From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 26 February 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

"Mostly Muslim"[edit]

I'm not sure if characterizing the original population of Palestine as "mostly Muslim" is completely accurate, but Id have to check the stats. A very large number of Palestinians are Christian. The original Imperial Mandate was Palestine and Trans-Jordan, which includes present-day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Jordan. The original two-state solution, which was planned out about as well as the Indian Partition, was to divide the entire Mandate at the Jordan, with a Jewish state to the west, and an Arab state to the east. As in India/Pakistan, this created huge population shifts, displacements, refugees, etc, and long-standing problems. Anyway, it's hugely complex. I personally think that if Clinton's plan had been accepted and implemented, we would be a little closer to a two state solution. The Bush admin has completely ignored the entire problem.--PalMD-yada yada 14:52, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Please, feel absolutely free to contaminate my little masterpiece with your so-called "facts" if you want. Damn facts. Take all the fun out of writing articles! You might also want to check my contribs and follow around injecting a dose of your liberal so-called "reality" into some of my other brilliant creations. humanbe in 14:59, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
I only include facts where requested to, or where they cannot be avoided. I'm happy to keep my facts away from you, but I do try to help you out on your little projects. My strong point is not wiki, it's writing, so feel free to hack me to bits or to ask me for help. I'm very hard to offend.--PalMD-yada yada 15:02, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
You used a whole bunch of facty-type things in that paragraph above. Knock yourself out, and edit the crap I wrote at will. Just try to use paragraphs; an edit commment saying "wiki help please" is bound to bring someone over to make sure it is done. The well done text is the most important part. If you have footnotes, just paste them in ugly where they go, in parentheses if you can't figure out the wiki markup. Someone will fix it soon enough. humanbe in 20:02, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey Bunchanumbers ( enthrall & in thrall mean entirely different things - go buy a dictionary Susanpurrrrr 16:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Piss-poor article. Palestine has been around for thousands of years, going back to pre-Roman times. In the modern sense, England created Palestine/Trans-Jordan, and the Balfour declaration proposed western Palestine as a Jewish state, and trans Jordan as an Arab one. There were MANY Arab Christians included, as well as Muslims, Beduin, and others.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Yee haw! 14:15, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Palestine as a region has been around for ever. What actually makes a nation (Shared national identity, religion, culture etc.) has had two spells, first it was the Jews in their Ancient promised land and then it was the Muslim Arabs, who came in the early Middle Ages and largely settled there (I'm talking about cultures that have lasted, the Byzantines didn't leave a permanent mark on it). But little seperated Palestine from say Syria or Egypt, both Islamic countrys who are nations in their own right. Thats why the emphasis was on Palestinian being Arab as opposed to well being Palestinian. Then again, the last sixty odd years has created a Palestinian nation in every way we would associate a country with a nation. I was trying to make that clear in the little bit I added there today but probably not too successfully... MarcusCicero 17:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Palestine/Israel conflict[edit]

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) humanUser talk:Human 19:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Gut most of this article and start again?[edit]

This article is embarrassingly bad. If no one has any objections I'd like to delete most of this article and rewrite it. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


How about an article about what Palestine's actually like? This article is fine entertainment; it's useless in every other respect. ConcernedCitizen (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a "wiki", you're an "editor". Edit the wiki, why don't you? Pippa (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Before you make significant edits, please discuss any changes you intend first, thank you--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just be changing a few of the references to "ethnic cleansing" making them somewhat more neutral. ConcernedCitizen (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As much as I'd hate to admit it, this article gives Israel waaaaaay too much leeway, while Likud jackasses like Netanyahu speak of peace and yet do shit to actually help the Palestinians out (and in many ways do all they can to antagonize them) and, thus, promote a coninuation of the violence and bullshit. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to clean this up[edit]

Added some of the histprical information regarding the mandate, historical relationship in the area but avoiided the discussion over whether Palestinians existed rior to the modern era as being irrelevant to the article. Expanded references to someof the better known commentators left out, one liberal (benny Morris) and one more pro-Israel (Yoav Gelber); expanded on the recent decisions to seek statehood and the international reaction; expande don other issues being visited and the stances of some organisations that lead to issues in the area. References have been given to all the changes made — Unsigned, by: AllonY / talk / contribs 16:23, 26 December 2011

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to this article. However, I feel the older version is a bit more relevant to our information and is a bit more to the point regarding our website's mission goals. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 17:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


From our recent trouble makers latest edit

Gaza is completely controlled by Hamas who took power in a coup against Hamas when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the area. However, while Gaza is completely under the control of Hamas with no Israeli presence, access to Gaza is suvject to Israeli control and an Israeli blockade of their airspace and coast line.

So Hamas took power in a coup against Hamas. Either this is total bollocks or it needs a lot more explanation about how Hamas held a coup against itself. This guy has no interest in co-operation and it force feeding his pro Israeli viewpoint. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I am saying he's going about it in the wrong way. He certainly doesn't understand the idea of a wiki, or it would seem, cooperation. We need to put the break on this before all out war escalates and he annexes more territory. Bad Faith (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You're mis-reading that, I think. I've read it a million times already and it says Hamas took over power from the Palestinian Authority. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 23:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope, he is correct. Initially I had a typo, saw my error and went back to correct it. seems that I am a troublemaker for making the factual point that Israel does not control Gaza, but Hamas does. Or maybe I'm a troublemaker because Gaza seized it in a coup against the PA. Dunno, either way, the information is factually correct, includes the information about the Israeli blockade and hardly constitutes troublemaking!AllonY (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you're a trouble maker because you barge in and start making drastic changes to an article on a highly sensitive subject. You have no interest in discussion - you just want your own way. You put a huge spin on things to distort them to back up your POV - the "naming of Palestine" bit is a typical example of that - it was named Palestine long, long before the Romans re-adopted the name. Furthermore your editing is so intemperate that you're making endless boo-boos like the one that I picked up on. I guess we'll have to do what we always do when a one issue troll like you barges in. Bad Faith (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, it was NEVER called Palestine until the renaming of the area by the Romans. It was earlier referred to as the area Pheleshet as the Philistines lived there, but since the {Philistines were Aegeans, and related to the Greeks, they are completely unrelated to the Palestinians. And as much as you would like to believe I'm an one issue troll, reality just doesn't agree with you. Yes, initially I barhed in and made a mistake- hey, it was my whole second post on the site LOL My recent edits do not change the tone of the article merely add a historical context to the name and correct a factual misstatement of control of Gaza, while including the fact of the Israeli blockade. AllonY (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, seen a few sources now that give Herodutus in the fifth century as the source of the name Syrian Phyllistina. I'll edit it to reflect the arlier referenceAllonY (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples of bias[edit]

The removal of the fact that the British mandate of Palestine was not that small an area- it was ovet 115000 square kilometres,of which 88000sqare Kilometred were removed to make Transjordan. 11,000 square kilometres were assigned to the Jews, 14,000 square kilometres to the Arabs. After the Arabs refused the partition plan and tacked Israel in 1948, Israel captured additional territory, resulting in them controlling 20,000square kilometres, and the Palestians, between Jordan and the areas occupied by the other Arab nations, 93,000 square kilometres. Refusing to add this in is an attempt to abrogate historical fact and to try and claim that the Jews got the majority pf the area under the partition plan which is completely inaccurate. AllonY (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The removal to the references about Jewish refugees is a supreme example of bias and trying to pretend that Jews were not expelled, forced from their homes and had their possesions stolen from them. It white washes the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the area and surrounding area in order to paint the Jews as oppressor and refusing to acknowledge their were Jewish victims. This is especially revelant given the fact that Mahmoud Abbas and the Palesu=tinian authority wish to continue with this ethnic cleansing if they gain control of the areaAllonY (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The refusal to allow it to be mentioned that the Jews acceoted the partition plan is an example of bias. The article tries to pretend that the Jews were against the partition and refused to accept an Arab state. This is blatant historical revisionism as the Jews accepted the partition plan.AllonY (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Refusing to allow a reference to the fact that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US and Eu, and refusing to allow a link to their charter demonstrating they call for genocide of the Jews and refuse to recognise diplomatic agreements recognising Israel and peace with Israel is a clear example of bias and desire to hide the facts. It is these clauses in the Hamas charter that are directly related to the ability to negotitiate peace in the region as they claim that such agreements are not valid, and on top of that want to destroy all the Jews in the region. AllonY (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So the question is, what is more important to this site, being relevant or being seen as puching historical revisionism to revile Israel? AllonY (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And yes, the removal of references which are not completely Pro-Palestinian and out to villify Israel is another clear example of bias. All that is, is a complete form of censorship in not even allowing the mention of books that conradict the Pro-Palestinian line of the references utilised here AllonY (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I am less interested in how much land the British Mandate allotted to whom than I am in unpacking the idea that the contemporary borders of the Middle East, and all of the problems associated therewith, have a lot to do with the exercise of European imperial power. The League of Nations and the Mandate system were firmly grounded in imperial discourse, and appealing to British/League promises as away to justify current national boundaries begs the question of what right these people had to be making the rules in the first place.
2. Go ahead and put in whatever you want about who accepted the partition plan. But for fuck's sake, step up your writing skills when you do.
3. Same with Hamas; but also, acknowledge that their are many, many other states that do not see Hamas as such. Also, solid references re: your claim about Abbas and the PA would be nice. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
1 It is highly relevant. Trying to claim that the Palestinians were disadvantaged and given only a small area is historical revisionism. Like it or not they did not control the area anymore than the Jews did. Prior to the Jews controlling the area it was controlled by the Ottomans, with the vast majority of the land owned by the Ottoman government! Pretending that the Palestinians owned the land is historical revisionism. Ignoring this fact is a clear case of bias.
2 I will, thanks
3 Actually the reference for Abbas and his call for there to be NO Jews in Palestine is already in the article at the end of the part about UNESCO. I included it here to show why the information about Jewish refugees is relevant, as the historical context shows the statement by Abbas to not be emty, but a repetition of what the Arab governments have done on the past, raising the issue of why ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries has been ignored.AllonY (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
1. I didn't say it was irrelevant. What I said was that it leaves unasked what is to me the important question; by what right did Great Britain and the League enjoy sovereignty over the area and have the ability to make promises to anybody. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
1. Actually it doesn't leave the question unasked at all. Britain was given control of the area after the Turkish joined with the Germans in the First World War and lost. The principle in international law that land acquired in a DEFENSIVE war can be annexed applies here. However, Britian did not annex it, but rather handed part of it directly to the Arabs as Jordan and submitted the remainder to the partition plan of the UNited Nations. No question is unasked, it is very clear what happened under international law — Unsigned, by: AllonY / talk / contribs
"Britain was given the area" in 1919 by whom? The League--a collection of mostly European states who worked together to perpetuate European imperial rule once the Ottoman and German empires collapsed. Here's a radical idea; why weren't the residents of places like Tanganyika, South-West Africa, Cameroon, and Palestine simply given sovereignty over the lands previously under German/Ottoman control? The racism inherent in the League's mandate system needs to be addressed in any discussion of why these people were denied the ability to govern themselves. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so you want to ignore international law and advocate anarchy... When 80% of the land in the area would be declared ownerless, exactly how many warlords and tribal groups would have ended up fighting for it and trying to grab the land? We see the effect of warlords grabbing land and the effect on the civilian populationj in Somalia and many other African countries. We saw a massacre of hundreds of thousands of Matabele by Shona in Zimbabwe when there was a shift in power (a necessary one but with an unintended consequence). Yes, just leaving it alone and letting anarchy and the one with the most people to wield their guns has been shown to be a truly fantastic method of land distribution in the past. Even so, this discussion does not alter the simople fact that the partition of the land under the UN WAS legal and shows a very different picture to just calling it "a small piece of land in the middle east"
The other thing you are not addressing is the inclusion of the fact of the Jewish refugees- pure historical revisionism to white wash the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countriesAllonY (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Information about the Jews in other countries can go into articles about those particular countries. I'm not advocating anarchy; but saying that the only alternative to imperial rule and the denial of local sovereignty is anarchy is a straw man argument; moreover, not dealing with the roots of that anarchy in imperial rule in the first place, not interrogating an "international law" that allows foreign powers to rule over a people without giving those very people a seat at the table when said law was constituted, and not thinking about how the law is wielded as a tool with which to perpetuate fundamentally unjust systems of rule means that you're not even close to talking about the real stakes of the question. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Filling out the history[edit]

Hi, I added more on the history of Palestine up to 1948. I'm hoping that's ok. Mcc1789 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

removed temporarily for clarification[edit]

"There was no general objection among the Palestinian people to the Jordanian occupation of that territory between 1948 and 1966."

Probably could use a citation - and a reason for being where it was. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arabs settled in the land after the Jewish expulsion?[edit]

Arabs were trader and they have contract with Jews beforegho2t993--Gho2t993 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank678fru5you. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mandate, Memorandum, etc. woof woof[edit]

I'd like to see a bit more discussion of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan Memorandum, and their relation. That said, I am going to have a hard time presenting anything resembling an decent unbiased treatment of the issue (sorry, I read the two as supporting the creation of exactly two states in the original mandatory area, which included Transjordan (i.e. went east to mandatory Mesopotamia (Iraq)); this is generally regarded, however, as thoroughly incorrect, and I may be guilty of motivated reasoning). Therefore, if anyone else wants to help with this... PacWalker 04:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? If you mean the British involvement then you can easily argue that the Empire followed a very strictly legalistic interpretation of at least its promises to the Zionists, if not to the Arabs. Given the rather dubious nature of the whole League of Nations mandateWikipedia business (essentially a slightly veiled version of old-school imperialism with Wilsonian window dressing), the British "reneging" on their rather deliberately vague promises to the Zionists (note quite deliberate phrase "homeland", not "state" and explicit guarantees for Arabs), the British stayed within the Balfour Declaration. What the British and French did do was to screw over their WWI Arab allies something royally through the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Rather than independence from the Ottomans and some form of Arab state(s), the Arabs were simply incorporated into the French and British Empires with the flimsiest of promise of self-determination (which, quite in Wilson's spirit seem have had an invisible "for white people only"-clause attached) "when they were ready"Wikipedia - and guess who got to decide their state of readiness...
I certainly wouldn't have liked to try to take either the British or French to court for breach of contract over their implementation of the LoN mandate framework in their respective spoils from the Ottoman carcass. Neither French-ruled Syria and Lebanon, nor British-ruled Palestine and Transjordan should be viewed as proto-states, the Transjordan memorandumWikipedia notwithstanding, but simply as imperial provinces which were administered differently according to the tastes of London and Paris based mainly on the wish to retain these provinces within the empire. Was this the discussion you were looking for, PacWalker? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
...I may have misread Article 25 of the original Mandate badly (as in yes I did), and well yes, I think some or all of this same material would benefit the history section, since the present conflict does to some extent toss its roots back this far. So for example maybe the brief version of "WWI -> haha suckers -> circumstances surrounding the British withdrawal". I might have a go at it later today, I suppose. — Unsigned, by: PacWalker / talk / contribs 09:33, 26 March 2015‎
Cool, I look forward to reading it. :-) ScepticWombat (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is like Wikipedia minus the grouchiness. I like. PacWalker 00:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure: Me and Walker here are siblings.--Madman (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
To use your own beautifully stupid term, don't self-dox. PacWalker 04:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I will be your librul edit police.--Madman (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Why are you on der RatWik at 1408 on a weekday? PacWalker 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add history about the 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 massacres of Jews by Arabs in the region.[edit]

If you want a rational article, you need to add the history of ethnic cleansing by Arabs when they destroyed the Jewish community in Hebron during August of 1929.

You need to add the historical facts of the Nazi-Palestinian Arab collaboration before, during and after WW2. It started with the Hitler and the Mufti and ended with Arafat being trained by Otto Skorzeny, a Nazi war criminal.

You need to add history regarding the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem's Jewish population when Arabs from Jordan overran the city and stole Jewish homes, destroyed synagogues and cemeteries. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

They can't add every detail. Shall we add that some Zionists advocated expelling Palestinians from the region since the beginning, and later did so during the first Arab-Israeli War? Or the fact that Lehi, a Zionist militant organization, was openly admiring of Mussolini and wanted the Nazis to send all Jews to Palestine? The acts of terrorism it and other Zionist militants committed against their enemies? That other Jewish organizations at the time also wanted Jews sent to Palestine and not resettled in other places? Arabs and Jews have both committed ethnic cleansing. The amount of land seized from Palestinians on the West Bank continuing to this day could also be added. Would that be rational enough? Mcc1789 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
How big is the portion of the Middle East where (next to) no Jews live? How big is the portion where Jews currently live? Shouldn't it be mentioned, that Arab political violence targeted non-Zionist Jews before the establishment of the state of Israel? After all, that flies in the face of many of the claims of Hamas-apologists... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it could be mentioned. On the other hand, I'm saying that goes both ways. Both sides have their apologists. Mcc1789 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Avenger is he rarely can source his claims. And when he tries the sources often do not support him.---Mona- (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Mona is that she does not read any source not praised by Hamas daily... errrrr Electronic Intifada... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Demonstrably untrue. Why do continually post manifest falsehoods?---Mona- (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I expected a different reaction to important historical facts in any wiki, whether it's called rational, biased, or something else. The "authors" here are more than happy to talk about the rise of Zionism amidst "tolerant Arab muslims" but deem it unnecessary to mention actual historical reason for Zionism coming into existence. Yeah, it's history and criticism, not at all anti-Semitism. Gotcha. (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing and documenting from pro-Palestinian POV[edit]

Tonite I made a few significant edits. I'll be continuing to do that, and need to source the claims which will take me some time to pull together. (Aside from the passions this topic arouses, the article has almost no sourcing and is s creaming for it. I can and will provide some.) I didn't source anything I added tonite, but I will do so pretty soon. I do expect some unhappiness with my edits. So be it. I'll certainly be available for discussion.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is no source on controversial statements you can be sure that they will be reverted by evil Zionists people who disagree with you... (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
My edits are SOURCED. The anti-Palestinian ones generally are not. I will revert every single instance of derogatory, unsourced claims about Hamas, or anyone else. See the RW style manual on this necessity if you think I'm concocting it.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikilawyering, I see...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Stick this source in there somewhere. Something being "SOURCED" don't mean jack if the source is bullshit. CorruptUser (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree that a source only matters if it isn't bullshit. My sources are not bullshit -- I am VERY careful not to rely on any site with poor reputation for factual accuracy. And please, stop trafficking in ethnic slurs.---Mona- (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not an ethnic slur (most peddlers of so-called "Pallywood" ain't Palestinian, even according to the UN), this is an political descriptor. An often accurate one.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I reject your unsupported assertions. It's a slur, and a vile one.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you're talking shit (it is no ethnic slur, there are other names some dumbasses use to insult Arabs) and ignoring the sources to replace them with some dumbass blog you apparently love to read.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
And "Israel Lobby" isn't a slur? Pots and kettles, Mona. CorruptUser (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. It's the same as accusing Jews of staging the Holocaust. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona, if you want to get your critiques in without accusations of bias, you should cite from human rights orgs like Amnesty, HRW, Btselem, PCATI, PCHR, among others. Using Electronic Intifada is as credible as citing Pro-Israel blogs. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird, I'm agreeing with Chris on a topic about Israel/Palestine... CorruptUser (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Just because people have different perspective doesn't mean we cannot have a common desire for well sourced rational discussions. --Mofosyne (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


" It is generally accepted that most Palestinians fled, left on promises on a glorious return after the war, or were driven out, to neighboring Arab countries"

Seems to be the most controversial sentence. This sentence is accurate, as all those things undoubtedly happened. What is neither stated nor implied, is which of these things was the most common occurrence. That is, whether more Palestinians were actively driven out or more left because of the promises of Arab leaders. As most of those things were individual decisions at the time by people who are now mostly dead and may have been ashamed of said decision ever since, we will likely never know. That is why I said that it is highly controversial, what happened to which degree and whose intent to do what (i.e. Arab intent to get Arabs out of the way, Zionist intent to keep Arabs in Israel, Zionist intent to capture strategic assets or whatever) played the biggest role. Please think before blindly reverting. Thank you Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You erased the part about those critical of Zionism. Plus that's not including Arab intent to keeps Arabs in Israel. You're trying to privilege one side over another. In an issue like Israel-Palestine, the consensus at RW is we should not do this in an effort to keep peace and avoid edit wars. Stop it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(grumbles) Yet more things I'm in agreement with Chris about (grumbles) CorruptUser (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a fuck what Hamas' take on the issue is. And we should establish the facts before we establish how some dipshits twist them. Hamas also cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a legit document. Should we accommodate that as well? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)(
Well, that's not really Hamas' take on it. That's the stance of the Palestinian diaspora as well as some Zionist historians (Morris, Shlaim, Pappe, Segev, Baruch) and the majority of Palestinian historians (Khalidi, Masalha). ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What is that stance? That no Palestinians left without being forced? That's obviously ridiculous. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Changing the goal posts. That a group isn't perfectly cleansed, killed, or massacred to the very last one does not preclude it from being an ethnic cleansing or a genocide depending on the circumstances. The busing of women and children in Srebenica, for example, did not mean that a massacre didn't take place. That Saddam only killed some 200,000 of the Kurdish population did not preclude it from being a genocidal campaign. That certain Jews were allowed under Germany to be transferred to Palestine did not mean there wasn't a Holocaust. Most historians recognize the very great majority of Palestinians fled. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Once again. Read my sentence Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I edited your sentence to include viewpoints that differ on the IP conflict. Most Zionist historians have debunked the radio broadcasts myth, but nevertheless, I am including it under the pretense of "some believe" so that some people's views are accommodated. Your wording sucks and presumes both things of glorious return and being driven out are factually true, which may not be the case. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arab countries =/= Muslim countries[edit]

It matter little how many Jews live in Azerbaijan Turkey or Iran if we are discussing the question of how many Jews currently live in Arab countries. None of the aforementioned countries is Arab. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference was the Islamic world, and many of the people of those countries are Muslims. Stop trying to privilege one side over the other. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
See my re-phrasing. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Forget Palestine[edit]

Long live AkhzivlandWikipedia!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"killing of all the (Zionist) Jews in the region"[edit]

Nowhere in the charter do I read a qualification narrowing the scope of the struggle to "Zionist Jews."

the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!
In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad
The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals.
We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”
more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war. “

Am I missing something that dials these messages back? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There isn't. Mona is trying to whitewash the Hamas. Against. For the fuck knows which time.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, you insist on inserting a word that isn't there, to wit: "all"---Mona- (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
AgoingHippie, I changed it to describe the context in the Charter. It's not a gratuitous call to simply kill Jews; it is a paragraph in the context of Zionists and their invasion.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The quote specifically referred to is a reciting of a passage from the Qur'an. Not exactly something where you'd expect them to add a qualifier. The charter often uses "Jews" and "Zionists" interchangably. The question is, are they using "Zionists" in a pars pro tote manner or "Jews" in a totum pro parte fashion (or do they consider all Jews as Zionists)? (talk) 18:38, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

AgingHippie's version is fine and accurate.---Mona- (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I've read worse here. Mostly written by you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
142 -- good edit. I should have reflected on the nature of that Qu'ran verse. It is, indeed, an apocalyptic vision. Italic text It's more of a (woo-woo) is than an ought.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Kind of disappointing that Arisboch, despite insisting on a literal reading, failed to take notice of the talking rocks and trees. ;) (talk) 19:19, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)


Sol Pyre, if I repeatedly use a term, there's a reason for it. I suggest you consult our Zionism article to see why I do that. At the time, most Jews were not Zionists, and there were even different stripes of Zionism. The Arabs of Palestine were fighting with political ZIONISTS, not with Jews per se.---Mona- (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How does the new paragraph rework I did look then, better? SolPyre (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, reviewing my comment about you putting Zionists every where it was un warranted, my apologies. SolPyre (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No prob. I actually have a peeve about re-using same term unless it's necessary or indicated -- I've edited them out of many people's prose. But anyway, I took your version and tweaked just some of it back toward my version. I got a bit testy and I also apologize for that.---Mona- (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, what do people think about embeding this 3 minute, widely acclaimed video, This Land is Mine? It's been celebrated all over the net, and not just by people with my POV. It seems to have a creative commons-type license with it.---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And that's fine about the British internment camps. I'm really going to have to get used to the fact that you are none of: Avenger, Arisboch or Sorte Slyngel. They have wanted to insert so much tendentious bullshit I somewhat reflexively look at claims I'm not all that familiar with as suspicious. But I really do understand why the Holocaust drove Zionism by the 40s, and do not lack sympathy for that motive. While I don't find it ultimately redeems all that the Zionists did -- and certainly not what they still do -- it is extremely important.---Mona- (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Its fine, I get it about Avenger and the others, I tried to stay away from the I/P thing mostly but I did notice some of the stuff they got up to. You alright with the new small rework I did? I really fucking like the land is mine video, go ahead. SolPyre (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Btw, I don't actually know anything about the British Internment camps either, it sounded vaguely familiar like I'd heard it some where before so I sort of assumed it was put in the article in good faith. Maybe not the wisest approach to facts, I'll go check it real quick. SolPyre (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Quick check= legit. I now have more context for one of your above comments, you checked too, thats why you were talking about holocaust refugees, makes more sense now. SolPyre (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I already checked. The camps are true, and they were apparently pretty awful, such as those in Cyprus. I'm not sure how to embed a video but I'll see what I can do.---Mona- (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian loss of land[edit]

Ridiculous propaganda image plagued with inaccuracy, half-truths, lies, and each image uses different terminology to define Palestinian-owned land.

First image labels Jewish land and Palestinian land, except it includes the vast amount of government-owned land, especially in the Negev Desert, as Palestinian land. It is factually incorrect.

Second image shows a plan that never materialized, and suddenly switched from land ownership by religion to land ownership by proposed political entity.

Third image now shows land ownership by existing political entities. It also lies about which political entities existed. There was no entity called "Palestine" at the time; The West Bank was under Jordanian control while the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control. Again, it does not show private land ownership like it did in the first map, so it is moving the goalpost.

Fourth map is probably the most accurate, although still has flaws. I do not know why Gaza looks the way it does, as Israel does not have any presence WITHIN the Gaza Strip anymore. Otherwise, this is the first time Palestinians have ever had any sort of self-determination, and that self-determination is mostly within those boundaries. This also implies that Israel has annexed tons of land within the West Bank, which it has not.

For these reasons, I am removing the image. Feel free to add a more accurate one. Kentuckyball (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

None of these objections invalidate the map. The Palestinian Arabs had dominion (tho partial under the British) over all the land in the fist picture. In the UN picture, it is labeled as what it is. You are going to have to show that Palestinians did not lose effective control as the map suggests---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC), to invalidate the map. (Many have tried; I've never seen it done successfully. This graphic is employed by, e.g., Jewish Voice for Peace.)---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, to try again: The issue is the Palestinian people; the land they effectively controlled, and then did not. The UN plan, which is labeled as such, took much. The Zionist war in '48 actually took even more. If the map went forward to 2016, there'd be almost none left. Unless you can show this steady removal of land from Palestinian dominion is false, I don't see what the problem is.---Mona- (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC recently used a similar map, and some Zionists raised similar objects to Kentuckyball's. Mondoweiss explained the accuracy of the graphic, which also largely pertains to this map:

Does the map accurately show the loss of Palestinian land since 1946?

Yes. The map accurately depicts the land that has been forcibly taken from Palestinians since 1946, two years before Israel was established and the accompanying expulsion of between 750,000 and a million Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state.

During and immediately following the state’s creation in 1948, Israel expropriated approximately 4,244,776 acres of Palestinian land. In the process, more than 400 Palestinian cities and towns were systematically destroyed by Israeli forces or repopulated with Jews. Most Palestinian population centers, including homes, businesses, houses of worship, and vibrant urban centers, were demolished to prevent the return of their owners, now refugees outside of Israel’s pre-1967 borders or internally displaced within them. (See here for interactive map of Palestinian population centers destroyed during Israel’s creation.)

Israel’s systematic dispossession of Palestinians is ongoing today, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, where Palestinian citizens of the state and those living under occupation continue to be pushed out of their homes and off their lands – including entire towns – to make way for Jewish citizens and settlers. Today, there are approximately 650,000 Jewish settlers living illegally on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Israel’s settlement enterprise covers approximately 42% of the West Bank.

---Mona- (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You never actually posted anything that refutes anything I said. The goalpost was clearly moved, as the map switched from land ownership by religion (which was false anyways) to land ownership by political entity, which doesn't make sense in any way if you want to be objective. There are still plenty areas of Israel where there is land owned by Muslims.
No, you cannot just take government-owned land and decide it was "nominally controlled by the Palestinians" because it was not, it was owned by the British colonial government. More realistically, it was collectively owned by the entire population of the Palestinian Mandate, and was equally as Jewish-owned as it was Palestinian-owned.
Continuing on the basis of private land ownership, the vast majority of land in modern Israel is owned by the Israeli government and cannot be sold to private owners. Jews and Arabs living in Israel holding Israeli citizenship have equal right to rent such land, and in some cases, Arab citizens have better access to renting such land as "affirmative action".

"Moreover, when it comes to residential land, the ILA sometimes offers Israeli Arabs more favorable terms from than it does to Israeli Jews. Thus, the ILA charged the equivalent of $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre in new Jewish communities near Beersheva while Bedouin families in the nearby community of Rahat paid only $150 for the same amount of land.16 In a different case, when a Jewish policeman from Beersheva, Eleizer Avitan, applied to the ILA to lease land in a Bedouin community under the same highly subsidized terms available to the Bedouins, the ILA refused to lease him land there under any terms, so he sued. Israel's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ILA, saying that what might be viewed as ILA discrimination against the Jewish citizen Avitan was justified as affirmative action for Bedouin citizens."

You cannot use a map that was never actually put into practice to show how they "lost land" either. The fact that it is purely hypothetical and never happened is why. If I want to make a map of the territorial evolution of Germany, I wouldn't use a map showing the "Lebensraum" which Hitler wanted either, because that was purely hypothetical and never actually happened.
So again, don't just move the goalpost for each different slide. If you want to show a map of how the State of Israel gained territory, you can do so. If you want to show the territorial evolution of privately owned territory, go right ahead (Just make sure to include that selling land to Jews warrants the death sentence in the West Bank and Gaza). However, the ridiculous dishonesty of this map continuously moving the goalpost from private ownership to hypothetical borders to armistice line to sovereignty should not be present in this article. Kentuckyball (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The slides are not "moving goalposts." They are inserted into an article that explains exactly what was happening on the ground at each stage, or what land division the UN proposed( which the Palestinians rejected; that slide helps indicate why); nothing is hidden. The maps (they are not actually maps; they are graphics) show when and why Palestinians lost ever-increasing rights to their ancestral lands. By now, the land they have is even less than the last, 2010, graphic indicates. If anything, the graphics don't tell the current extent of the lost land.---Mona- (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
ADDING: the graphic is not labeled as a map. It's not one. Would you like the word "Graphic" inserted to underscore that point?---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's another paragraph from the Mondoweiss article, addressing much the same objections to MSNBC's similar graphic, my emphasis:

Critics have focused on the fact that Palestine was not a sovereign and independent state prior to 1948, however the map did not claim that it was. The map purported to show “Palestinian Loss of Land 1946-present,” and it did precisely that, accurately. While it was not a recognized independent state under British rule in 1946, Palestine as a political entity existed prior to the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, going back to ancient times when it was a province of the Roman empire until more recently when it was British Mandatory Palestine, immediately preceding Israel’s creation.​​

---Mona- (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is a "map" or a "graphic" is entirely irrelevant to anything I have said here. You are trying to say that it is loss of ancestral land, but it does not set what exactly is their land. Is it referring to land ownership? Sovereignty? Land they are allowed to walk on? You can't define it by land ownership in one slide (which is inaccurate anyways) and then on another define it by state borders, labeling as "Palestine" what was actually Jordan and Egypt. Kentuckyball (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what other problems the image may or may not have, it should be removed or changed because in the slide labeled "2010" it clearly shows there being Israeli settlements still in Gaza. This is false. The Israeli settlements in Gaza were all evacuated and demolished by September 2005. If someone wants to relabel that slide as "2004" or fill in the rest of Gaza with green I would drop my objection. But as is, the image is factually incorrect. Centaur (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how to use this yet. So, I'm not changing anything on the page just making a comment here about the map. The map in question about "land loss" has been debunked and even MSNBC apologized for their use of it and had an expert go on air and explain why the map was grossly misleading. And no, the map does NOT describe land that "Palestinians" actually controlled. Palestine was a region with elastic borders and no sovereignty since the Romans Crushed the Biblical Kingdom of Judea. Before the UK controlled it, it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, Turks after they seized it from previous foreign controllers. The map is a gross distortion of history and should be removed if not replaced with a more accurate and useful one. — Unsigned, by: / talk 03:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC is a shit source owned by a defense company but nice revisionism Avenger.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem with the map is that it is labeled "Palestinian land" and "Jewish land" while the reality is much more complicated than that. The map also confuses private land ownership with the government in place. If we had better maps, it would be better to use them. I am not the Ombud's man 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The caption of the map[edit]

this edit reverted the caption of the map from something accurate to blatantly false and biased opinion-making. Is there a reason for this? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You are removing cited info and your info is largely useless. The graphic already explains that the land in white is own by Israelis while the land in green is owned by Palestinians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The first map shows land owned by Jews in white and all other land in green. The other maps show political status in a somewhat disingenuous way. This map is badly mixing up stuff. We can show this map, but we should at least provide an accurate caption. The map itself is highly misleading if read without a lot of background information. Imagine I made a map of Spain, showing first houses owned by Muslims today, then Emirate of Cordoba in 812 and then something entirely different in yet another map, while labeling it all "Muslim land" and "Spanish land", would you consider that particularly fair, neutral, truthful or valuable? Or would you like a caption that explains things in a bit more detail. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. The map was not intended to imply a state controlled each area, rather the ethnicity (Jew or Arab) of who owned them. Simple, right? PBfreespace (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
There are Arabs owning land in Israel today. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"There are Indians owning land in Great Britain today", imperalism apologist says.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait? Indiana? What? So... After cycling through India we are now finally at "Indians". Do you mean Indians from India or Native Americans? Amazingly enough, Britain managed to be a colonial power over both, though mostly not at the same time. I am not the Ombud's man 21:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)