead. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: Do you really think you can understand what I or anyone else writes? You haven't shown anything except a relentlessly literal reading of anything you see - which then wither and dies. @Chris: Wikipedia does occasionally get the factes straight, however much you would like it not to. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, rather than tell me to find my own sources, why don't you quote and link to documentation that the Mufti was charged as Nazi war criminal? If it is documented at WP what are their references?---Mona- (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the goddamn Wikipedia article (no, it is no Do your own research). Please don't act any more stupid than you actually are.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, no, the burden is on you to CITE quotes and documentation that the Mufti was charged as a Nazi war criminal. Can you?---Mona- (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Mona: That's enough - stay away with your hatred and idiocy. Your quotation above shows you for what you are. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Mona hates Jews is old news, really. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop disagreeing with Jews Mona. Stop the hate. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off to /pol/ or Stormfront, 112.172.232.217.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not very nice. Why can't you be more inclusive of diversity? I'm not Jewish but you make me feel like this. Bob567 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Christ guys. Everyone knows Husseini was a collaborator, but that in itself doesn't make him a Nazi war criminal. He wasn't indicted at Nuremberg or listed in its index. The two main biographers of him don't make any citations of him being indicted at Nuremberg. And here is the telegram Arisboch. Click the source. Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=qc6Tn-C2B5UC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=norman+finkelstein+husseini+beyond+chutzpah&source=bl&ots=kfksSncjIB&sig=Z5l4wSSdwauqOzk1fqix6zG5Wp0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBIQ6AEwA2oVChMI9oythMHUyAIVxRc-Ch1lBgH5#v=onepage&q=norman%20finkelstein%20husseini%20beyond%20chutzpah&f=false. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Yugoslavs wanted him for the mass murder of Serbs perpetrated by him and I think I already said, that I think, that Bibi was talking bullshit about Husseini.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Nürnberg trials were not the only trials there were. There was a series of well published other trials along with West Germany's Entnazifierungs trials as well as a lot of trials in other countries. (Look up Otto Ohlendorf for a famous example.) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And to repeat, this is Mona word for word. „Which, while heinous, is a more rational reason than Hitler's fevered hatred based on bullshit fantasy.“. So it's OK to exterminate people if you do so rationally? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also a lot of Nazis got off way to easily. Von Papen for instance was acquitted, even though he helped Hitler get power. Speer got laughable 20 years and von Braun got off scot free - he was needed for the US rocket program... Realpolitik is a bitch... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, lot of statements. First, was al-Husseini listed as a potential war criminal in those trials? If documentation is provided, I'll concede it. Second, is the Yugoslav's claims on him being responsible for mass murder corroborated by historians and academic books on the subject? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I followed you link. I didn't think it was important, but to say it here, you have a guy called Finkelstein claiming that two guys, Mattar and Elpeleg are the major historians in this vast field. That's all. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

They're the two biographers of Husseini. They've gone through memoris and documents of the guy's life. I think that's pretty significant. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Husseini had long track record of opposing Zionism. It was his country that was being colonised, so his taking an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tack is hardly surprsing. The Irish did the same thing in WW2 (even more so - submarines, spies, weapons). Many colonies around the world allied with the USSR for the same reason: because they thought that support from the USSR could assist in getting rid of their coloniser, not because they adored Stalin. Ho Chi Minh as an example. Husseini's actual knowledge of the Shoah, and the point at which he should (morally) have bailed are contentious questions that can only be answered with a level of knowledge (about his actions) that does not exist. Getting to the point, bold claims like "he was a Nazi"; "he is the reason Hitler went ahead with the Holocaust" need to be backed up by solid evidence, which I'm not seeing in the slightest. TL;DR - citations from credible non-partisan sources needed. Krakatoa (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This fucker would be hanging from a Yugoslavian rope, if the French wouldn't have let him flee to Egypt.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Husseini hated Jews. He hated them more thaen the vast majority of Palestinians at the time. In fact before al Husseini took out all dissenting voices there was if not necessarily friendship and peace, at least some manner of living side by side between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Once al Husseini shows up and purges all dissenting voices "kill da Juice" becomes the raison d'Être of all Arabs in the area. A Palestinian tragedy, that has cost gallons of blood... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Brown people"

? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict ) It is a racist slur against blacks, which makes the assumption, that the BoN may be a sock of mikemikev, a little bit more likely.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh boy is the BoN mistaken. Nor are all Arabs "brown" by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, the US definition of "Caucasian" explicitly includes the majority of Arabs), Jews are just about as brown as Arabs are, with some of them (Ethiopian Jews for instance) even being a shade darker. So no, you are not going to out-oppression gambit the Jews on that one. And unlike Arabs who seem to have a lot of racism between different types of Arabs (exhibit A: the disorganized command of the Arabs during the wars against Israel where each mistrusted the other), the state of Israel only asks one question: Are you a Jew? The question of color is irrelevant. As can be seen by the airlifts to save the Ethiopian or Yemeni Jews. Which Arab country gives a crap about "black" Arabs? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Who created this header anyway? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I did, in order to reply to the BoN without derailing the topic. And because it is a strangely pervasive narrative that the "European" Jews are "colonizing" the "brown" Arabs... Which just so happens to be a bunch of camel-dung. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How is Mufti RELEVANT?

For now, I will stop reverting, but if there is no ample documentation that the picture of the Mufti is relevant to this article, I will revert later. Between the editors who favor deleting it, and those who want a non-misleading caption, those who want Arisboch's version have not made any reasonable and documented case, at all, for relevancy. Until that happens it does not belong. Why they don't write a Mufti article is quite beyond me. They're citing one at WP, but won't just write one here at RW.---Mona- (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict >:( ) I can only speak for myself: I'm no good at writing new articles, I only edit existing ones.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona how dense can you be? The Mufti is mentioned a lot in the section and the fact that he was an antisemitic Nazi collaborator and sympathizer are entirely established facts among all historians who are worth said title. There are only some minor disagreements as to when he knew what and how many Jews died because of his personal actions (though general agreement puts this number in the thousands if not higher)... But of course those are unpleasant facts you don't wanna hear, much less have told to the world Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

All true historians agree with AvBon so that pretty much wraps it up. Also stop being a dense retarded idiot Mona. Bob567 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well as ChrisAmiss notes above: "The main historian on the Holocaust Raul Hilberg scoffed at the notion that Husseini influenced Hitler, calling it 'unlikely" and devoting 'only one sentence to him in his three volume study' with regard to the extermination of the Jews." So, you need to produce documentation form at least one of these "true historians" showing how the Mufti is relvant to this article. (Which isn't even about the Holocaust, but about Israel.)---Mona- (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to get to my kickboxing class, but you all find some documentation showing how the Mufti's picture is relevant to the Israel article, or I'll be reverting later tonite.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'd agree that Hitler wasn't influenced by the Mufti. I'd definitely say it's the other way around. The Mufti was recorded as being pretty dang pleased by some exterminations... --Castaigne (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I say the picture does not harm being in there. The caption is accurate too. If you remove it, I will revert. --Castaigne (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I solved that problem handily with Reich Minister Groppa's testimony of the meeting. Netanyahu is wrong, but let's not pretend that the Mufti wasn't on board with Hitler's plans. Hitler laid them out quite clearly and the Mufti went nod-nod-nodding along. --Castaigne (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you ever shut up long enough for other people to edit? --Castaigne (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Only in "nite"s without Kickboxing. Or was it with kickboxing? I don't know... My phony law degree made me forget. And for the record, this was an ad hominem... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dude, don't. Seriously. --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for Hitler laying out his plans to the Mufti? Bob567 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Go read the Netanyahu article and see the appropriate reference. --Castaigne (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a link. Bob567 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How perfectly lacking in intuition. Here or here. No need to thank me. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's rather a question of knowledge, as in you supposedly know where the reference is, so you should be able to name it. You shouldn't expect me to trawl through article references attempting to back up your claim. If you are unable to back up your assertions here, no skin off my nose. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this was just about writing Netanyahu in a search box in Wikipedia or here. That's not too much to ask, I think, although our dear friend Mona has actually asked for chapter and verse on the same page. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was being unclear. The page she was editing was quoted, just above, and she still wanted as I said, chapter and verse. Some would call that nitpicking. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a reference that Hitler went over extermination plans with the Mufti and you linked to a Wikipedia article on Netanyahu. Some would call that transparent and rather pathetic evasion, and a tacit admission that you in fact have no reference for your claim. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He did not go over extermination plans in the meeting. Mattar and Lipstadt dismiss this as nonsense. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My misunderstanding. I thought he was asking about Netanyahu, as he's been advised to read the article about him in either wiki. Evading is Mona's specialty, not mine. Her version is working a 12 hour day to dig up obscure quotes nobody can be expected to follow since nobody has her time. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"What is your source for Hitler laying out his plans to the Mufti?"

"My misunderstanding. I thought he was asking about Netanyahu"

Sure dude. 112.172.232.217 (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Somebody's done the job. Knock yourselves out. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And for something on-line. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the name of the evasion tactic where you link to several books rather than a specific reference? Does RW have an article on it? 112.172.232.217 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I somehow expected that. You disappoint me. I did expect you to notice that going by the names many of the authors seem to be Jewish. No evasion, just pointing you in the direction. As I've said many times, I am not an expert of Middle-East history, and neither is Mona. And the second link will give you something to read.

Anyhow and by the way, I would like an honest answer to whether to the Mufti's alleged „rational“ homicidal desires were in some way better for being so or not. If you can't answer that one, you're out of the game. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"If you can't answer that one, you're out of the game"

Sorry if I came across as harsh. I didn't know I was talking to an 8 year old.

112.172.232.217 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not, believe it or not. If you can't understand the significance, you are plainly the idiot you present in all your writings. No wonder you're enamored of Mona's hallucinations. I know her „excuse“. What's yours? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for EVIDENCE that the Mufti is relevant to an Israel article, and that if he is, the caption the Zionists prefer is not misleading. I will wait some more hours, but will revert unless evidence of relevancy and/or reasoned argument as to why the caption I wrote shouldn't be adopted. Merely saying the other caption "is fine" is not an argument. Nor is saying the picture "doesn't hurt anything." There must be persuasive argument for relevance, and if offered, persuasive evidence for why my caption is not more encompassing of the truth.

ADDING: Suggesting sources and linking to books or lengthy articles is not acceptable. Please QUOTE specific passages documenting your position. Thank you. ---Mona- (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting sources and linking to books or lengthy articles is not acceptable.- -Mona- Fuck off. You don't decide the RW standard on sources.--Arisboch ☞✍☜

☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To clarify something you seem to misunderstand. Books can be the best sources. However, simply linking to a book and declaring others should read it is not providing a reference for a specific claim. The specific claim must have specific, quoted -- or quotable -- text in its support. This is a thoroughly conventional and standard requirement among thinking adults, both professionally and in any other writing in which they want to merit intellectual respect.---Mona- (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be included in the Palestine article instead. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And moreover, they could add an entire Mufti article if they are so inclined.---Mona- (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No. He's a figure in Israeli history. If you consider the Balfour pledge or promise to be relevant as well as the White Paper then it is obvious that history doesn't start with the proclamation of Israel in 1948. You can't pick and choose. Well, you do, but that is neither here nor there.

You say the Mufti doesn't belong. Again I think of your monumental mistake regarding the Apartheid article. Yes, yes, I'm getting dull and repetitive, but you've so often put your double morality on display, that it needs to be mentioned from time to time.

This deserves to set apart from the other sections I wrote. We have Mona's statement that RW thrives on snark. It's the reason the good articles are enjoyable. Where's the snark? Writing HAHAHA doesn't make you a humorist. Every article you touch, however promising, becomes a sterile case for the prosecution, brimming with so much hatred that it's obvious what your problem is. And I mean that seriously. You have the physical strength to take part in kickboxing. So your troubles are between your ears.

You'll ignore this but you will read it, so as a question for your conscience, how does the Mufti become any better for being „rational“? You practically excused Hitler, Stalin and Mao - and yes, I do have to mention them. You mentioned Hitler yourself in this context so you can't really object. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the picture and will always do so unless and until a quoted, specified text showing relevance is provided. As of now, Chris's citation to a premier Holocaust historian shows the Mufti was barely mentioned in a 3 volume series. All who wish to write about the Mufti and his heinous views and associations with Nazis (but doing so factually) can and should do so in both the Palestine article and an article on the Mufti himself. No one here is saying he does not merit discussion -- simply not here.

It is also worth pointing out, that the Mufti left Jerusalem in about 1938 and based his activities in Lebanon and in Iraq. Thus making an already very doubtful relevance to the Israel article even more so.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, here's Matt Duss (a research associate at the Center for American Progress) citing scholars:

In a similar vein, Muravchik quotes Six Days in June: Israel’s Fight for Survival, written by Robert J. Donovan and the staff of the Los Angeles Times, as saying that “[t]he Arabs, on the whole, sided with the Nazis with whom they shared common hatreds.” Again, this is contradicted by the scholarly consensus on the issue (at least he includes a footnote this time, even if it’s somewhat odd to base so broad a claim on one out-of-print book from the 1960s). In reality, the historical record on this subject “is a complex, mixed, and nuanced one,” as Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, wrote in a June 2014 piece marking the anniversary of D-Day, “but the overarching fact is that Arab and Muslim involvement in the war was overwhelmingly on the Allied side, and was a significant factor in fighting on the ground.” Ibish notes that a total of around 6,000 Arabs are estimated to have fought on the Axis side, whereas tens of thousands fought and died on the Allied side, including 9,000 Palestinians in the British army alone.

It is true, as Muravchik recounts, that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, sought an alliance with the Nazis in hopes of gaining advantage against British and Zionist forces in Palestine. But while his work recruiting Bosnian Muslims to the fascist cause is indefensible, al-Husseini’s pro-Hitler propaganda found little traction among its intended audience, as the numbers cited by Ibish show.

Reverted. The consensus on this topic is against you. You do not get to override the consensus around here. --Castaigne (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

OH FUCKING NO. Unlock the goddamn page. This is not your own personal fucking playground, this is not your personal page to do with as you please. You've been outvoted on this. --Castaigne (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not lock the page. And the consensus is not against me. There's the guy who deleted it in the first place. And several more here who just don't argue as much as you guys who have adopted creationist standards for truth and evidence do. Moreover, even if in this very narrow window of time those participating had a majority, I'd just come back, revert, and wait until folks like 142BoN and other reasonable people show up.

ADDING: As the WP article shows, the Mufti wasn't even a "leader" chosen by the Palestinians. He was appointed by the Brits. Moreover, in about 1938 he left Jerusalem and operated from first Lebanon and then Iraq. He's just not relevant to this article.---Mona- (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mona. See my more detailed comments elsewhere on the page. Big claims require multiple credible sources. --Krakatoa (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait suddenly when it comes to Al Husseini you care about votes? In the case of Gaza you don't give a flying fuck that the last election was in 2006 (almost a decade ago) and that nobody freaking elected the Hamas to be supreme dictator of Gaza for all eternity or until Egypt gets tired of them, whichever happens first (and the latter could be quite close now...) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As shown, Mona has a double standard, that she might perhaps be aware of. She hasn't denied it. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how rational killing is better than irrational. Not from her, of course, but somebody might want to shed some light. Apart from being a religious fanatic, that is. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Husseini wasn't even rational... Him being an antisemitic Islamist fascist dipshit and all. Oh and now I want sources that prove this isn't true. And I only accept Hasbara online and the Likud press secretary as valid sources, because that's the way sources are done. Or so Mona taught me... As she points out my stupidity all the time, I decided to learn from her ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's truly remarkable, the parallels between the antics of creationists and hardcore Zionists. Disconfirming facts, scholarly consensus and facts, do not matter a whit. They are to be ignored, and if they can't be ignored, then all manner of fallacy is to be trotted out to divert from them. You guys even pretend not to understand that immoral killing can be done for both rational and irrational reasons, e.g., the difference between Stalin assassinating Trotsky (rational) on the one hand, and his paranoid purge of anyone for all kinds of imagined crimes (irrational) on the other.---Mona- (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's truly remarkable, the parallels between the antics of creationists and hardcore Zionists.- -Mona- NO-ONE can out-do you and you BDS-buddies at that, even if one would try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, I'm sincerely curious as to whether you really believe that? You and your pals here are the ones not wanting to do research, the ones to argue that if they have a majority then sourcing and evidence do not matter. While I have seen some pro-Palestinian sources (whom I do not use or support) who are slipshod with facts -- and who even fall for and promote fabricated quotes attributed to Zionists -- it's pretty clear I am not one of these. Nor is Chris. Your position is simply false.---Mona- (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be awesome, if the consensus would go into our direction here, but that's not true.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

But Arisboch, there are no FACTS supporting relevancy, but there is scholarship militating against it. Why does this not enter into your assessment?---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause him commenting massacres against Serbs in WWII (and only escaped an Yugoslav rope, cause the French looked the other way) and being a major (THE) honcho in the Palestinian political scene is of course an evel Zioooooooooooonist conspiracy (I'm not talking about the shit Bibi spouted. He done goofed. Severely.).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But what has any of that to do with Israel? The man wasn't even in Jerusalem after 1938 -- he was operating out of Lebanon and then Iraq.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

He started to stir up shit in Palestine as early as 1920, where he made inflammatory speeches during the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and only didn't go to Gray Bar Hotel, cause he buggered off to Syria.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the leaders of the Arab states in the neighborhood, the Mufti bears the brunt of the blame for there not having been a Palestinian state in 1948. His leadership of the Arab massacre of Jews during the Mandate is also one of the contributing factors for the disastrous white paper and the thousands of lifes lost due to it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch: "where he made inflammatory speeches during the 1920 Nebi Musa riots" How about this: I won't revert the picture if you include a caption about that sort of thing but omit the Nazi stuff for the reasons of irrelevancy (and being misleading) I've explained?---Mona- (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the Mufti cooperating with the Nazis irrelevant? It's mentioned in the article after all... And it is not misleading, because it is a fact. A fact that might be unpleasent for you but a fact nonetheless... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

An aside on Trotsky

(I am creating this subsection in order to not derail the discussion) Mona seriously claims that Stalins assassination of Trotsky was in some way rational... To cut a long story short: In 1940 Trotsky was sitting in Mexico City, alone and forgotten by the world, when Stalin in his boundless paranoia decided to off him. Even if Trotsky had at that time enjoyed any wider support, how could he have possibly been any danger for Stalin who - for the record - was embroiled in a war against Finland at the time... So no, Mona, you chose a stupid example. Stalin killing Trotsky (or rather having him killed) had nothing rational about it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Trotsky called for a continuing world revolution that would dismantle the bureaucratic Soviet state. He also criticized Stalin for suppressing democracy and for failing to develop adequate economic planning. As long as he lived, Stalin felt Trotsky's views and following were dangerous to him. Trotsky actually was a militant opponent trying to defeat Stalin. But the vast majority of those Stalin killed were guilty of nothing; their supposed plotting was all in Stalin's fevered imagination.---Mona- (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And your evidence for e.g. Kamenev being entirely innocent and/or Trotsky still being an effective force in any way shape or form in 1940 is exactly where? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your source on how Trotsky (not in Russia) was a bigger "threat" to Stalin thaen people who actually were in Russia... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Especially after Netanyahu's huge gaffe...

This site should not embarrass itself by posting a picture of Husseini in an article where he is of dubious relevance, but then captioning it about his Nazi sympathies, as if that represents the Palestinian position, which it does not. Husseini is literally a footnote in scholarly Holocaust studies.---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

His role with regards to the Shoah is indeed a minor one (though not for lack of trying). But his role with regards to Israel and the Arabs residing between Jordan and Mediterranean at any point during his lifetime can't be underestimated. After all, he probably single-handedly invented both "Palestinians" (as opposed to "Arabs in the holy land") and Palestinian terrorism. And the fact that Antisemitism is alive and kicking in the Arab world is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. We'd be remiss if we were to not mention one of its earliest and most notable protagonists Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war about Husseini

Not content with not getting her way, Ms. H. has now decided to sysop lock the page (without any justification) and revert all edits that try to undo the damage she has done. I would hit rollback in no time, but thanks to Mona, I can't. Mona: This is not how wikis work! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

pot and kettle blackkkk--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

also insert generic statement that you are the edit warrior fighting to make the article worse. But in avenger land, its never him, just everybody else who is a problem--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. After Netanyahu causes a global embarrassment for Israel on this very issue, Avenger wants to have a photo of the Mufti, captioned about his Nazi sympathies on an Israel page. The man had left Palestine and Jerusalem by 1938 and was in Lebanon (or Iraq) when he met with Hitler for one fucking time.---Mona- (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I frankly wouldn't trust him to make the article any better. He distorts source material and links to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs or what an Israeli ambassador said. Imagine if someone started linking to the Hamas Foreign Affairs page or if a Palestinian leader concocted a fabrication saying that Ben-Gurion tried to orchestrate the Holocaust with Hitler on the flip side(would be rightfully condemned as outrageous). ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Franco also met Hitler only once. Didn't stop him from being a fascist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What does Franco have to do with Husseini or Israel-Palestine? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona made a big fuss over the number of meetings between Hitler and Al Husseini. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there really doesn't need to be. It would be absurd from Hitler, an Aryan supremacist, to take advice from an Arab, who are considered Semites and under the Nazi racial theories, would be considered racially inferior. It wouldn't make historical sense for Arabs to be inspiring the Nazis to commit the Holocaust. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No one here is arguing that al Husseini made Hitler do the Shoah. I don't know where you are getting that from. But Hitler's racism didn't stop him from forming tactical alliances with Japan or (temporarily) the USSR. And it didn't stop him from allying with the Arabs... As a matter of fact "mein Kampf" is widely available in Arabic throughout the Middle East... Now why would that be, huh? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. I'm just not sure why there's a need to focus on Hitler and Husseini's meetings or inflate his role. I don't think it's necessary to include the Mufti in the Israel page when I think it'd be more appropriate to include him in the Palestine page. It would be as if we included a picture of Ben-Gurion on that very Palestine age. What do you mean by "widely available"? I'm pretty sure Mein Kampf is widely available in the US or some parts of the Western world for purchase. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Meaning its on open display on pretty much every newsstand. As opposed to Germany where you can only get a commented and shortened version under the counter... The state of Bavaria has the copyright on it (it runs out 1.1.2016) and they don't want it to be available in Germany... But they have no problem with making tons of money off of translations... If you understand spoken German, I could provide you with a link that explains details in a humorous way. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt under current laws that Germany would have Mein Kampf on open display considering they take promotion or expression of Nazi ideals pretty seriously (the game Wolfenstein was I either think banned or heavily altered because of its display of the Swastika). ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The case with regards to mein Kampf is a bit more complicated... You may possess it, but you may not sell it or give it to anybody. You may read it aloud in public - but not in one go and not without commentary. And if there is a "legitimate research reason" you can get away with a lot of Swastikas and other shit... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But it's generally for research, academic, or educational purposes, correct? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the general fig-leave. Though there have in the past been rather clearly Nazi publications who got away with Swastikas for them being "research". As for the links part one and part two the relevant section is the beginning of part two. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are mod-blocking - make sure it's effective

@Paravant. I'm sure you have the heart in the right place, but for a block to be effective it has to take account of time zones. The Europeans here are going to sleep, as I am, or have gone to sleep, but Mona and fellow travelers are many hours behind us. She'll go to sleep having edit warred all night, when many are waking up. How about a day or two? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. You reverted the after someone not even involved right now deleted it for irrelevancy. deleted your caption. I reverted it back. [ADDING a day later: At some point someone (me?) just chucked the whole picture.] A pause of some days ensued. You come along and revert again. And again. No matter how many others here disagree with you right on this page -- and you know full well even more would disagree if any number of other editors here chimed in. Your faction is outnumbered by reasonable people who care about facts and reason. As long as that majority's position is reflected in the absence of the Mufti picture (or published with either of the compromise captions I've proposed), there is nothing for me to "edit war" over. You are the intransigent one. And that issue apparently will persist no matter how long Paravant protects this particular article.---Mona- (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ADDING: there is Husseini stuff legitmately in the article. I and others don't feel he merits a picture. But I would compromise if the caption was about the relevant stuff in the article. Not the Nazi thing -- the guy wasn't even in Palestine then and it suggest the Palestinian Arabs were pro-Nazi, which is the opposite of reality. 9,000 of them fought against Hitler.---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Alec Sanderson edited the caption of the Mufti to a neutral and accurate wording last month. Some days later Sorte reverted. Sorte needs to stop this. Sorte's faction is not in a majority.---Mona- (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting hat he is wearing in that picture. The last time I visited Syria, many men wore somewhat similar headgear, sort of a tall fez with a cloth wrapped around it. I was told that the color of the cloth was significant, with white being the default, call it the null hypothesis. Blue or green meant the wearer had been on the haj, or was a descendant of the Prophet_PBUH. I forget which color was which, but there were a lot more guys walking around claiming clerical descent than there were hajis who had made the effort to go to Mecca, by the look of things. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought the fez was cool. But that wastebasket on the Mufti's head is preposterous. But yeah. Irish-Americans like to claim they're descended from Irish royalty. Of course, since at one time every 3rd man in Eire was a King siring princes and princesses, it's possible. ---Mona- (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A quarter of Europeans are descendant from Charlemagne. And that guy had (afaik) only one official wife and lived two centuries later thaen Muhammad. But given that some IP recently declared Jews to not be objective on this issue, Alec Sanderson as having been to Arab countries not recognizing Israel (and thus supporting them) is not to be considered neutral on this issue either. For the hard of learning: The last bit was a joke. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am fond of a Glengarry cap put on back to front, so the wearer can puff at the ribbon and exclaim "Blossom!" (from one of Ronald Reagan's lesser-known films, "The Hasty Heart") It would be interesting to compare the number of descendants of Genghis Khan to the scions of Irish royalty.

Joking or not, avenger, you have no idea where my sympathies lie. Come Passover, I will "baruch ata" with the rest, and sing Dayenu. My first wife visited Damascus, and then went back to her job as a kibbutz nurse. I am not joking when I say you are an asshole of the first water, and an unwelcome shit-stirrer. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the logic of visiting a country automatically makes you support each and every of their foreign policy moves is applied by - among others - the US government with regards to Cuba, where thanks to the embargo until very recently you could not go without express permission by the US government, as visiting implies spending money in Cuba and the embargo disallows that. I think this logic is stupid and only jokingly applied it. I apologize for anybody who might have felt offended. Humor does not always work as well online as in person. That being said, I would like to hear your reasons (on my talk page, if you may) for calling my "an asshole of the first water"... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"asshole of the first water, and an unwelcome shit-stirrer." And to make it all even worse, he's so, so stupid.---Mona- (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say "stupid" so much as he has some gaping lacunae in his understanding. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Founding

This section is ridiculously poorly written, and doesn't account for any Arab violence or terrorism, it only documents the "Zionist terrorists". If you want a serious historical analysis of the founding of Israel, this article would be a terrible place to even get the slightest idea of how it was founded. Kentuckyball (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you've read the discussions above, a sizable minority does not even want Hajj Amin al-Husseini to be mentioned, despite him being a very notable figure on the Arab side in the 1930 and 1940s... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Not so. Some of the Husseini stuff is relevant. I left it but noted the need for sourcing.---Mona- (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That isn't even the most problematic part Kentuckyball (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's poorly written. I think it could use scholarly sources that document the actual context of the conflict. I think the article is biased enough in Israel's favor and commits errors of omission and distortion. Some of what is claimed is uncited or outright propaganda. ChrisAmiss (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is biased enough in Israel's favor- ChrisAmiss You will call everything not in line with a Hamas press-release "baised in Israel's favor", so fuck off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamas press release? When do i cite from Hamas? I cite non-partisan sources. Don't be a fucking crybaby, so go fuck yourself. ChrisAmiss (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

cite non-partisan sources- ChrisAmiss ^{Do You Believe That?}--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris is right. You call anyone, including Chris, a jihadi and shit like that that. We supposedly all love Hamas.---Mona- (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I cite the human rights organizations and historical books, but that's still not good enough. I could be really biased and cite from Electroic Intifada and Mondoweiss, but I don't because that's not how objectivity works. You just don't want to hear uncomfortable information that hurts your worldview. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing from EI (and depending, from Mondo) is fine because they have a reputation for accuracy. I've cited the Times Of Israel on occasion as well, including here. But even when I cite books, such as by John Judis or Max Blumenthal (who is widely acknowledged to be accurate even by thgose who hate him such as Eric Alterman), it doesn't matter. The Zionists hate it. They also do not accept any but Zionist-linked NGOs.---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Specifics, please

If Kentucky thinks the article is to biased and doesn't talk enough about non-Zionist terrorism etc,. please specify what facts you think need to be added.---Mona- (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend he cites scholarly books on the subject. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am mostly referring to the Arab riots, the Palestinian revolt, purchasing of land, the hierarchal system of land ownership under the Ottomans, the failure of British foreign policy, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Peel Commission Report, and reactions to all of these things by Palestinians and Jews. Leaving them out is wrong. Kentuckyball (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also there is the minor fact that the mandate was partitioned twice and the first partition made a huge area of land off-limits to Jews. That land is the Palestinian state of Jordan. Had the British left Jordan open to Jews, many more lives could have been saved during the Nazi era... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Off-limits? Citation please. The 1936 partition would've meant expelling about 200,000 of the Arab population. Transjordan wasn't considered as part of the mandate partition and was assumed to be an independent government at the time. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

this WP article for starters... I also find it startling, that you - in a different article - blamed Antisemitism if not on "the Jews" thaen on Israel in so many words... Imagine someone going around killing Americans due to their dislike for some American policy or other... Or Browns Fans killing people from Baltimore ca. 1995 Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is correct in that the establishment of a Jewish national homeland was reserved for the area of Palestine rather than Palestine and Transjordan, and so Transjordan became a self-governing entity for the most part. That still doesn't negate the fact that a national homeland was being established for the Jews. To my knowledge, there were no Jewish aliyahs to Transjordan before the memorandum and there were no Jews living in the area at the time, so the exclusion seemed to be little more than continuation of the existing status quo. Actually, Transjordan was not meant to be a Jewish state as early as 1917, but rather an Arab state. So despite the mandate, Transjordan was usually treated separately by the British, and that's eventually what happened. I don't have a lot of time now, so I'll address your other concerns later at some point. I doubt it would have had that much effect. I would argue that more Jewish lives could've been saved if the US loosened their immigration quotas, but I still think the Holocaust would have taken place regardless. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You know who also had immigration quotas (specifically banning Jewish immigration above a number x no less)? British Mandatory Palestine... It's kinda weird that you are able to see the wrongness of quotas in one place yet are silent about them in another place... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Jewish immigration was actually pretty strong in the area of Palestine until the White Paper of 1939, and even then there still wasn't a complete barring of Jewish immigrants from the area. I do not endorse the immigration quotas set up at a time when Jews needed a place of refuge. At the same time, I do not endorse Zionism or its ideology as it was practiced. Zionism and Jewish colonization of Palestine started before the rise of Nazism, so I want to make that clear. Gandhi himself was not a fan of the ideology at the time. If I seem like I'm operating a double standard, I am not because Palestine and the US were in different positions. Zionism and its leaders were calling for the transfer (expulsion) of the Palestinian Arabs in order to create a Jewish majority state. No similar suggestions were called for in the US. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona claims to want sources

So I will go and get them... They'll be posted here shortly... bear with me... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

*roars like a bear* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Just be sure they are credible (there are pro-Palestinian sources I do not use because they are not reliable). Also, they must actually support what you claim. I'm fine with it if they do both.---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to spare me the effort: Which specific claims of facts do you want sources for? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Israeli law applies to the Golan

As shown here Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel and Syria are in a de jure state of war

As shown here Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Golan Druze

According to this article (though I am currently searching for a better source) 10% of Druze inhabitants of the Golan have taken up the Israeli offer of citizenship Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Well, this contradicts some of what you claim:

Majdal Shams is home to about 10,000 people. It is the largest of four villages remaining after the expulsion of 130,000 Arab Druze inhabitants, which took place when Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed it, a move that has not been recognised by the UN and the international community.

The rest of the Golan is occupied by 33 Jewish-only settlements, considered illegal under international law.For some years, the Israeli media has reported an increase in the number of people requesting Israeli citizenship in the Golan Heights, particularly among youth, but accurate numbers have not been published.

In 1981, more than 90 percent of people living in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights refused Israeli citizenship. As a result, most residents have a laissez-passer, a document that designates their nationality as "undefined": citizens of neither Israel nor Syria.

Source. And this is Ynet:

As young Druze complain that the process is long and difficult, it remains to be seen how many will gain Israeli citizenship. Out of this year’s 100 applications, only 15 have been successful so far, according to Neven Abu Saleh. Officials from the Interior Ministry could not provide information on the process or its requirements at the time of publication.

---Mona- (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I found an interesting source this article claims that as of 2012 the number of Druze applying for Israeli citizenship has spiked due to the Syrian Civil War. According to the last line of the article, there is also a huge difference between Israeli Druze living in the Golan and those living elsewhere. The latter serve in the IDF Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well no. ToI specifically says some Druze NOT in Golan serve in the IDF.---Mona- (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you read? That's what I said. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please say precisely which statements of fact you want to have sources for and how you want the restored version of my changes to look like... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop with the never-ending new sections. You need factual support for the claims of the population being well-integrated into Israeli society, and that a great percentage of Druze accepts citizenship that significantly eclipses Arabs doing so.That Druze in Golan are significantly more "pro-Israel" than Arabs.---Mona- (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and about this: "which technically and legally speaking is ongoing, as no peace treaty was ever signed ...and has been fully integrated into Israeli territory according to Israeli law." Virtually every conqueror in history has declared the conquered territory is now legally theirs. What does the international community say? ---Mona- (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement of fact (which I have provided an impeccable source for above) is that Israeli civil law applies to the Golan fully. And it does. Yes the Golan is a conquered territory (all territory on this planet ultimately is, all nation states are based on violence or the threat of it) but unlike other conquered territory (e.g. Puerto Rico for the US) Israeli law fully applies there. If you live on the Golan and are a citizen, you can vote in elections. If you are eligible and not part of an excepted group (e.g. An Arab) you have to serve in the IDF if you live there. Hence de facto the Golan where it falls under Israeli control cannot be distinguished in any meaningful way from other territory of Israel within the 1967 lines... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the voting for elections part is true. Arabs in such areas can vote for municipal elections, but not national ones for the Knesset. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If they are citizens of Israel, they can vote... However, a lot of permanent residents of the Golan are not citizens Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I probably have it confused with East Jerusalem. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the people living in East Jerusalem were also offered citizenship at least once since 1967 and if I am not much mistaken, there is still a "path to citizenship" for Arab residents of (East-)Jerusalem. If they are citizens, they can vote. Sadly many Arab residents don't want to be citizens... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed edit: "<ref>which technically and legally speaking is {{wpl|Israel–Syria relations|ongoing}}, as no peace treaty was ever signed - given [[Syrian civil war|recent events]] a peace treaty is not likely to happen anytime soon</ref> and has been fully integrated into Israeli territory according to {{wpl|Golan Heights Law|Israeli law}}, including the option for all residents to become citizens of Israel if they so chose<ref>A sizable minority of the Arabs living on the Golan are Druze and on the whole Israeli Druze tend to be more pro-Israel than Israeli Muslim Arabs, however only ~ 10% of Golan Druze have accepted Israeli citizenship when first offered. Due to the Syrian civil war, many young Druze are [http://www.timesofisrael.com/with-syria-ablaze-dozens-of-golan-heights-druze-seek-israeli-citizenship/ now applying for Israeli citizenship]</ref>." What Israeli law says is irrelevant. What does the international community say? What's the source that the Druze in Golan are more supportive of Israel than other Arabs?---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They cannot vote in national elections, and that's not including the renouncing of citizenship, the discriminatory planning laws (See Btselem) that seeks to create a stable Jewish demographic, home demolitions because of discriminatory permits, and in general the poor level of care provided to them (I believe ACRI estimated 75% of population to be below poverty line or in poverty). ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Source: http://www.btselem.org/topic/jerusalem. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources: http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/social_security, http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/discriminating_policy, http://www.btselem.org/jerusalem/infrastructure_and_services ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, any of this (properly sourced) stuff about Golan needs to go in the "Arab-Israeli conflicts" or "Territory" sections. Not intro graf. I'm going to dinner.---Mona- (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The stuff about the Golan Heights would ideally go into a section about land expansion. It certainly shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction. Territory sounds like a good section for it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and if we are going to throw in gratuitous text that Israel considers it's acquisition of Golan legal, then we must also observe what the rest of the world has to say about that. Why get into at all?---Mona- (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The text you reverted makes no statement regarding the legality of the acquisition of the Golan. What it does is mention the undeniable fact that the law you should most care about in the Golan is the one passed by the Knesset... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is gratuitous: "and has been fully integrated into Israeli territory according tGolan Heights Law|Israeli law," Even if true (and what does "fully integrated" mean), the world does not agree. As WP says: "The United States considers the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights to be a violation of international law, both the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and United Nations Security Council Resolution" So to insert your observation that Israeli civil law currently controls Golan serves what purpose?---Mona- (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So everybody knows, what's de facto.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why should this article explore the de facto and de jure (if one, then both) at all? But as I've said, if we do get into all of that, the intro is the wrong spot.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So people know, what's facts and what's "acknowledged" facts? You know, reality vs perception, like RW is supposed to cover--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Both de facto (fiat, is more like it) and de jure are realities. The international position -- even that of the U.S. --that Israel's Golan policies are illegal is not a mere "perception."---Mona- (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

International law is of little matter if Israeli police arrests you for doing something in the Golan that would be legal under Syrian law... A lawyer should know that possession is nine tenths of the law, after all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That something is de-facto does not make it correct, but then again you're big on might makes right so what is the point of arguing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Their is a reason for the German term Staatsgewalt - if there is no effective force to enforce a law, it might just as well not be law at all... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ISIS's has defacto control of parts of Iraq and Syria are facts as they are regardless of their illegality. So, who is to argue with that? Why should it be singled out? If they legitimately believe that territory belongs to them and they exercise control over it for some time, why not recognize their claims? ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not arguing recognizing all de facto situations as de jure right by virtue of being de facto there, I am saying we should acknowledge and mention the de facto situation before trying to sort out what some law or other might say or not say... A lot of people say the Iraq-Syria border (that ISIL blatantly ignores) is a bullshit "colonial" line to begin with... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually discussing the edit in question

As the topic above has been sidetracked by debate concerning Jerusalem and who is a citizen of what and why and what that entails or not, let's here discuss the actual edit in question, please... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona's latest reversions

Mona claims to have removed unsourced statements (which is something that is rarely done here to being with, but okay) I proceeded to reinsert them with a source. Mona has now reverted them without so much as a hint as to why. I am hereby taking this to the talk page. This is the diff in question. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona -- do the cites back up the claims? Are the cites from reliable sources? If the answer to both these questions is yes, please re-insert the passage. If the answer to either of those questions is no, please elaborate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, I will do so once, because you requested it. I had already given him specific reasons. There was an EC and this is what I was saying to Avenger: "I addressed this issue on your talk page I believe Friday. You are going on a rampage of bad faith edits that you are fully aware the majority would not support. I have absolutely no intention of giving you a specific reason for all of your bullshit edits. I stated the problem generally on your talk page. Finally, I have implored Paravant to do something about this." But since you asked: I did not merely tell Avenger the problem was lack of sourcing. I also said he was making errors and going against the perspective of the majority. No support exists for calling 1948 the "war of Independence." I will not spend all night doing this. He needs to stop it with the tendentious shit as well.---Mona- (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My question was about the specific edit in question. I have neither the time nor the interest to chase around a website to follow a debate that has metastasized to multiple organs. Please tell me here what the specific problems are with the claims and the citations. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I told you, the "war of independence." Look, he also has a fixation on the Druze that causes more of them as a topic to be included than the topic warrants. I have to ask, if you do not wish to follow the I/P issues with Avenger then why are you inserting yourself into it? And why are you encouraging him in his spate of editing and stirring up shit? Consult the FR now. At least 3 of us are now paying attention to this article and fixing it up after Avenger starts in yet again. This disruptive bullshit will happen again and again unless and until Paravant or some other authority makes Avenger stop the disruption. (Were last Wednesday and Friday night not yet enough for you? Do you think we should become Coop Case Wiki and do coop cases every weekend, at least for Avenger?) It is profoundly unfair to the good faith editors who work hard collaborating, writing, and sourcing to have to deal with this on a perpetual basis.---Mona- (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona I honestly do not understand what you are on about... If you insist, we can simply call it the "1948 war", about that I don't care. But other thaen that I have not heard any substantive criticism of my addition to the page apart from strange accusations of it being "bad faith" and against some sort of "majority" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing this, Avenger; I don't even recall what all my objections were and I'm not checking to find out. I revert one big chunk, you add back in dribs and drabs with multiple issues. You will lead me and others round like this endlessly -- and I won't do it. I've begged Paravant to intervene. AgingHippie sysop-locked a page against you last July; 142, Chris and I have done so since. We can't now. So, Paravant must act.---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, I don't see you raising any specific issues related to my edit. It seems you simply reverted on sight. I am not sure how I am to proceed if I want to avoid an edit war if you act the way you do. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Paravant has sysop-locked a page because of you as well. I believe multiple times. So have others of us. You are exceedingly disruptive. Sites that wish to keep good comments with substance to offer do not permit grossly disruptive trolls. This site is going to have to look at that and decide whether you and people like you are more important than your opposite. (Petey Plane had suggested Google Trends shows this place gaining in popularity. I checked and I do not see that. Only a slight upward tick in the last month or so, but still within the range of normal fluctuation. We are well down from our highest point.)---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona, if you are unable/unwilling to provide specific answers to the questions raised in this thread -- what, specifically, is the problem with the one specific edit in question? -- there will be no reasonable grounds for undoing said edit. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

looking at the edit itself I don't actually see any issues with it--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think we need all that discussion about the Druze for some reason it isn't something I'm going to go to the mat over. He would have gone on and on about them, and will seek to fluff the piece up with crapflooding to drown salient points, but very well. I'm far, far more interested in resolving the Avenger issue per se.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"I have to ask, if you do not wish to follow the I/P issues with Avenger then why are you inserting yourself into it?

I am inserting myself into it because it clogs up recent changes, metastasises across the wiki, and leads to edit-wars, block-wars and user-rights wars. You do not have any right to tell any user where they can or cannot take an interest. If you don't want me or anyone else interjecting, write blog posts instead of wiki articles. This is the price editors pay for writing in a community setting. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you feel that way. But please note, I did not tell you what you should or should not take an interest in. I also am aware you want me gone from here. If asked to choose, you'd keep Avenger over me; I do realize this. I also realize that my email exchange with a respected user not here involved was incorrect. I'd told him that happily you and I had reached a rapprochement. This was an illusion as you still want me gone and your behavior is likely dictated by that desire, at least in part. I also realize that you are allowed to do many thing most of the rest of us are not -- this was a primary concern (not you per se, but that some are more equal than others) of this other user. This is politics the world over. Your tenure and seniority mean I cannot, even with reason and facts, and even with your committing infractions, prevail. I accept that. If it is you against me, you win.---Mona- (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop making blanket statements about what I want based on nothing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

About the bit that got added

I don't object to this information about young Golan Druze being included somewhere, but it seems like an odd tangent inside the 'Conscription' section. Especially since many of these youngsters apply for Israeli citizenship so they can go to an Israeli college (instead of a Syrian one); not because they wanna be conscripted into the IDF. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes, your added edit/clarification on that point is good. Avenger is obsessed with the idea that the Druze demonstrate how good Israel really is even if other Arabs don't acknowledge it.---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Mona seriously, what are you smoking? Israel has more Arabs in it thaen the whole Middle East except Israel has Jews... But you conveniently ignore that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Avenger... what?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

How many Jews are there in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, the Maghreb, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states combined? (okay that's not the whole middle east, but I am a bit tired...) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Jews make up like 0.01% of the world population while Arabs make up a far more substantial proportion than that (420-450 million), are you serious with making this unequal comparison? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

„Especially since many of these youngsters apply for Israeli citizenship so they can go to an Israeli college“? I thought the Druze were Israeli citizens if they were born there. As for the bit about wanting to go to college, as I recall, a third of the American military is African-American, from approximately about a tenth of the population, probably most of them to escape from the ghettos and many of those to take advantage of the educational opportunities the armed services provide. What's wrong with that? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with that.There's more of that, a lot more.---Mona- (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The addition by avenger is a bit weird, but could be made bit better if trimmed down (Plus helps keep things more succinct). Also if there is any (reputable and not just pure opinion)sources that shows what you said about black americans trying to escape the ghetto having a relevant and applicable symmetry to the druze enlistment, then that could be added in to provide a counterpoint. Maybe `Since 2012, there was a rising numbers of Druze youths applicants for Israeli citizenship. This increase in Druze applicants has possible correlation with the ongoing Syrian Civil War (wikipedia), due to the fear of reprisal from Islamist militants. However out of 100 applicants for Israeli citizenship by Druzes, only 15 were accepted during 2013.` . This is a more neutral and rational POV (provided the source is reputable). The whole page could do with a makeover thought--Mofosyne (talk)

Rejoice, one and all

Today we have the 98. anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares about non 0-5 anniversary unless it's the first. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Brits shat all over that declaration when they made the left bank of the Jordan off-limit to Jews and later with their idiotic white paper... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A lame attempt at being funny, Paravant. And I knew it was lame, when I wrote it. Still, it contains the very bare minimum of humor that my beloved seems to lack. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pictures seem to be gone, but the first sentence needed fixing

However the pictures were taken away, I don't know. It's a bit curious, that Ben Gurion was removed. Anyway, I struck the opening sentence, which is pure propaganda in this context, although it is true. The sentence can be read as is. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, if it is true it cannot be mere propaganda. And it is so integral to the Zionist ideology they insist upon it.---Mona- (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Every state is more or less self-proclaimed. I do see your point, however and rolled myself back and added a bit of text, that even you can't argue with. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It was poor stylistically, and "endlessly quoted" is dumb -- unless you want to see a flood of quotes and references to wingnut Zionists INSISTING on the primacy of that identification.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec)PS: The propaganda is inserting the self-proclaimed at the very beginning. Find a few articles and insert „self-proclaimed Islamic state“ to be consistent. As for the pictures, why were they removed? Ben-Gurion certainly deserves to be there, however many words have been wasted on the Mufti, which is another matter. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, do you have anything against the last revision? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Aging Hippie seems to have found the right balance. I suggest we leave it there. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't know about so-called "balance," but he usually does good editing for style and elegance. It's fine with me.---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

„So-called balance“ means that you'll never be satisfied with anything concerning Israel that doesn't depict that country as any other than hell on earth and responsible for whatever goes wrong, that the US can't be blamed for. Read the Anti-Chomsky Reader again with an open mind. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I no longer pollute my eyes and mind with anything associated with David Horowitz, unless necessary to source something about the depraved idjit and his bizarre views.---Mona- (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This article has been reduced to junk

However well researched the contents may be, the sources are invariable hostile. There is another side to things, but the present anti-Semites have unlimited time to waste. Every positive thing that could still be said about Israel is followed by a but, that essentially negates the whole thing. Now the work of our propagandist is turning Apartheid into the main thing about Israel. I'd suggest those who disagree with the current destroyer(s), just leave be and then in the end, nobody will take it seriously. The lack of humor and obvious hatred sees to that. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the end result will be that the article's main author suggests that the population should be deported or Israel should unilaterally disarm itself. The trend points that way. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

To explain about the humor thing: My snark muse feels constrained on issues so deeply controversial at this site.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

People joke about far more serious things. You just don't have that muse. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

When Iran held a Holocaust caricature contest, an Israeli newspaper (forgot which one, there are so many of them, unlike free Arab newspapers) held a contest on the same subject. Why? Because Fuck the Islamic Republic and other antisemites, that's why. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose apartheid, trailless punishment, mass punishment, oppression of people of color and historical revisionism blaming Palestinians for the Holocaust? ANTISEMITE!!!!! --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, there's about a dozen or so countries that have "Arab" or "Islamic" in their official long form title. Why don't you look what's swept under the rug there? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Are these guys part of the United Arab List? WalkerWalkerWalker 14:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I like this article as it is

This article seems to have been cleaned of bias, at least from my (biased) perspective.

Good job! Kentuckyball (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A video the zealots here may agree with

Qatari Educational Video on Israel Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Article out of date, split off politics section into new article?

As someone who was present for the most recent 2015 elections, many of the things in the politics section are extremely outdated, and interestingly, this site, while mentioning a bunch of defunct, fringe, or joke parties, does not mention Meretz, the most socially liberal Jewish party in the current Knesset. This article needs cleanup, and much of the content dates back to the 2012 elections or earlier. I would like to create a separate "Israeli Politics" article. Also, I would like to add sections about various politicians, like Naftali Bennet or Yair Lapid. What do you think? --TeslaK20 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several "Political parties of [country]" articles, namely Germany, Canuckistan, Mafiastan and England Great Britain the UK. You can create an article on "Political parties of Israel" if you like, or expand this (if it becomes a separate article, don't forget to link with {{main}}).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hexagram is a rothschild emblem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BkbAc6AyYs

Proof of Israel being owned by Rothschilds, THE HEXAGRAM IS ON THEIR FAMILY EMBLEM, ITS ROTHSCHILD ILLUMINATI SYMBOLISM ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.25.8.26 / talk} 21:02, 1 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Excessive use of caps lock is often a good enough reason alone to not believe a crazy claim. Nergali (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Triangles have three sides, Hillary Rodham Clinton has three names, ZOMG THE CLINTONS BUILT THE PYRAMIDS --Ymir (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of this.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting substantive additions instead of looking at each individual claim on its merits

Can you please explain why you simply deleted this substantive (and sourced) improvement to the article instead of having a civil debate like normal people? Surely there are points in it that even you won't deny, like the fact that Palestinians have not had an election in a decade or the fact that more and more people in East Jerusalem and the Golan are taking up Israeli citizenship. As for the claims of Apartheid, it is certainly on mission to debunk them in their own article, just like we debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories or BS about the Rothschilds and other antisemitic drivel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support your claim to make sourced edits but you yourself reverted additions in the history article of the section that were well-sourced from books. If you wish to make edits to the article, you should do so in good-faith. The article is controversial among viewers here and notorious for provoking edit wars, so I think this is an article that we should purposely avoid making edits on. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you say the same if the article were peddling a radically anti-Hamas and anti-PLO narrative that blames all evils in the region and indeed the world on Palestinians? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, Avenger, if you are going to make edits to an article like this please have actual credible sources.

And personally, I think we should remove sources from places like Electronic Intifada, but whenever I suggest that it turns into an edit war. CorruptUser (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above, I would remove Electronic Intifada. One should support the weight of evidence and reason over narratives. For the record, I did not have a problem with your edits like the one you stipulated in the post above. The one I did have a problem with was when the historical books I added were removed. If you wish to add edits provided that they come from non-partisan sources and are not cherry-picked when weighed against the whole picture of evidence (I would add the revocation of citizenship of East Jerusalem Palestinians and human rights reports on Israel's attempt to keep a Jewish demographic in that area if I were to make a hypothetical edit for instance), I have no problem with that. I would personally not do it on I-P articles given the reactions it provokes. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Coop

The vast majority of people that criticize/campaign against Israel don't actually want Israel to stop its abuses of the Palestinians so much as they want Israel to stop existing. I'd support the BDS movement in a heartbeat to get Israel to stop building on land it didn't even annex, if I thought for two seconds that BDS was anything other than a cover for people like Mona or worse. CorruptUser (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish Israel was never created, but I don't think it should stop existing. Mona doesn't think that, ChrisAmiss doesn't think that, and most Westerners don't agree with that. If we're talking about the Muslim world, then yes, we're probably talking about a slim majority of people who criticize Israel. I support BDS, and you should too. No more damn Dead Sea salt! PBfreespace (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the IP was me, not Mona. PBfreespace (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"we're probably talking about a slim majority"

Citation needed. CorruptUser (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Saudis seem pretty moderate, as more than half would like a peace deal. Hang on while I get some more sources. PBfreespace (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You can cite polls all you want, but I can guarantee you that majority opinion is not in favor of the yahoodis continuing to have a state. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First, that's 5/8 that say continue the war against Israel no matter if a peace deal is reached with the Palestinians, not 51%, since 20% refuse to answer (odd that 85% agree with the Arab peace deal then, makes that deal look awfully suspicious). Second, wanting a peace deal is not the same as wanting a country to continue to exist. CorruptUser (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkmate, CorruptUser and Aeonian. Most Arabs want a peace deal, which shows they're alright with Israel's existence as a polity. PBfreespace (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous poll you provided said that 85% want the Arab Peace plan AND 51%/80% think the Arabs should continue their war with Israel. In other words, they still want Israel gone, but think that either the Peace Plan is the best way to do so or that they don't think they can get rid of Israel so a peace plan is better. That does NOT mean they don't want Israel to stop existing. CorruptUser (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at the last poll I posted. Only 12% said yes to "Even if Israel returns all 1967 territories, Arabs should continue to fight". This pretty damn low, and if I were to believe you, I'd need that number to be over 50%. It's not. 30% outright said peace, and 56% said peace, but Israel won't let the land go easily. That's rather vague, but it's still peace, i.e. not war/destruction of Israel.

This isn't 1972; your average Jordanian, Egyptian, or Lebanese doesn't think "death to Israel!" That may have been true 50 or 60 years ago, but it's not true now. Arabs realize Israel is here to stay, and that's part of the reason why Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi are so cordial with them. You're wrong on this.PBfreespace (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Grudgingly accepting Israel existing is not the same as wanting Israel to exist. If Israel and, say, Egypt had another war and Egypt got the upper hand, would the other countries join the war on Israel's side, stand by, or join the Egyptians?

I believe peace is possible, a rather poor peace though, one that's preferable to constant conflict and wars every couple of years, but I hold no illusions about that region. CorruptUser (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, are we arguing about whether the Arabs in general oppose Israel's existence or whether the people who campaign against Israel oppose Israel's existence? CorruptUser (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Both. I think it's pretty likely that a slim majority of total people worldwide who actively campaign against Israel wouldn't mind if it got conquered in a war. I also think the the majority of all Arab adults living in the Middle East don't want Israel to stop existing, contrary to what you implied. PBfreespace (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a very large majority of the people campaigning against Israel wouldn't mind if it got conquered in a war. I also think that the majority of Arab adults living in the Middle East do want Israel to stop existing, but most don't think that the costs of accomplishing this are "worth it" or don't think it's possible through war, which is enough for a cold peace.

Wait, are we respectfully disagreeing on Israel as if this was any other topic, like adults? This seems wrong, I feel dirty. CorruptUser (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation 62 Hangthebankers.com? Really.

I don't mind allegation of Al Qaeda in Syria members being treated by Israel... But the source is fucking bonkers. The source is literally named hangthebankers.com. A trope identified in RationalWiki as a surrogate for antisemitism. Please find a legitimate source and may the editors try to be more careful in the future.

Also citation 89 is not a valid source for claiming that many Syrian Druze Israeli citizen applications are rejected. The source says that the process can be long and arduous. At no point does it claim that such applications are rejected for mysterious or no reason given. I assume, as all citizenship applications, may be rejected, including Syrian Druze. However, please find such a source to support such a claim. The current ynetnews article does not.

73.202.77.197 (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How's Jerusalem Post for you? Applesauce (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that a site named "hangthebankers" is likely not a source we ought to consider permissible. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Child Poverty - typo

Think the main page is locked for Editing. Under the Child Poverty section there is a small typo - reads "highlest" instead of "highest" ^{— Unsigned, by: Catriona176 / talk / contribs}

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. Parrrley 14:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved from saloon bar: Is treating combatants of either side in a hospital an act of war against either side?

I am asking both in the abstract and because of this Worzelpete (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Literally the opposite: Red Cross's summary of the medical portions of the Geneva conventions. Intentionally not treating the sick and wounded of the other side is, in fact, a war crime. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Without context, I agree, definitely not; I can't imagine seeing any sort of humanitarian work in that light. In the given context though, it's a tougher question. Is it questionable? Sure. Is it politically motivated? Very probably. Does it help Israel's war effort? Maybe. But so would an item of public policy that inadvertently boosts economic output. Any number of things would, many of which are only peripherally related to war.

If you choose to validate classification by perceived intention, you're validating the whims of whomever is in the position to generate real consequences; namely, people in positions of power who may have something to gain by acting less than reasonably, or who may be less than reasonable themselves. If you choose only to accept classification based on consequences (see the example above), it seems you've opened the door to anything, really. In this case, my argument would be that, by its nature, humanitarian/medical aid is an exception and should never be considered an act of war. B) talk 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is a war crime to not treat your enemies' wounded but Israel isn't an active participant of the Syrian Civil War so I don't know if they are covered under that rule.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 03:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure? I am not sure what you are saying but I was agreeing with you. What I was saying was that I don't think you could even prosecute Israel for not treating the wounded from Syria since they aren't actively at war with Syria. Regardless, I don't think it is wrong for them to be treating them but I doubt they are doing it because they are good samaritans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think ikanreed was agreeing with you. I agree too. Anyways, maybe this should be moved to Talk:Israel? B) talk 05:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The only crime in war is to do something that hinders your side's victory. Strictly adhering to the question at hand? No, it's not a war crime. However, in this case, it's still a crime, as providing aid and comfort to internationally-designated terrorists (al-Qa'ida) is a crime. Israel intentionally backed terrorists along its border with Syria solely because it dislikes the actions of the Syrian government. This is outrageous, and shows Israel does not care about modern civilization as it allies itself with Wahhabis who despise freedom. PBfreespace (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for Israel supporting Al Qaida? Or any evidence that Israel only treats certain groups of people in its hospitals? According to my sources, they treat every victim of the war that can reach them, including combatants and civilians, but maybe I am informed badly. Worzelpete (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the citations in the article? The Jerusalem Post one is second-hand but I wouldn't expect them to badmouth Israel needlessly. Annquin (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would a newspaper put "reports" in the headline if they were sure that this is what actually happened? I think this is guesswork, nothing more. Worzelpete (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like this hinges on whether Israel truly is impartial in terms of medical aid. If they really do treat everyone who shows up on their doorstep, there's absolutely no basis for treating it as a crime IMO. If they're selective, very different situation. B) talk 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the situation is, I would like ironclad sources and what we currently have is less than that. I think we should treat this page as if it were a biography of a living person. Worzelpete (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially since it's a sensitive topic both here and in the global community. This page was a war zone not too long ago. B) talk 21:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)