Question to user: Nishidani: Your standings on Palestine - Why do you engage yourself in such a controversial topic? I never understood why a man from Japan would care so much about the Palestinians. Khazar (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Saeki Yoshiro. Read Jeff Halper's article. I could list twenty major innovations in Israel's handling of Palestinians, innovations that break customary law, which are forming, in the US esp., precedents for changes in laws that will affect citizens. What happens there will probably happen throughout modern Western societies some time in the future. One example: targeted assassinations without due process. That was invented to kill Palestinians. Obama has adopted it to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism. What happened in Ferguson, Missouri, namely the dynamics of the Shooting of Michael Brown takes place every other week in the Palestinian territories, and has so for 3 decades. Palestine is an index of what lies in the future for Western law, and since the precedents set will affect our civil institutions, egotistically, I study Palestinians to imagine what my nephews and nieces might have to live through, unless one foresees in what happens to others an omen of what might well befall those one knows. To me, what happens to Palestinians is analogous to what happened to Jews in the 1930s, and what might happen to people across the world in the bitter regressive future I expect is waiting around the corner. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the Halpers article. While it's not incorrect to say that the rhetoric of targeted assassinations can be used elsewhere, it is too misleading to give Israel the credit, in my view. Israel is using tactics which have always been used. "Asymmetrical warfare" was also seen in Algeria and Vietnam. Targeted assassination was also seen in Lebanon and Cuba. This is a matter of power. Israel has overwhelming power against the Palestinians, so it is free to ignore the law. And it does so in a familiar pattern, of other colonial powers. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel takes the credit for theorizing its legitimacy. I wrote the introduction of that article where this is outlined. Halper's article gives now other examples of legal scholars lending their wits to justify what is, at the moment, a violation of law in order to remake it, and provide the theoretical underpinnings for the new regimen, one that breaks radically with Western civilization's vaunted systems of law. This, the theorization of racial violence as necessary to save civilization, did not occur under the major colonial powers, whatever they did in practice. They acted hypocritically. These folks are trying to iron out the hypocrisy by legislating draconian measures, that Plato's players in The Laws would envy. And, personally, they are all nice decent, smiling people socially. It is, though obvious, chilling. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are Japanese! Your name always threw me off. Khazar (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a national identity, just passports, and I rarely speak my mothertongue. By the way, the topic area is not 'controversial', except in the minds of people who read mainstream newspapers and watch Fox television. Both Shin Bet analysts and way-left libertarians see this very much as it is, which is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If any of this speculation relates to my saying "ho mikado" earlier, that was more of a smartass attempt at a reference to the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta I'd just seen than anything else. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Really now? Then what's your ethnicity and mother tongue? I don't identify with my country neither so I understand your point there. Khazar (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never empathised with, or understood the attraction of, 'ethnicity', and so can't admit to having one: national identity for me is a sense of primal landscape, nothing else. 8-15% of children are born, unknown to the father, from adultery, and that translates out, over three or more generations into promiscuous origins for most of us. The only friends I made at primary school were immigrants: I instinctively shied away from what others would call 'our kind'. As to my mother tongue, it was a brogue or dialect, different from the 'foreign' language they tweely taught at school. By some freak of circumstances, what Viktor Shklovsky called остранение or as I prefer to translate that, 'de-family-iarization', came naturally to me.

You can't figure much out from handles. Our 'John Carter' only means that he grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom tales, and thinks in Martian terms, which is not a bad perspective to adopt, as long as it's tempered by a yen for Gilbert and Sullivan! Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing. You've typed this much and still haven't revealed anything important about your ethnicity, genetic ancestry, nor the first language you spoke. D:< Khazar (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Palestine." Palestine is a racist colonialist fantasy envisioned by Arabian imperialist powers. Falsely comparing Israelis to Nazis as Nishidani just did is a vile tactic used by anti-Semites to defame Jews and deny the Holocaust. As any intelligent person not brainwashed by the Muslims would know, it is the "Palestinians" who are the Nazis. They are illegal colonist-settlers from Arabia intent on stealing the Jewish homeland to further expand their colonial Arab empire consisting of 21 different countries already. Communists like Nishidani hate Israel obviously because communism is an anti-Semitic totalitarian ideology that is basically the same as Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.199.221 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

From User: Nishidani: Personal work section notes:

I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others.

• An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'.

• The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people (d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, an ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism.

• The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created.

(ii)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion.

'According to the aboriginal theory, the ancestor first called out his own name; and this gave rise to the most sacred and secret couplet or couplets of his song. The he 'named' (tneuka) the place where he had originated, the trees or rocks growing near his home, the animals sporting about nearby, any strangers that came to visit him, and so forth. He gave names to all of these, and thereby gained the power of calling them by their names; this enabled him to control them and to bind them to his will.'

Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth….

‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .'

Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,

'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31.

In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland:

‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.”

Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks:

‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’

The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name?

Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah:

'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.'

Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity ). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity.

John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect

‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.”

The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’, 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’.

Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’

Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that

‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’

Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora, the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication.

Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage.

Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands.

Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well.

The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict.

(iii)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank

When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:-

'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.'

One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself.

Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country.

The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

(iv)The Negev Precedent With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:-

We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.

Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:-

‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” <

Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example.

Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that,

’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’

and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:-

‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’

The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichman, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew:

‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our |psyche ’

Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal of cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache). In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances.

(v)The West Bank. History and Naming The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl.

‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’

In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued.

In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war. The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy.

Gideon Aran describes the achievement:

‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.'

The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement.

‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.'

A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term.

‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’

Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words:

‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’.

An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovokedinvasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank.

Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions' Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People.

Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area.

This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them.

Michael Sfard indeed has spoken of Hebrew being mobilized to lend itself to the national emergency of occupying Palestine, and denying the Palestinians the liberty to be themselves. They are passive subjects of an activist language that wraps them about in bureaucratic euphemisms.

'It has been tasked with providing a soothing, anesthetizing name for the entire project of suffocation, for the blanket system of theft we have imposed on those we occupy . . Thus extrajudicial executions have become “targeted assassinations”. Torture has been dubbed “moderate physical pressure”. Expulsion to Gaza has been renamed “assigning a place of residence”. The theft of privately owned land has become “declaring the land state-owned”. Collective punishment is “leveraging civilians”; and collective punishment by blockade is a “siege,” “closure” or “separation".'

A proposal is now being made to apply the principle of Hebraization, as of 2009, even to those places within Israel which the world designates by traditional toponyms, such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) Nazareth (Natzrat) and Jaffa (Yafo). According to Yossi Sarid, the process, illustrated further by Knesset proposals to eliminate Arabic as one of Israel's official languages, constitutes a form of ethnocide.

(vi) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions

‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’

'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.'

After 1967 ‘Cartographers . .had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai as “administered territories” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory,. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”. . . In the post-1993 period a Palestinian Authority has been established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet there is no actual independent state of Palestine. Most international maps have stayed with the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” but maps published by the Palestinian Authority describe these areas as “Palestine.” Furthermore, Palestinian Authority maps usually leave out Israel and assign its territory to “Palestine,” with the added designation that it is “occupied territory.”Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman, The power of projections: : how maps reflect global politics and history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 pp.37-8

We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh

The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed.

Further reading:

• Mark Monmonier, No Dig, No Fly, No Go. How maps restrict and control, University of Chicago Press 2010

Re: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and Human Shield

Our text currently reads that "[Israeli Defense Forces, IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields'; an allegation denied by Hamas," and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets, an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields, both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well.) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4
• http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/
• http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [6]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

clarification The question is not "Should we say Hamas admitted to use of Human shields in video X" but "Should the video be mentioned, in the context that entities/sources X,Y, Z have brought it up in discussions/allegations about IF Hamas uses human shields". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the NPOV, NOR, and RSN noticeboards about this RFC

Survey

• include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, Nishidani. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says: "When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my vote to "include" for the reasons given elsewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include explained that it's proof of a "human shield" strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include - The use of human shields is a serious accusation that is backed up by evidence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include It is original research and requires a secondary source to connect the dots. A human shield is a non-combatant and involuntary. People who stood in front of tanks in Tiananman square were not human shields. Had they instead tied up Kindergardeners and laid them in front of the tanks, those children would have been human shields. TFD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include because in a highly charged context, the quote, whose context and translation are murky, becomes a reprehensible way of justifying the bombing of a civilian population. There's no way to pretend this isn't a political issue. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include as it's WP:SYN to imply that the statement has any relation with Hamas using human shields. // Liftarn (talk)
• Don't include, basically per Liftarn. It is an identified IDF propaganda meme, not appropriate to historical narrative, except to note that it is an Israeli meme used to sway Western public opinion. It is a vicious 'spin' on complex events, using one obscure quote to frame a battle strategy which Gazans have no other option than to fight from urban areas, as in every known war, and as Yitzhak Laor writing for the London Review of Books (LRB) entitled a similar strategy, the taking point is to drive home to the world that 'You (Hamas) are terrorists, we (ID) are virtuous.' (LRB, Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006 pp.11-12). Every single meme deployed by Israel's Foreign Ministry, the IDF and many users here in Wikipedia to press this 'case' of cowardly warfare by Hamas has been cooked up in defiance of history, Jewish history in its most desperate moments, as Uri Avnery wrote some days ago:

For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists.” We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape.” Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding.” They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels.” Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.'

If anyone tried to write the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Nazi antisemitic spin that high casualties were caused by the Jewish resistance when the resistance forces used women and children as human shields, I'd not only automatically revert it: I'd report him.

The Poles' resistance in Warsaw is a Jewish resistance. Only yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front line, to take advantage of the Germans' sense of scruple.' This obscene crap was reliably noted down by Mihail Sebastian Journal, 1935-1944, Pimlico, 2003 p.238, reporting what the antisemite (to the end of his life) Mircea Eliade said at the time.

Worst still, as I have often noted, the Israeli Supreme Court has condemned to IDF for the practice of using human shields, and despite the high court's ruling, the IDF continues to use human shields with impunity. The IDF has consistently used Palestinian children to this end, from Jenin to Operation Cast Lead (see here, only one of numerous cases). Yanir Yagna, a Likud MK publicly called for deploying Palestinian prisoners (many without formal charges against them) as human shield against Qassam rockets. Of course that and dozens of other pieces of rhetorical shit people like myself notice are never worked into wiki pages. Or if they are, it's usually some POV-crank who does it. It was even used of Hezbollah, with even Amos Oz spouting this crap in 2006 ('this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags,') only to be informed, if he ever troubled to follow up the technical literature, that Human Rights Watch, in its report on the 2006 Israeli assault on Lebanon, found to be completely unfounded, though it did find Israel had both repeatedly bombed both "individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages" as well as "humanitarian convoys and ambulances" that were "clearly marked,"(just as here).Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield, esp. this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the Hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the first three days which look like war crimes because in Israeli strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, the United States of Amnesia, whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist)

Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH:

• Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings".
• Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" Israeli Attackers Warn Gazans Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party (the IDF), and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars on Gaza. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), and the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said: "Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis."

Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: [7] Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 Arab people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (e.g. creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My objections have been pretty much conveyed by editor 'Kingsindian'. The current placement of Abu Zuhri's quote is strongly implying that Abu Zuhri (and thus Hamas) are encouraging people to shield combat targets and places where weapons are stored. That is NOT what he said and you know that very well, and no amount of sources making such connection will justify its inclusion in the manner you have put here. Never mind the fact that the usage of "human shield" here is entirely misleading to begin with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have discussed the quote, directly in the context of the question of if Hamas uses human shields or not. If you have reliable sources disputing this association, please present them and include them as a counterargument in the text. Otherwise your objection is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which "reliable reference" conflates between the "storage of weapons in schools" AND Abu Zuhri's call for civilians to stay at targeted areas? While the term "human shields" is used, none of your sources interprets Abu Zuhri's statement as one intended to protect combat targets or storage sites. They all seem to agree that it is reference to the protection of people's own homes (how dare they). The content you added and the way it is presented is implying that Abu Zuhri demanded that people stand firm on top of rocket launchers and accept Israel's air strikes, which is a distortion of what he actually said and I believe that falls under WP:SYNTH. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best wording is something like: Israeli has asserted that Hamas uses 'human shields' to defend militants and weapons based on Israeli's analysis of videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings, allegations that Hamas has rejected. Or what would you all suggest?

In terms of Zuhri's quote, it's not clear at all (as referred to by many people in the RFC) that's he calling for people to submit themselves into being shields. Putting that spin on it is, well, just that: a certain Israeli-based spin, which is their legitimate POV to assert but shouldn't be written as just a fact. Word it like: Israelis have also cited __'s comment of "__", which they argue is a call for human shielding but Hamas has disputed.? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarketsObviously various people (including myself) may have issues with some final unknown wording, but I think words roughly to the effect of what you have proposed are workable. Israel (and multiple reliable sources) have pointed to certain events and stated an interpretation. That interpretation disputed. I have no objection to categorizing things as the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the relevant parties nor providing space for the contrary POV (assuming such can be sourced)- but several above have stated that the allegations/interpretation cannot even be presented, and that is unacceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the "sources" used are opinion pieces (and appear to be from highly partisan ones) and therefore not reliable for making the statement that Hamas admitted to using human shields. It is not obvious from the statement that Hamas was admitting to using human shields. They do not say they are forcing non-combatants to stand between them and the Israelis, nor do they say they are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether in fact they are using human shields is another issue, but twisting a statement into a confession is tendentious. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Times, Newsweek, LaTimes (right wing rag if I ever heard of one!), UsaToday are all partisan? In any case, the RFC is not "Should way say Hamas admitted it" but "should this quote even be discussed" - The current article text clearly says Israel alleges Human shields, and as part of that allegation points to the video. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No they are not partisan, but they publish opinions of people of various views, including partisans of both sides. Claiming that an editorial published in one of these sources is a statement made by the publication is misleading. For example you just posted on my talk page a quote that you attributed to the Globe and Mail, which you also cited above, claiming that Hamas had admitted using human shields. The actual source is an opinion piece by Margaret Wente, a highly partisan columnist for the Globe and Mail who, among other things, has written that Canada should become part of the U.S. Do you understand the difference between news reporting, opinions of publications and the opinions of people asked to contribute their opinions to newspaper columns? TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with attributing the claim to some proper source, like Israel and some commentators, or something like that. While it is of course preposterous drivel to me, unfortunately a lot of people, like those who Gaijin42 cited, do believe in drivel; who am I to say they shouldn't get space on Wikipedia? Properly attributed, the inclusion is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparing Arab-Israeli matters to WWII

The comparison between "undereported" events and "Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust" is quite offensive and lacks basic sensitivity.[8] The same goes for misrepresenting Israeli officials with fake/out-of-context quotes (Note: Weissglass says nothing about food) and soapboxing about genocide, "military power out to be a lachrymose victim", et al. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dov Weissglass:'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' Source:Conrad Urquhart, 'Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite,' The Guardian 15 Apr 2006 (the remark was made in February 2006)
  • I don't even know what this talk section is about, having not looked, but I saw this quote and remembered this. Zero 08:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, wikileaks and US cdablegrams corroborating Weissglass's policy. Nothing new, of course, but these basic materials without newspaper spin, clarify the point. Thanks Zero.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.

As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge

• Genocide/Holocaust analogy was made by Matan Vilnai.'"The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," .' 'Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust,' The Guardian 29 February 2008.
• 'lachrymose,' was an allusion to a famous complaint by Salo Wittmayer Baron:'“it is time to break with the lachrymose theory of pre-Revolutionary woe, and to adopt a view more in accord with historic truth”,' given a neat exposition by David Engel in hisHistorians of the Jews and the Holocaust, Stanford University Press, 2010 p.56.
• Yad Vashem's foundation stone was set just after the massacre of Deir Yassin and rises close to that village (1,400 metres away if I remember correctly) whose destruction precipitated the nakba, and on which, somewhat ironically, the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center stands. A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked. Do you think I should be deplored for remembering what I read? Cf. Jeffrey C. Alexander, Trauma: A Social Theory, Wiley 2012 p.120.

In short, editors in this area should familiarize themselves with the topic (any brief allusion to the real history of this area is habitually dismissed as 'soapboxing' ). Lack of knowledge of both history and who said what means that the obvious seems surprising, if not a travesty of the (lack of) knowledge one might possess. So kindly drop it. I'm busy. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani:

• The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide' -- so you can retract that word and future use of Matan Vilnai (or Ovadyah Yosef, for that matter).
• Itamar Shapira, a self-described "ex-Jew" which you mistakenly call "A curator" (he was a tour guide) was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue?

I don't know why you think it pertinent to mention him and the Deir Yassin massacre. Do you believe soapboxing justifies earlier soapboxing? Your comments are long and philosophical. Quotes by "anti-Zionist rabbis" and "ex-Jews" that take things out of context and have little historical accuracy. Promoting political or ideological struggle, e.g. "Just as the Nazi final assault",[9] is prohibited. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. The article on The Holocaust here reads>:

The biblical word shoah (שואה; also transliterated sho'ah and shoa), meaning "calamity", became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s, especially in Europe and Israel.[19] Shoah is preferred by some Jews for several reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word "holocaust", '

'Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah,"the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust,'

That Vilnai backtracked and tried to cover up what everyone who heard him understood by the term with the limp excuse that when he personally uses the word 'shoah' he doesn't think of the meaning attached to it in Hebrew and by all Jews, and Westerners, but meant it to refer to a 'disaster'. It's like saying that when you use the word 'apple' no thoughht of the fruit crosses your mind, but only an image of New York or Microsoft's competitor. Sure, yeah. Yawn.

Look at the context. You want to remove a source that details a series of Israeli massacres from oral memories of the survivors.

Itamar Shapira exercised his right to remark on a feature in the landscape: -as you recall the holocaust, recall that next door there existed a village where over 100 Palestinians were murdered-. He would make an excellent wikipedian editor, but recalling both versions of a country's history, Jewish and Palestinian, is evidently good enough warrant over there for getting fired. You don't understand that. People raised on free speech, democratic principles do.

The tendency of editors to find excuses for any remark or fact deleterious to one side's image, while editing vigorously to showcase everything negative about the other side, is why this area of wikipedia is worked in continual violation of the obligation to assure neutrality, whatever one's private opinions.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article on The Holocaust says rightly that the word "Shoa" translation is "calamity". Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust) or "Shoat yehudei Romania" (Romanian Jews Holocaust), so it seems that MarciulionisHOF is right. Ykantor (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to comment on the substance of your discussion here, I would point out that it is doubtful that Vilnai was referring to the Holocaust in his use of the word "Shoa". In modern Hebrew, the word "Hashoa" (with the definite article) universally refers to the Holocaust; but without the definite article, it is often used as a general term for catastrophe. See, for example, this quote by Yair Lapid:

"מה שקורה בארץ עכשיו לא פחות משואה אנשים נאלצים לעבוד בשלוש עבודות רק כדי לשלם שכירות"

(translation: What is happening in Israel now is no less than a shoa' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent.)

--Ravpapa (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rav. I'm aware of the distinction between'shoa/hashoa, which Ykantor points up. The problem is, um, hermeneutic. I was taught to read, and write, with attention to the resonance of words. Freudian 'lapses' didn't begin with psychoanalysis. All of classical and Talmudic exegesis accepts as an interpretative truism that the full range of meanings given a word is relevant to the interpretation of the content. Consider the verbal and cultural context I wrote out below (in response to the premise that somehow these numerous reports of wild statements by senior figures in Israel are, one by one, just 'misunderstandings').

Many sources say you are both wrong. 'shoah'/'ha-shoah' is an equivocation.Both Ynet/Reuters, commenting:'"Holocaust"(shoah) is a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War Two. Many Israelis are loathe to countenance using the word to describe other contemporary events.' and Haaretz are Israeli newspapers that took his comment, as did many other Jewish sources, as utterly distasteful because it evoked the Holocaust. Language works that way. When the town council of Or Yehuda posted a sign outside the cityduring the recent gaza War telling its local boys serving in the IDF:

• Residents of Or Yehuda are with you!
• Pound (kansu) their Mom so you can return safely to yours.

The word 'pound' means 'fuck/bang' in hebrew slang, and can't avoid that connotation, even if the jerk who thought it up comes back and justifies the phrasing by arguing that 'bang' means (just as bad) 'bomb the shit out of them'. When Professor Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University said that raping Palestinian women was a deterrant to terrorism, though adding that is wasn't meant to be advice to soldiers or, yesterday, his colleague emeritus professor Hillel Weiss called for the annihilation of the Palestinians, saying it is inevitable and won't constitute 'genocide' since that applies to a people, which the Palestinians are not, you don't as an editor equivocate, or run to the defense of whoever said what, as if it were impossible, uniquely for some eminent israelis, among them rabbis Dov Lior, Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta, to consider the murder of innocents or genocide itself as an option. If Moshe Feiglin calls for the extermination not only of Hamas but anyone who supports it, and bundling the rest of Gazans into camps where they will await relocation abroad, with a subsidy so Israel can build a nice commercial tourist industry for itself in Gaza(a move supported by Rabbi Ben Packer here), or if Yochanan Gordon calls for genocide, and Ayelet Shaked, a Knesset member groomed as potential prime ministerial material on the eve of the murder of Abu Khdeir, and before the war broke out wrote 'in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”', then it is unwise to pretend, on every occasion that there is a (foreign) misunderstanding, that genocide wasn't invoked, or murder of innocents justified.

Update: 'In the post, written Friday and titled “Dealing with Savages,” Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck offers suggestions that range from destroying whole Palestinian towns to uprooting the Dome of the Rock.“There is a war for the land of Israel that is being waged, and the Arabs who dwell in the land of Israel are the enemy in that war and must be vanquished,” Pruzansky writes. . .Pruzansky refers to “the Arab-Muslim animals that span the globe chopping, hacking and merrily decapitating,” and then writes, “At a certain point, the unrestrained behavior of unruly animals becomes the fault of the zookeeper, not the animals.”' Ben Sales, 'New Jersey Rabbi Steven Pruzansky Spews 'Savage' Hate in Blog Post,' The Forward 24 November 2014. Nishidani (talk) 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The point Ykantor is that as editors, we are obliged to find the facts, and report them, whatever the consequences, and it is disappointing to observe the large influx of editors now who seem to edit defensively or aggressively to promote an official agenda that appears to read: 'we are incapable of evil, malice, wrongdoing. These are properties associated with the other side.' No one is exempt from evil, and even the devil has, by late report, some good features. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wider review:

Nishidani I'm having trouble getting past these repeated 'genocide' assertions, as well as the matter of allusions between Arab-Israeli matters and WWII. I am posting for wider review on WP:AE. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not 'generic assertions'. They are links to documents in the public domain. I am not to blame if so many people consistently make these remarks.

Could I counsel you, in your own interests to withdraw that? You came to my page, with a sense of offense over our disagreement at Rafah massacre. The implicit request above was that I clarify what I meant in remarks you took to be injurious. I did so by documenting the kinds of sources that lay in my mind as I wrote those remarks. This was necessary because your misprision appears to come from a lack of familiarity with the facts. You silenbtly passed over my corrections, and challenged a thing or two. I went to the trouble to illustrate in depth the issue as I saw it, which is an editorial problem: namely, learning, whatever one's POV, to know the subject sufficiently thoroughly that you are not discountenanced by anything that might, in an edit, show the unseemly side of an issue. We are under an obligation to see all sides of these realities, not to muckrake for one side, and defend to the last comma the bona fides of the other. Please note that almost nothing of what I know of these things has influenced my editing. I read a lot of trash like the above, but do not rush to cram wiki pages with damning evidence. Unfortunately this is not the case with many new editors.

You now use this to report me for a sanction. Now, jumping at that to report what was a time-consuming act of courtesy to clear up something that appearted to bother you as if I had said something indictable, looks as though from the outset you were on a 'fishing expedition.' I'm willing to believe that this contretemps is just typical of a certain newbie naivity, and not gamesmanship. Others may think otherwise, but perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:Boomerang and calculate whether your interests are served by making such a complaint.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The same comparison:

In description of your revert:

• "In all wars, children have fought. They did so in the Warsaw ghetto"

I am not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for such comparisons. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I must admit (as I said in Russian to you the other day) that I am completely perplexed by recent trends here. In several pages, a notable number of editors have swept in, all intent on making an IDF talking point stick: Hamas uses children as human shields (translation= we aren't to blame for the 557 killed in bombing runs), Hamas uses children in war translation= we aren't to blame for the 557 killed in bombing runs), Hamas uses civilian structures, mosques, schools, and charities to store weapons (translation= we aren't to blame for the destruction of several hundred social centres, mosques and schools). Well, obviously the pages must register these claims, for that is what RS report. When I simply edited in several sources, from Israeli and Jewish commentators, which compare this talking point with the fact that in 1947-1948 Jews in their fight for independence used schools, synagogues and kindergartens and all sorts of civilian institutions to stash weapons, and therefore that this claim (true or untrue) about Hamas is also a fact about Israel's foundational history, shocking if Hamas does it, glorious if Israel did it, the edit is immediately reverted, and several editors complain that I (not Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Richard Silverstein et al.,) am making offensive analogies!? The analogy, sir, is in the sources.

Today WarKoSign wanted to fuss the casualty page with a dubious source suggesting Hamas used children in several instances. I personally don't find that claim absurd: it's quite possible youths in Gaza have helped their fathers, brothers, relatives in fighting. After all, this, as I documented in detail (Military use of children) is what happened in Europe in 1939-1945, and Jewish youths in Poland such as among the Bielski partisans and in many other places valiently fought against those who plotted their extermination. My objection was to the poor source, and to WP:Undue. The lead there is minimal, and plunking the 'Hamas are contemptuous of children's lives' meme on every page, when it is amply covered on the main articles, suggests to me POV-extremism gone amuck. Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that there is something wrong in your understanding of current Arab-Israeli reality when you trying to apply today the WW2 framework to this new, not black & white, reality. May be the reason is that same Avnery, whom you call the "one of the greatest Israelis of our time" (:), that same Levi, and others such your sources are not the most respected men in Israel. Their point of view here, if not marginal, but isn't shared by more than few percents of society.

Did you try to read some other authors? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Science, culture, philosophy, art, everything that makes us civilized, comes from the 'few percents of society' (the same is true of everything that makes us barbarous). The premise in your remark is that an idea is sound if a majority underwrites it.57% of American believe in the existence of Satan; 77% believe aliens have visited earth; 46% believe God created man on the 23 October 4004 BC. The only corrective to the general impression one gets from mainstream newspapers that mankind is insane is to read New Scientist sedulousy from cover to cover each week.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, observing this farcical interaction reminded me of this quote from Molly Scott Cato:

Perhaps most important of all, real education is not always an enjoyable experience. Genuine education is emancipatory and revolutionary, which may be a reason why conservatives distrust it. The good educator challenges the student's world-view and this cannot always be a comfortable experience. You know you are teaching successfully when you see a furrow begin to appear on the youthful skin of your students’ foreheads. This connotes the performance of ‘thinking’, an activity that has been increasingly rare in universities since the advent of the market. (Universities of Transition, Red Pepper, March 2011.)

You seem to be doing a good job of producing "furrows" (metaphorical or real) on your interlocutors' brows! And, as MSC points out, the increasing corporate control of university education might (partly) explain why it seems that so few people nowadays are intellectually equipped to see through the framing of issues presented in mainstream sources. --NSH001 (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just ignore these requests on my talkpage. The human mind is wired so that synaptic maps are formed by associational leaps. Analogy is the natural mode for reducing randomness in the infinite, potentially chaotic linkage of ideas or impressions. It is also the affective template for the roots of ethics in a sense of empathy for the other. Ideology is a system for creating mental buffers or circuit-breaks that hamper the formation of analogies: it is a system for cementing in-group identity by erasing analogy's tendency to cross taxonomic borders, as per the ritual exclamation one was taught to recite inwardly as a child on witnessing calamity befall a stranger:'There, but for the grace, of God, go I.' In ideologically-suffused worlds, this reflex is not only deprecated, it is engineered discursively so that it does not even arise as a possibility. A Roman in Gaul or among the Picts, Cortez in Tenochtitlan were perhaps just illustrating 'nature, red in tooth and claw'. Modernity provides elaborate doctrinal justifications that serve a Han immigrant in Lhasa,a Zionist settler in Hebron, a pioneer rancher on Apache land, a Boer in Transvaal, a Brazilian logger in Amazonia, the squattocracy of Queensland, . . Well, I hope that this can close an unfortunate interlude. I don't have much time these days to edit, let alone explain them to people who are not interested in listening. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Historically children often participated in conflict, and often died as a result. If the article reports deaths of underage militants as something out of the ordinary, then their participation in the fighting must also be represented as something out of the ordinary. If there is nothing unusual in their involvement in fighting, then the number of children dying (513) is notable only for being relatively low - 23% of the causalities vs 44% of general Gaza population.“WarKosign” 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. The fact that some children may have participated in the conflict is, contrary to the way all Israelocentric sources frame it, not anomalous. In Germany WW2, 20% of the civilians who died were children, in Gaza 23% of the casualties were children.20% reminds me of the percentage of German youth fighting in the Battle of Remagen Bridge, 200 I think out of 1,200, made famous but not featuring in the famous The Bridge at Remagen film, all will recall for Robert Redford's panic-sedative 'Hail Marys' as he paddled under fire to the other bank.

This doesn't mean that in the case of Gaza, a high percentage of those children died in combat. The numerous and graphically recalled accounts of families of 10-27 bombed to smithereens is evidence to the contrary. Your persistence in trying to lard articles with ill-sourced trivia (using a fringe private think tank's agenda-driven propaganda claim that several children of 513 killed were killed while in proximity to, or abetting combatants) suggesting a nexus between the high number of children killed, and juvenile militancy, is agenda driven, and indifferent to what is required of wikipedians. Please don't write any more on this topic on this page. Do want you are minded to do on these articles, but personally I find all of this cool discussion of how many of half a thousand children killed in 51 one days deserved what they got appalling. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the difference between "ill-sourced trivia" and "integral part of the debate" is whether the statement promotes your agenda or hinders it. Nobody belittles the number of children - but the nature and reason of their deaths have to be attributed properly. Some of the reported children participated in fighting, some of them were in fact adult militants, some were killed by Hamas's own rockets, some were "urged" to stay at homes, and some were killed by the IDF. Not stating these facts in the article misleads the reader into thinking that IDF killed more than it in fact did. I'm sure that after all the validations are complete there will still remain enough children killed by IDF to satisfy any Israel hater. “WarKosign” 13:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your editing strikes me as a mimeograph of official IDF or government window-dressing, and utterly predictable, as are your comments. I'm familiar with them because I read press briefings. So it is quite pointless trying to converse rationally here, esp. since any disagreement is implicitly (here explicitly) understood to be symptomatic of 'Israel-haters', of whom, in this 'logic' the President of Israel itself is one, judging from the fact that he said recently precisely the sort of thing detected by a few editors as enmity here. People who think in these terms don't think: they represents official talking-points 'to win the minds and hearts' of the 'majority'. So, do me a courtesy and stay off this page.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I wasted both of our times. As my usual experience with you, I did not get a response to the essence but a flood of obscure references to unimportant points. You repeatedly accused editors of serving hasbara, yet you follow Hamas's manual almost point-for-point. I will try to suppress my urge to open this page in the future, even if I see other editors making comments here. “WarKosign” 14:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pathetic Parthian shot, because amnesial. When Hamas defines itself as I have done, calling it 'stupid, terroristic, murderous, and intoxicated by an instrumental indulgence of suffering,' still on this page, you may come back and say that I 'follow Hamas's manual almost point-by-point,' only in the sense that they would be admitting to copying my remark for some future reference text.

Hamas is what the rebels of Judea were from the insurrection against Rome, down to Bar Kochba, led often by sicarii. Their cause was legitimate, even noble, their tactics stupid. Perhaps the same can be said of Hamas: they found themselves adopting at one point Israel's model for statehood (assassination, terrorism, massacres and suffering as a horrendous spectre [holocaust] that will appeal to the world's conscience etc.,) as their own, because PLO politics proved only productive of Quislings.

Israel and Hamas are just mirrors of each other. There is one difference I admire in the latter, a prejudice I admit to. Courage, fearlessness, something a strategist would not identify as typical of most who have served in the IDF these last decades. One Parthian shot for another is the proper way to end this. This is not a forum for such opinions, but a place to work out how to edit. So that's it. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the WP articles on Exceptionalism/ Indispensability

Nishidani, which books or scholarly articles do you recommend on the ancient roots of today's delusional belief among almost all countries in the globe that they, and their people, are exceptional or indispensable?

Did you by any chance read 'The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome' by Michael Parenti? I recommend it.

Additionally, you may want to take a look at an interesting recent article on some of the ancient roots (going back to ancient Greece) of the modern Israeli, American, Chinese, Japanese, UK, Russian, French, German, Spanish, Indian, Brazilian, Nigerian, South African, Chilean, Columbian, Saudi Arabian, Kuwaiti, Iranian (as well as many more countries') power elites pushing their citizenry into the mental illness of falsely believing in their own exceptionalism/ indispensability/ grandiosity/ uniqueness.

IjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how technical one wants to get or how far one has leisure to read around. There's a good if sometimes abstruse book by Giorgio Agamben called the State of Exception, on the historical roots and philosophical ramifications, which given your mention of Parenti's book, comes to mind because of its excellent examination of homo sacer. But the literature is vast, and much of it psychoanalytic, which is out of vogue, though Freud's remarks on der Narzißmus der kleinen Differenzen, or 'narcissism of minor differences' is a fundamental insight. Generally the works of Norman Cohn are in my view, indispensable for understanding historical trends of paranoia, esp. The Pursuit of the Millennium, Europe's Inner Demons, and Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. Of course, they are more concerned with paranoid trends in history from messianism to antisemitism, rather than 'exceptionalism', which is in every sense of group identity, as we see from the common endonym of many tribes whose languages frequently define themselves by a word denoting 'people', implying 10,000 out-groups aren't quite people. But more specifically, engineering a notion of 'exceptionalism' is characteristic of all drives towards national statehood. The paradox of this kind of exceptionalism was well put by Ernest Gellner in his Nations and Nationalism: to form a distinct national identity, nation-builders had to mould or rig the micro-world views of numerous regional peasant communities to conform to a fictive sense of belonging to a larger state. You dissolved many 'exceptionalist' internal differences in order to assert an homogenized difference from the rest of the world. Modernization meant cancelling internal differences and exchanging them for a larger difference, that constructed by the new state to differentiate it as distinct from all neighbouring countries. Since democracy is premised on respect for internal differences, there is a natural tension between democracy and nationalism. Nationalism is powerful because it allows maximum expression in a group assertion of being exceptional for individual communities and persons who, sucked into the homogenizing world of industrialism, must sacrifice their personal sense of being individuals qua individuals. It's a safety valve for the loss of a real sense of intimate difference as we are drilled to conform to a broad model of seamless social group-identity. The paradox here is that the United States has a powerful political sense of its version of the fiction, in the idea it has an historic mission as an exceptionalist state, and yet is a democracy. Even in international law, it underwrites general principles and then adds clauses saying it alone is exempt from them (as Noam Chomsky repeatedly points out). It has deep roots, that you can get an idea of by reading any number of works, Jack P. Greene's The Intellectual Construction of America, University of North Carolina Press, 1993, or Byron E Shafer (ed.) Is America Different! A New Look at American Exceptionalism, Clarendon Press 1991 etc.

As for the engineering of delusional states of mind, and passing them off as normal, that is inherent in all modernization, and Walter Lippman's Public Opinion is a classic and germinal analysis of the problem.

I haven't read Parenti's book. I haven't read for that matter most books I should read. I'll keep an eye out for it.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed information.

Talking about Michael Parenti, here is a recent article by him. Reminding us that in all human clashes over the last several thousand years, including but not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, power elites on all sides of the conflict send low-income and poor people to kill other low-income and poor people and to be killed by them, while the wealthy elites and high-ranking military officers on all sides smile all the way to the bank.

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ghosts of Gaza: Israel’s Soldier Suicides. IjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A useful summary, perhaps worth inclusion in the article. I don't think that blaming the jihadi elements like Col. Winter gets one anywhere. The IDF's policies haven't changed because of the rise of religious fanatics in the IDF ranks: their presence just makes explaining the usual policies, and criticism of Islamic jihadis, more difficult.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating your extreme anti-Semitism and complete disregard for WP:BLP by calling an honorable Jewish soldier a "religious fanatic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.47.232 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah akhbar! Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a direct link to this Times of Israel article might be useful.     ←   ZScarpia   13:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (By the way, did you read about Netanyahu's gross, abominable, sickening, insulting etc. comparison between rocket attacks on Israel and Nazi aerial assaults on the UK during WWII? ;) )

Yes I did. Perhaps he got that hyperbole from his father, an excellent historian on medieval matters, but a wild-eyed apocalyptic fantasist with regard to contemporary history.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From an interview Prof. Netanyahu did with Maariv: [10][11][12].     ←   ZScarpia   02:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from the book Johnny Got His Gun.   IjonTichy (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Coincidence. I read a long article on that extraordinary man, Dalton Trumbo, some weeks ago.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yale chaplain forced out by Zionist attacks. The chaplain was forced to resign over a brief letter to the New York Times in which he explained that actions such as the recent Israeli war on the people of Gaza were breeding anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere. IjonTichy (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Noted that the day it occurred. He's the last on a list I have of, at last count, 36 prominent academics kicked out of academia or harassed or denied tenure for trying to make a reasonable case for Palestinian rights over the last few years. We have no wiki article on the phenomenon, despite the fact that it is a chronic problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this a problem? Anti-Semites who demonize and tell lies about Jews and Israel should not be brainwashing students. Western universities are infested with anti-Semitism, as can be witnessed with the growing influenced of the racist hate group "Students for Justice in Palestine" in demonizing and slandering Israel on American universities. (unsigned comment left by 190.94.210.123)

ZScarpia, care to explain your deliberate mischaracterization of Netanyahu's accurate comparison of the Hamas rocket attack on Israel to Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain? The Gazans are very similar to the Nazis and even have the same ideology of wanting to genocide all Jews. How come you people never post links that cast Arabs or Muslim in a bad light? You always post anti-Israel crap. Here are some things to enlighten you:

• Fatah official calls for blood to ‘purify’ Jerusalem of Jews
• Palestinian savages massacre rabbis in Jerusalem synagogue
• Song urges Palestinians to ‘run over’ Jews
• “Palestinian” Muslims have a new song, “Car Intifada,” urging Muslims to use their cars to kill Jews
• 26-year-old Jewish woman stabbed to death by murderous Arabs after being deliberately run over by a car
• US “deeply concerned” not over recent “Palestinian” jihad attacks, but over Jews building houses
• Jordanian MPs hold moment of silence for two Palestinian terrorists -- Lawmakers read Koran in memory of cousins who perpetrated deadly Jerusalem synagogue attack, hail them as ‘martyrs’
• Hamas praises the brutal murders of innocent rabbis

(unsigned comment left by 190.94.210.123)

Is that an 'answer' to the documentation above about Israeli calls for a genocidal solution? This is the 'Yes,-but-they-are-even-worse' gambit in the dishwater polemical vein of public discourse on ethics and law. In Italy and Greece, many average people avoid taxes and scream when their services don't function, and their excuse is, 'But they (politicians and bigwigs) steal millions.' So your gambit is proof only of an an-ethical crowd attitude, based on focusing on the sins of others in order to turn the conversation away from one's own faults, shortcomings. It works of course, because, as the poet said Humankind cannot bear very much reality. And as another poet wrote:

I and the public know

What all schoolchildren learn,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.

One was also told as a child that it is pointless talking back to garrulous airheads with a lopsided sense of outrage, esp. if that outrage is envenomed by a unilateral sense of righteousness and victimization. In any case, you will be reverted if you offload the usual junk of blinkered pathos on this page. So don't waste your time, or mine, further. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ZScarpia, care to explain your deliberate mischaracterization of Netanyahu's accurate comparison of the Hamas rocket attack on Israel to Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain? The theme of my postscript was hypocrisy and double standards. A bit of context: recently, a complaint was made about Nishidani's use of the Warsaw Ghetto as an example, the complaint being based on the (bogus) grounds that the ADL has stated that comparisons between the regime in Israel and that in Nazi Germany are anti-Semitic. Now, if supporters of Israel find such comparisons objectionable, shouldn't supporters of Israel avoid making those comparisons about others? If making comparisons between the two regimes is anti-Semitic, then what adjective should be used when supporters of Israel make similar comparisons about others. A case in point, which is why I highlighted it to Nishidani, is Netanyahu's comparison between Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and German ones on Britain during the Second World War [13][14]. The justification comment you left above serves as another case in point: The Gazans are very similar to the Nazis and even have the same ideology of wanting to genocide all Jews. As far as accuracy goes, you might like to read the linked-to Telegraph articles and also look at the Wikipedia ones on Qassam and V-2 rockets. If Netanyahu's speech writer had read the latter, perhaps he or she might not have made the historically erroneous claim that, "There's only been one other instance where a democracy has been rocketed and pelleted with these projectiles of death, and that's Britain during World War Two." Since the total Israeli death toll due to rocket attack is three people, if Hamas is really trying to "genocide all Jews", obviously their current rocket strategy isn't the way they're going to achieve it.     ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

• The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
• Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
• Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
• New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
• The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
• Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

People seem to be missing a really simple point here, which is that rockets are not like pistols or knives, that is, weapons that may be privately owned and distributed. They are a form of artillery, and are therefore mostly used and deployed by state actors, or quasi-state actors like Hamas. To say that non-Hamas sources fired some rockets is therefore absurd; Hamas builds and pays for the rockets, therefore, when they are fired, it is highly unlikely that Hamas knew nothing about it, or had nothing to do with it; rather the opposite. In other words, it is a distinction without a difference. Hamas fires the rockets, one way or another, all of them. Theonemacduff (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article says "Hamas and its affiliates had been firing rockets off and on throughout June", which contradicts the official story that Hamas began firing only as a response to Israel's aggression. “WarKosign” 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Nishidani helpfully provided this article, supposedly from a "mainstream Western newspapers, written by [a] competent journalist" that says that "on June 29 or 30 did Hamas restart the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Currently the article does not say that Hamas began its fire on July 7, only intensified it and took formal responsibility - the only change that perhaps is needed is to mention end of June as beginning of Hamas's fire. “WarKosign” 16:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No. One has to weigh the 2 sources, against the several than say differently. I think all of this is one of those issues that demand patience, since there is a source conflict. The simplest way around this, while waiting more definitive work, is to attribute to Sharon and Goldberg the earlier date, and follow Thrall et al., for the assuming responsibility for rockets fired from July 7. Unfortunately, these facts should be ascertainable, but we cannot assume that any of the 9 sources got things right in their respective versions, esp. since no one can figure out whether 29 or 30th. If you don't know which day of two it might be, you don't know. I'm personally amazed scholars can't figure this out, and don't care one way or another whether it is 29/30 or 7 July. But we have to be very careful in this because it is a conflict in sources. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC - (analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only):

@WarKosign, pls pay attention that ITIC doesn't approve the number of "2,157 killed". As I see, it's their database for analysis only :

• "The number of names of those killed, examined by the ITIC to date, based on the Palestinian Health Ministry’s lists, is around 900, i.e., about 42% of the number of Palestinians killed (a total of 2,157, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry issued on September 14, 2014). From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)..." [15]

This is the reason why I've added the "(analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)". --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: I based on "From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)" to say that they don't base their report (only) on GHM. Now I understand what your disclaimer meant - you were referring only to the total number, not to all the numbers by ITIC. They do say, however "After these adjustments, the total number of fatalities examined by the ITIC to date is 1,017, i.e., approximately 47% of the total number of fatalities." - I think we can CALC that ITIC believes total number of fatalities to be 2164 and update the two mentions of it accordingly. “WarKosign” 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'd wait till they finish the work and will publish its results with their CALC numbers. What'd be added at the moment is that they work with somebody's list(s) and count the percentage, not absolute numbers. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Currently their partial report is in the article with the disclaimer that it's not final and the numbers are extrapolated. Unless we remove it completely, better at least use the correct total number of casualties that they provide. “WarKosign” 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the statistics here should be those of tjhe IDF and those of OCHA/UNWRA. The multiplication of Palestinian official or semi-official sources adds nothing. Nor does ITIC help, since it an (un)educated or (dis)interested guess, and a private body. These OCHA/IDF figures 73 vs 55 show the range. Within a few months, when neutral sources publish their results, the picture will be clearer. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: UNRWA with its HAMAS' personnel and "Rockets-inside" - as NPOV source? Are you serious? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please think before you write my way. No source is NPOV. NPOV is what emerges by presenting all relevant POVs and analyses per WP:Due. And it would help improve your approach here if you grasp the fact that you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views, both Israel and Hamas are represented not by rhetorical caricature, but neutrally. The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but after such your comparison as "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" I only have to return your "Please think before you write", "you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable sources. “WarKosign” 06:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in the "daughter" topic about what is so similar to attempt to equate Israel with Nazis : :

if "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" would be true

... then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Gaza problem", because Arabs would not be longer in Gaza. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ITIC, who admits to ignoring most of the data on casualties while adding 100 non-existent militants to further bias its "reports" is a horrific source. We should not even contemplate using such propagandic arms of the Israeli military. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the data comes from the Hamas health ministry, which has been caught double- or even triple-counting the same names with slightly different spelling dozens of times. It is the international news media which should be ashamed for failing to conduct the kind of detailed, independent studies the ITIC has. BTW, while you have a history of arbitrarily reverting anyone who you feel "looks like a paid editor", it is your edits as a likely sockpuppet and single-purpose POV-pusher that arouses suspicion from my perspective.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: according to No personal attacks, "we should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. We should comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Mhhossein (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: - again, it's you opinion only. See from "ITIC at Google Scholar" subtopic above:

• "++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il"

It's your own wp:OR till you bring serious RS with ITIC's critics, as well as your repeatable reverts in List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict seem as wp:WAR. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute ITIC's ability to spread its propaganda, I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates. No honest third party could see value in a source which adds 100 non-existant militants while ignoring most of the data on civilian deaths to get an ideological answer to the ratio of resistant:civilian kills. Israeli organizations often screen data to give ideological answers, just ask Israel's Population and Immigration Authority what's the most popular name in Israel. To "Thetimesareachanging", if thousands of bombs were dropped on my home town I'm sure the victims would share names; I know a few people with identical names. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Perhaps you should read ITIC's methodological notes before you announce that they add "100 non-existant militants". Hamas has an official policy of concealing names of dead militants, and ITIC adds names of known dead militants that Gaza Health Ministry "forgot" to mention. The names are in the lists ITIC publishes, as far as I know ITIC is the only organization that is transparent enough to provide complete list with names, classifications and often pictures of the casualties. GHM is openly a propaganda tool of Hamas, yet we give it due place in the article, so whatever you opinion of ITIC is - no reason not to have it too.

Name duplications: names of the Palestinians usually consists of two first names, father name and a last name - total of 4 names. It is not impossible to have duplications, but the chance of having dozens of double of triple accidental duplications in a list of 2200 names is extremely low. You can see for yourself if you bother reading any of the ITIC reports before criticizing them.“WarKosign” 18:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care how many anti-Palestine hate-blogs you link to. I did read the ITIC methodology; it's brutally clear that it is a terrible resource; they add non-existant militants and they classify all government workers as terrorists. It is their job to spin the slaughter, it's their sole reason to exist. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:: "I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates." - IMHO, so insistent repetition of the charges is another violation of the rules (wp:GF as min). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a clear conflict of interest for members of the organizations spoken of in this article to edit the article. I realize you will not enjoy this fact and will continue to attack me for reminding editors of this fact. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Assuming good faith is not a policy but a recommendation. Not assuming good faith by itself is not a violation, but is likely to lead to uncivil behavior such as personal attacks or edit warring, which are violations of a policies.

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Thank you for reminding us of Conflict of Interests, it is an important policy to keep in mind. Let me remind you that attacking the character of your opponent instead of responding to their argument is not a good way to resolve disputes, in fact it is only one notch better than name calling. “WarKosign” 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never attacked any editor's character nor do I have opponents. ITIC openly ignores data, makes up numbers, and defines all government workers as terrorists. There is no way such an organization should have their reports included within an encylopedia alongside serious organizations' reports. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a paid editor as a part of an argument is an attack on their character. If you have real grounds for concerns, you should take them with administrators. Try to understand that not everybody believes that Hamas is holier than the pope, and not everybody believes that Israel and IDF are the spawn of Satan, even without being paid. You repeated for at least three time that ITIC ignores data and makes data up, without providing any facts. Can you or any source point to any name that ITIC made up or ignored? Repeating this statement doesn't make it any truer - ITIC is an NGO, like many others quoted on this page, so we have to consider it as reliable as Al Mezan or PCHR who also clearly have an agenda. “WarKosign” 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care if you believe HAMAS is holier than the pope, that has nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss; that ITIC is a joke. I've told you multiple times the ITIC adds no name militants to it's reports, if you read the report you would know this, they added 25 no-name "terrorists" four times for a total of 100 non-existant people. ITIC ignores half of those slaughtered; they know as everyone else does the majority of those slain in this unrecognized other half are civilians, you would know this if you read the report. ITIC counts all government employees as "terrorists", that makes their counting and reporting useless, you would know this if you read the report. Though seeing how you keep getting off topic and ignoring all my posts and sending me threats to revert my edits while you continuously undo my work, I think you know you are wrong but are just trying to hold out as long as possible, where is the report button? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating your assertion for at least the fourth time without providing any proof or source. For the last time, are you able to give a reliable source disputing names on ITIC's lists ? As long as you can't, go ahead and believe anything you want but don't act here based on your believes alone. ITIC is a research organization and you probably are not. If you do represent a research organization on the subject your editing here would constitute a conflict of interests as you surely know.“WarKosign” 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

[16] Everything I say is in the source. You are clearly pretending to not understand while you continue to attack my edits, I don't see speaking to you as anymore useful as speaking to a brick wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:I'm sorry, I don't see "we added 100 non-existant people" in the report. Could you be so kind to give me the quote you are referring to in this document ? Maybe you meant restoring names of dead militants that are "accidentally" missing from Hamas's health ministry list ? Feel free to distrust any single source, this is why we have several contradicting sources and don't have to trust either one exclusively. Either GHM is wrong or ITIC is wrong, we will find the truth in a few months. In previous conflicts eventually Hamas released the names of all the dead militants and the final list was very close to the one released by the IDF.

BTW, do you need me to help you file a complaint against me ? Consider reading this first.“WarKosign” 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you would file a report on your poor behaviour, namely your constant reversions, your inability to listen to others, and your constant denial of what is plainly stated in sources, that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I do not think my actions violate any policy or I wouldn't be performing them. I do read your claims carefully and so far your argument consisted of very few facts and a lot of emotions, this did not convince me. Not all the editors here will agree with you, I believe that even editors inclined to prefer the Hamas point of view will find your opinions extreme. Each of us is not alone here, editors either find a way to co-exist with editors they disagree with or they find themselves not being editors anymore. Please read up on edit warring and on when reverting is acceptable. “WarKosign” 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You say you want to find yourself not being an editor anyone, how does this happen? Can you please make it happen? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What you never read in the mainstream Western press.

David Sheen’s Bundestag presentation. Almost every single point was mentioned in passing in most sources, but in isolation, and often en passant. Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Youre far from being in line with reality with that statement. Sheen's hazzling partner Blumenthal has been elected by the Wiesenthal center among 2013 top antisemites for their gibberish, since log they got all the global coverage they deserve. Same for the current incident in the Reichstag, which was not as violent as the shootings in Ottawa but of similar symbolic importance. The two, on the anniversary of the Nazi pogrom night, tried to hazzle linkspartei leader Gysi, a Jewish member of the Reichstag within the spell mile of the parliament. Thats been enough to have those guys expelled there for a lifetime. "Toiletgate" got all the coverage as deserved, but it would be sort of fringy to believe anyone in the mainstream takes those morons for serious, even within ex-communist linkspartei that sort of behavior is unheard of. Serten (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Like so many people who form opinions quicker than Bob Mundan can draw his pistol, you have no knowledge of the people or the subject, and indeed from the timestamp it is clear that you hadn't taken the trouble to read the link, since you replied within 19 minutes, whilst Sheen's speech to the Bundestag committee lasts 25 minutes. And of that 19 minutes you spent at least several googling the usual blogs that associate criticism of anything israeli with anti-Semitism. The Wiesnthal list is a farce, and Blumenthal, had you listened to the related Russell Tribunal on the Gaza War speeches, was proud to be included in it, along with several other distinguished Jews whose humanity is not compromised by an 'ethics' which draws judgements based on the ethnic identity of the subject. If Sheen and Blumental are anti-Semites, so is Mads Gilbert (BBC HARDtalk - Dr Mads Gilbert - Doctor and Activist) (who is anchored in the practical realities, not in your blogospheres of kibitzing nitwits), and, for that matter, myself. Still, as a philologist, I register the fact here that anti-Semitism now also refers to anyone who has empathy for the dispossessed, doesn't look at the ethnicity of a person before expressing sympathy for his plight, and is not blinded by ideologies of ethnic exceptionalism. But, this is pointless. Go away.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd add to that that Serten should check his facts better, especially when writing about living people. Sheen, for example, hasn't, as far as I can make out, featured on any Wiesenthal Center list, but particularly not on its 2013 "top-10 list of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs". Gregor Gysi's "paternal grandmother was Jewish, as was one of his maternal great-grandfathers", which doesn't make him, at least in standard usage, but particularly not halachically, a Jew or Jewish.     ←   ZScarpia   20:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheen NEVER spoke and never will speak to any Bundestag comittee, God forbade. He was invited by two extremist fringe members of the already extremist Linkspartei, Gysi - which is no practising jew but intelligent enough to count as one - tried his best to get the morons excluded from the premises but could hinder them getting access to the MoPs bureaus. Blumenthal made it on the Wiesenthal list. (UTC) The spiegel covered the issue online, the claim about not maing it into the mainstream press is ridiculous.Serten 02:40, 14 November 2014

'God forbade.' The past tense indicates that, in your view, God had a direct hand in denying to an Israeli the right to address the Bundestag! Germans apparently are as deeply informed of the situation in Palestine as they were of the Holocaust while it was underway. Gottes Wege sind unergründlich. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

First you claim Toiletgate is not in the main press, in reality its covered broadly. even the NZZ has an article about it. Now you claim Gysi, about whom the pogromers ran around, has no jewish background but the two progromers are discriminated against. Gosh. Shimon Peres has spoken in the Bundestag, he was invited and it was an honor to have him there. The two morons won't and ain't. Serten 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your assiduous attempts to document your textual illiteracy, incapacity to construe English prose and make the correct inferences, I'm quite busy, no golden lad but still sprightly, cleaning my chimneys this afternoon, and I prefer to accompany the household routine by reciting memorable poems, not ruminating on the hack jobbery of non-thinkers. Thanks. As I said, go away.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Planned abduction/murder of civilians via attack tunnels:

Mhhossein,TheTimesAreAChanging: Will these sources work for you ?

"Hamas had a plan," he said. "A simultaneous, coordinated, surprise attack within Israel. They planned to send 200 terrorists armed to the teeth toward civilian populations. This was going to be a coordinated attack.

"The concept of operations involved 14 offensive tunnels into Israel. With at least 10 men in each tunnel, they would infiltrate and inflict mass casualties."

“WarKosign” 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which newspaper is abused to further Israel's war on Palestine, with all the statements that have been proven false previously any reports coming from Israeli militants and officials should be ignored. WarKosign, are you one of the editors affiliated with the IDF? If you are you would have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles dealing with IDF's offenses.Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and TheTimesAreAChanging: Both of the sources are quoting what IDF has verified. Clearly, you should seek a third party source for such a challenging claim. You may also find many Hamas oriented sources denying such accusations. Who is right, really? Besides, no real proof is presented on what the Hamas militants aimed to do, even if we accept the news. Did they aimed to kill civilians or militants? were they going to make them scared or did they really aimed to make operation? How do you know? So, more reliable and documented sources must be presented. By the way, we'd better also ask other editors such as Nishidani and Kingsindian. Mhhossein (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein's revert is unacceptable. Since he has opted to call in the cavalry rather than defend his inexplicable classification of Vanity Fair as "fringe", I will note that Nishidani used it to source the US arming of Fatah in 2008.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, yet another outrageous accusation of paid editing by Dr. R.R. Pickles, which I will strike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Thanks, but I think Dr. R.R. Pickles should take the claim back themselves. I haven't had the pleasure of working with this user so far. If the personal attacks continue, I will consider measures that are in my disposal.“WarKosign” 08:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What kind of third party source do you imagine we can use ? Some military expert with access to all the data (with full cooperation by IDF and Hamas) that examined the situation and determined that such an attack was indeed planned or not ? Even if there was such a source, it would be immediately contradicted by another expert saying the opposite. I think the best we can do here as with many other subjects is to give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. “WarKosign” 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, denial by Meshal is already in the VF article:

Mishal insists that “the tunnels may have been outwardly called ‘offensive tunnels,’ but in actual fact they are ‘defensive’ ones.’” When pressed to explain why most of the tunnels actually ended up under or near civilian communities or kibbutzim—not military bases—he concedes, “Yes, true. There are Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza. Have any of the tunnels been used to kill any civilian or any of the residents of such towns? No. Never! . . . [Hamas] used them either to strike beyond the back lines of the Israeli army or to raid some military sites . . . This proves that Hamas is only defending itself.”“WarKosign” 08:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This story emerged during the war, presumably from 'interrogations' and the usual methods. At the time it was largely ignored by mainstream newspapers. Other than the IDF confirming now its story, in what mainstream Western newspapers, written by competent journalists, is this revelation mentioned? Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Ciralsky in Vanity Fair (magazine) for one.“WarKosign” 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are a couple more. Enjoy your reading. “WarKosign” 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Sorry for the delay. By a reliable third party source I did not mean a source who has access to the data of the both side. I mean a source with no (or the least) orientation toward the parties involved. I mean, we should not write such a challenging material on the basis of no real document! In fact non of the sources say how it is understood that the civilians were of the goals of hamas militants. I reckon, it is not fair to say for sure they were going to kill and kidnap civilians! But I'm in agreement with WarKosign when he says that we should give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. It is our Job here to let the Wikipedia readers know the claims of both sides, not for this specific subject but for all of the matters. We have to mention exactly who is claiming X and who is claiming Y and say why they are claiming so. If they have no reasoning behind their claims we can understand who might be right! This is what I believe and that's why I'm upset with how TheTimesAreAChanging is editing this text! I'd like to ask him to make a self revert, because of the problems mentioned above, or to mention that this is just a claim by a party and also add the claims from the opposite partiy. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think the sources above match this criteria, all of them attribute the claim to IDF officers. VF article is longer and more details than the others with the author going into a tunnel himself, and also quoting Mishal's denial. If we add Mishal'd denial (paraphrase of what is as quoted above), will it be sufficient in your opinion to consider this segment neutral ?

Another question - since this section deals with alleged intentional murder/abduction of civilians, would it be proper to move it to "alleged humanitarian law violations" section ? Alleged attack of civilians is certainly a violation, but how about planning and preparing for one? “WarKosign” 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither Glenn Beck's TheBlaze nor Inquisitr are 'mainstream' (what I asked for) sources. Neither are reliable. Vanity Fair is reliable. The content of VF's article is identical to that circulated in late July, and it is called by Ciralsky 'the alleged plan of attack'. Therefore, there is no update, nothing new. We havce a wartime allegation. And so again, why is the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, etc.etc. not reporting this astonishing leak, and why have no further details than those bruited about in July 2014 come forth?Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about The Blaze, which is why I'm surprised its my edit that has been repeatedly reverted. @Mhhossein, I attributed the claim to six senior IDF officials.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If six HAMAS officials announced that Israel was planning on nuking Gaza during the conflict would we add it and then balance it by writing that Israel denies their plans to nuke Gaza? Of course not, we would all see it as a clear media play, trying to defame their occupiers. We need to stop writing "IDF says this bad thing about HAMAS", "HAMAS says this bad thing about IDF", does anyone really believe that a nation which commits mass killings will see using the media to their advantage as going too far? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you also suggest to remove "According to Palestinians on 1 October, Israeli forces entered the Gaza Strip and fired upon Palestinian farmers and farms. No injuries were reported." or "A bomb disposal expert in the Palestinian Interior Ministry said that by 22 August, 8,000 bombs and 70,000 artillery shells, or 20,000 tons of explosives". It is not such a bad idea, I suggested to define an objective criteria for inclusion in the POV section. “WarKosign” 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should remove all Israeli media and all reports based on statements made by Israelis?! That is so such a bad idea. I of course only stated that the inclusion of attacks made by warring parties made through media should be questioned. I would never support a racist criteria for inclusion. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Two examples that I provided are actually by Palestinians. I meant that we need a way to decide if a statement by an individual is noteworthy or not. High ranking officials should probably be in, unnamed individuals should probably be out, but there is a wide range of notability between them. “WarKosign” 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I'd like to add mesh'al denial. Could you please give me the source? Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: VF article has one, I believe Nishidani already added it. “WarKosign” 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he has done that. But I think it is not covered as it should be. Mhhossein (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent change - another source:

I noticed this revert. Without getting into whether or not the way the argument is presented is correct (I haven't fully checked), would USA Today be accepted? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The new wording that I removed was sourced to The Washington Free Beacon, an organization far from journalism. I do not see your source including any statements on what Abbas believes to have been the overall effect of the attacks on Gaza on Hamas. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided not 1 but 3 sources. I have no objection whatsoever to removing the beacon as source. Anything else ? “WarKosign” 11:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit is not only a revert, it is a bulk POV push - it includes a revert of my edits yesterday (without providing any reason), as well as removing ITIC, which violates 1RR and contradicts the existing consensus on representing all the different POVs on the numbers/percents of casualties.

This USA today's article may be usable somewhere in the article, but not as a reference for this statement. In the 3 new sources I added yesterday Abbas says that he doesn't believe Hamas won (never actually says that it lost) and Hamas did not gain anything. In this new source he says that Hamas could avoid all the casualties. Taken together I understand them to mean that in his opinion Hamas caused (or did not prevent) death and suffering in Gaza for no gain, but this is WP:OR or WP:SYN unless there is a reliable source that makes this connection. “WarKosign” 07:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias in the article:

As we all know this article has a very heavy anti-Palestinian bias so I thought I would list some of the problems I see so we can go about improving this article.

1. )No mention of the Israeli occupation of Gaza in the lead
2. )No mention that the two who murdered the Israelis in Palestine were rogues
3. )No mention of HAMAS' goals in the lead despite entertaining Israel's reasoning for its attacks
4. )No mention of Israel targeting homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, factories, the power and sewage treatment plants, politicians, ambulances, journalists, and children
5. )We state that HAMAS refused to "recognize Israel's right to exist, and renounce violence", yet we don't state that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist or to renouce violence
6. )We never state that Israel is legally responsible to ensuring the protection of all Gazans
7. )We never state how most Gazans are refugees
8. )We state that HAMAS captured an Israeli soldier, yet no mention of the thousands of Palestinians captured by Israel
9. )We don't state how Israel often stalled peace talks by stating they could not negotiate with Palestine as HAMAS and Fatah were split
10. )We don't state how Israel often stalled peace talks by stating they could not negotiate with Palestine as HAMAS and Fatah were united
11. )We don't state that Israel would not allow Abbas to enter Gaza when HAMAS and Fatah were to rejoin
12. )We state Operation Pillar of Defense began with Israel killing a Palestinian in response to 100 rockets fired from Gaza but we don't state how Israel had killed several Palestinian children (and adults) as the reason for the rockets
13. )We don't mention many details on Israel's attacks on the West Bank. Israeli troops stealing money, flags, shooting civilians, nighttime raids, curfews, kidnapping politicians, are all missing
14. )Israeli attacks are always written as "in response" while the resistant's attacks are not
15. )Several sentences on militants entering Israel is followed by the terse "the Israeli military entered Shuja'iyya ... resulting in heavy fighting", no mention of the atrocities committed by Israel there.
16. )Saleh al-Arouri's comments are reported twice in extreme length even despite it being obvious he was clueless as he believed the three were actually kidnapped and being held for a trade.
17. )We have unnamed "human rights groups" attacking the GHM's body count as inflated
18. )We talk about Israel giving warnings before it bombs people to smithreens, but we don't mention how HAMAS was sending warnings to Israeli civilians before rocket launches
19. )We have an undue weight tag next to the two lines on IDF vandalism of Palestinian homes
20. )Israel's use of Palestinians as human shields is very empty, were are the cases of Israeli troops raiding homes, placing civilians at the windows as the IDF shoots out of them, or how the IDF murdered Palestinians who could speak Hebrew
21. )We never mention that Palestinians have the right under international law to use violence against their occupiers
22. )We have paragraphs on Israel's allegations that HAMAS intimidated journalists but we have nothing on Israel's intimidation, censorship, and murder of journalists
23. )We use notoriously ideological sources like MEMRI, ITIC, Washington Beacon, Arutz Sheva

And there are more problems but these are just a few I listed which make it seem as though this article is the property of the IDF. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of your comment is a fantasy, but on two specific points: 1) Saleh al-Arouri is the senior Hamas official who directs their West Bank operations, was reported responsible for the kidnappings prior to claiming responsibility, and directed the foiled Hamas coup plot. The kidnappers stupidly panicked and killed the Israeli teenagers after finding they could not restrain all three, one of whom had served in the IDF. The material is mentioned twice because of the "Operation Timeline" section not working until recently, and that section merely repeating information from a separate article regardless of if it is all needed. 2) The myth that Israel hit the power plant, which then miraculously recovered after predictions it would take a year to rebuild, is indeed covered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we quickly mention how Israel bombed the plant but we don't mention that Israel was targeting infrastructure in violation of international law which is what I was getting at. If you could add a bit on that or help solve some of the other 21 standing problems that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please no one take this seriously. 75% of the things he complains about are already in the article. The other 25% is just POV nonsense.Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are again duly noted and disregarded. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll humour you:

1. To fit with the policy, it was agreed to keep the lead free of disputable claims. The article on Gaza Strip says it has not been under occupation since 1994. If you mean the blockade - it is mentioned early in the background.
2. The fact they were rogues is a disputable claim, and the article includes denial by Meshal as well as admission by Saleh al-Arouri.
3. Do you mean the goal to obliterate Israel ? Their list of demands was mentioned in the article, it is not there anymore. Perhaps it should be restored.
4. Read #Alleged violations by Israel
5. Do you have a source for the claim that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist?
6. Do you have a source for this responsibility ?
7. "A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons or because they are fleeing a war". 97% of Gaza residents are under age of 65 which means they were born after 1948, so they are not refugees by definition.
8. The infobox says that Israel arrested 250 people, 159 of them identified as militants. Do you have a source for a bigger number ?
9. Source?
10. Source? Is it relevant ? Can Israel prevent Abbas from crossing the border to Jordan and then from Egypt into Gaza ?
11. I assume you mean Operation Protective Edge. The Khan Yunnis incident is mentioned: "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas operatives" and even that is not perfectly correct since there are sources indicated that the militants blew themselves up while examining explosives possibly damaged by strike.
12. I assume you mean Operation Brother's keeper. In my opinion it should have a separate article.
13. Do you have a source describing "Israel's agression" which is not in response to an action of the militants ?
14. Any sources for these "atrocities" ? Check #Alleged violations by Israel.
15. Any source on Saleh al-Arouri being clueless ? He is the handler of the Hamas network in Judea and Samaria, if he is clueless who isn't ?
16. Check the source.
17. You're right, Hamas text message harassment of people in Israel is missing.
18. I agree it is undue. A single case without reliable sources. Someone thinks it is important, some editor thought otherwise and added the tag so it can be discussed. This is a good way to handle disputes without damaging the article. Read up on WP:UNDUE
19. Source ?
20. Source ?
21. #Attacks on journalists
22. We use GHM, B'tselem, HRW, Maannews, UNWRA, PCHR. We use sources from both sides to generate a balanced view.

Next time, read the article and check your facts before you write. “WarKosign” 06:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on failing to discuss a single point presented, your personal attack is duly noted, I'll keep it with the others. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: I did in fact respond to every single of your 22 points, even the silliest ones. I see that you can't be bothered to provide sources, only empty and often factually incorrect accusations. I never referred to your personality or even editing style, so there is no person attack whatsoever. Your repeated implied threats of reporting can be seen as harassment. “WarKosign” 07:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign may prefer to be reasonable and polite, but I say it's time to stop feeding the troll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What made me laugh was @Dr. R.R. Pickles: talking about how Hamas was "sending warnings to Israeli citizens" before rocket launches. Hamas rockets are unguided and inaccurate, which makes them illegal under international law. So even if Hamas was "warning" Israeli citizens and even if Hamas wasn't aiming for Israeli citizens (which they can't do anyway), it's a completely pointless warning. Nonetheless, the "warnings" were propaganda and meant to terrorize and spread paranoia among Israeli citizens. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

R. R. Pickles does have a point - this psychological warfare is not represented anywhere in the article. I'm not sure where it should be added, though - timeline ? military technology ? Perhaps in the section dealing with Israel warning Gaza citizens via text messages before imminent bombing and Hamas claiming that it was a form of psychological warfare ?“WarKosign” 16:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can continue to throw insults and add tags on everything you don't like, this is what I expected as an article can not get this terrible by chance. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: What is "Judea and Samaria"? No such region exists. It is the West Bank. The fact that you would refer to it with that term points out how biased you are. JDiala (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

West Bank of what, exactly? The term only makes sense if the territory is still under Jordanian occupation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes enough sense for the US[17], Canada[18], the UK[19], just about every member country in the UN general assembly[20], the UN itself[21], the ICJ[22], the EU[23], human rights organizations [24][25][26], the ICRC[27], NGOs[28][29]and even this site. Evidently, it makes sense to the entire world, other than highly partisan, ardent nationalist-Zionist apartheid-supporters like yourself and Mr. Kosign. JDiala (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala:Sure it exists; I was there several times. Judea and Samaria Area is "the historical biblical names for the territory now generally referred to as the West Bank". In this case I just copy-pasted it with Saleh al-Arouri's description from the first result on google when looking him up. You can't know if I support Jewish settlement in the West Bank or not (which is what I assume you imply using the false comparison to apartheid).

BTW thanks for reverting R. R. Pickles's nonsense, note you've accidentally violated 1RR there. A few (better selected) quotes from Ban Ki-moon's speech do belong in the reactions article. “WarKosign” 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is no different than people calling the region of Israel + Palestinian territories as Palestine or Land of Israel. The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria before it was called the West Bank. It's just as legitimate. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Unity government salaries

@Nishidani: You wrote "Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials". Your source says "Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza" (without direct connection to threat/opportunity). There are other sources saying that "Barely a week after the national unity government was sworn in, the reconciliation efforts appear to be teetering on the brink over who should pay the salaries of 50,000 Hamas-appointed civil servants in Gaza." and "The salary crisis concerns 50,000 employees, 10,000 of whom receive their salaries from the PA, while the remaining 40,000 get paid by Hamas a total of $25 million per month." Surely if it was Israel blocking the money they wouldn't forget to mention it. “WarKosign” 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Abbas who blocked the payments: In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists. He said Hamas should keep paying their salaries "until we agree" on a solution. He also criticized the protests by Hamas loyalists over the salary issue, saying it was a "bad sign."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me address WarKosign, who understands that these issues are technical, and require technical details, not slabs of 'stuff'.

in para 4 'Netanyahu, who never had any intention of making the necessary concessions, as his own statements would later reveal,' ('Netanyahu: Gaza Conflict Proves Israel Can't Relinquish Control of West Bank,' The Times of Israel 11 July 2014:'“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan” — a reference to the Jordan Valley and the West Bank.')

in para 5, immediately after this: Instead of choosing a different path, 'Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza, sending a clear message that Israel would not treat Gaza any different under the rule of moderate technocrats from the Palestinian Authority.'

It's not our brief to question RS, except when they conflict. Esp. one cannot challenge a statement in one RS by, as you do, noting that statement is not mentioned in another source (fallacy of argumentum ex silentio). Still, since you ask, the allusion is to the technical fact that Ramallah transfers funds to Gaza

Palestinian banks have remained stable despite the global economic crisis, but have suffered from deteriorated relations with Israeli correspondent banks since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, at which time Israeli banks cut ties with Gaza branches and gradually restricted cash services provided to West Bank branches. All Palestinian banks were required to move their headquarters to Ramallah in 2008. Israeli restrictions on the movement of cash between West Bank and Gaza branches of Palestinian banks have caused intermittent liquidity crises in Gaza and the West Bank for all major currencies: U.S. dollars, Jordanian dinars, but mainly Israeli shekels (NIS). 2014 Investment Climate Statement - West Bank and Gaza, U.S. Department of State, June 2014.

It is only my assumption but it would appear that, since Israel has veto powers over Palestinian Ramallah bank transfers to Gaza, it let through payments to PA civil servants in Gaza, while blocking the same for Hamas civil servants, since only the former were paid. Under the terms of the 23 April agreement, the task of sorting out Hamas salaries was delegated to a special commission. Under the unity government, Hamas could not pay its own men (apart from the fact it was broke, because that task was officially delegated to the PNA technocrat, I think it was Rami Hamdallah. There is a simple reason for this. Under the terms, Hamas was denied any role in the unity government, to reassure the West that the PNA was exclusively in charge, and that monies to the PNA would not fall into the hands of what some foreign states define as a terrorist organization. The PNA paid its own officials their salaries for two months, but dragged its feet on paying Hamas's cadres. What Sharon states is that Israel was behind this. As often, I do not know where the truth lies (truths don't lie, truisms and self-evident truths do, of course:). All I know is that, as in earlier contentious issues, I write what the best available sources tell me, do not challenge them, whatever my personal views or research suggest, and bid my time until further light is shed on the matter.

One could for the moment write 'Israel' reportedly blocked...' if the problem is in the implicit attribution of such a move to Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see two problems:

1. Attribution to Netanyahu (when the source says "Israel") and connection to the threat Netayahu supposedly saw. It is in the spirit of the source, but it simply doesn't make this connection even implicitly - the statements are more than 2 paragraphs apart.
2. Conflict with other sources (that can't be accused of being pro-Israel). I do not find your explanation about technicalities convincing. According to TheTimesAreChangin's stuff, "In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists".

The first problem is plain source misrepresentation that is easy to fix by splitting it into two separate statements, same as in the source. The second part can be solved by representing both versions, but I don't see what's the point in having it:

"Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity. Either Israel or PA blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials." - If I were to read it, my reaction would be "what's the connection and why is it notable?" I suggest to remove the salaries part altogether, maybe the threat/opportunity rhetoric as well since the next sentence quotes Netanyahu opposing the unity government - one does not oppose an opportunity. “WarKosign” 20:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I already suggested the solution to (1), so it is not a problem, - it is not source misrepresentation - almost every newspaper in the world uses interchangeabley what a PM determines and what the policy of his nation is. Please familiarize yourself with usage. The 'White House' is interchangeable with 'Obama'. Can I remind you and TTAAC that sources that are RS cannot be challenged for their content, unless manifestly wrong, or undue. You are both making a procedural error. There is nothing undue in stating that Netanyahu ignored the possibility of alternative responses to the unity government because he regards Palestinian unity as a threat. Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal, as his behaviour, that of the government he presides and his rhetoric consistently underline. There is nothing unusual about Assaf Sharon's observation.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What is notable to one person, is not notable to the other. It was notable for the writer, Assaf Sharon. Your objections seem based on dislike to distaste.

@Nishidani: Israel is a parliamentary democracy, so the prime minister is not the head of the state (unlike a president in USA. A reference to the White House or to 10 Downing Street is an unambiguous reference to the person who's official residence it is. While there is an official residence of the prime minister of Israel, it is not used as his office and is not used interchangeably. While it is possible that sometimes "Israel" is written instead of "prime minister of Israel" it is more likely that it means "government of Israel", "IDF", "people of Israel" or something else.

1. I am not questioning the source on point #1, I'm questioning your interpretation. The source does not state that Netanyahu (or Israel) decided to block the money transfer because he/it saw the unity government as a threat.
2. This source says that Israel blocked the money transfer. There are multiple other sources contradicting it. You cannot challenge RSs that say that it was Abbas's decision not to transfer the money to Hamas.

I wrote "not notable" about my own hypothetical bad version of article and suggested one that I consider better (remove opportunity/threat and the blocked salaries). You are welcome to suggest something else that would match all the sources, make sense and sound relatively good. “WarKosign” 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson, but you persist in ignoring the obvious solution I offered, even in your latest effort. I said you put 'Israel' as subject of the second clause yesterday, and ignoring this you put in a 'failed verification' tag. All you had to do for a compromise was insert 'Israel' as I suggested.

Just a note but The President of Israel is not Israel, whereas the Prime Minister heads the government whose policies are enacted as Israeli policies. The President of Israel has nothing to do with this.

Why are you asserting I joined the clauses with 'because'? I wrote:'Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials".' I then suggested this be emended to

Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and Israel blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials".

In neither case does 'and' in English connote 'because'. If you can point out some language where the equivalent conjunctions for 'and' and 'because' are interchangeable, I'd be curious, as a philologist.

There are no 'multiple other sources' contradicting Assaf Sharon's statement. That one source does not mention what Assaf Sharon stated does not contradict him (WP:OR) by the way. The premise here is that if two compatible versions of an event (it is quite compatible for Israel to insist Abbas not pay those salaries, since Israel has veto power over Ramallah banking transfers) exist, but a key detail in one is not in the other, then the key detail is dubious. That is nonsensical as an editorial rule.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Indeed splitting the sentence and changing the subject of the second sentence to Israel makes the statement match the source so it fixes problem #1. I did not understand that this was what you were proposing yesterday.

As for problem #2 - we have Sharon saying "Israel did X". We have 3 sources above (and there are plenty more online) saying "Abbas did X". Are you saying that it is not the same X, or that all the sources actually meant "Israel made Abbas do X" but accidentally forgot to write so ? Unless you have other sources collaborating Sharon, I suggest to consider his version fringe - maybe it deserves a mention, but it is not a part of the event sequence as seen by everybody else.

Use of the word and - check WP:SYNTH. The second example of how not to write uses the word and to imply a casual connection not present in the source. “WarKosign” 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

'And' is a connective particle, and both points come from the same article. There is no synthesis, but concision of paraphrase so WP:SYNTH is irrelevant.

Neither source (1) nor (3) tell one anything, because there are no details. Source (2) is excellent because it gives on some detailed insight. As I indicated above, Ramallah banking is subject to Israeli oversight. The unity agreement made the the new government fully responsible for the employees. But then the PA withheld the salaries of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam military employees of Hamas. it is logical to deduce that transfer of funds from the PNA in Ramallah would run into problems with Israeli authorities, which, given their line (shared by the US) that funding of 'terrorists' is unlawful, would regard the implementation of the reconciliation agreement dealing with the technocrats assuming responsibility for all employees as proof that the unity government was subsidizing terrorism were it to pay Hamas cadres. Now, I don't know where Sharon got his evidence (if you read his philosophical papers, his expertise is in logical and textual scruple) that Israel was behind the blocking of payments. Al Monitor writes not that Abbas blocked the payments but that:“would not be able to pay Hamas employee salaries prior to agreeing on all the details associated with the reconciliation agreement.” read properly that does not allow one to attribute to Abbas the decision: 'would not be able to pay' refers to technical ability, conditional on clarifications of the concrete details that had to be ironed re the implications of the generic declaration that the PNA's technocratic government would take over responsibility for employees.

Of course, we can sidestep the crux by writing for 'and the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials either blocked by Israel(ref Assaf Sharon) or withheld by the PNA (Adnan Abu Amer, 'Protests by Hamas government workers force banks to close,' Al-Monitor 9 June 2014).

This, like a lot of things here, is not a closed issue. My principle is to give all versions without prejudice. Most of what we think we know is just surface scratching. There's an excellent statement of the cognitive bias in a paper Assaf Sharon wrote with Levi Spectre,Dogmatism Repuzzled, on a puzzle by Saul Kripke. I don't presume to know the truths, so I have no trouble with fresh evidence or indications that might destabilize provisory impressions.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This solution of giving both versions works for me. In such case and would be connecting between two sources so it is unacceptable or even meaningless ("Netanyahu felt threatened and PNA blocked the transfer").

Two statements in the same source (where they are not connected) can be synthesized to imply a claim not in the source using and: "Before the current operation began, Hamas was at one of the lowest points in its history and on June 29 or 30 it restarted the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Even if there was a full stop, mere placement of sentences in a sequence implies causality: "It is raining. I will not leave my home today" - no, not because of the rain, I just don't feel like it. “WarKosign” 12:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: "Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal..." - please list these observers. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Put 'neutral' and 'informed' observers.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Read up on Martin Indyk's views, and read Assaf Sharon's note p.20 that:'His press adviser told Yediot Ahronot that Netanyahu intentionally “led the talks nowhere.”' Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's all for so global conclusion? I hope you know that there are other "'neutral' and 'informed'" sources besides of these two ones that do not agree with them.

By the way, who is this Assaf Sharon ("'neutral' and 'informed'"?) whom you so like and placed his own POV almost to all sections of the article as a fact? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I happen not to agree with Mr Sharon on several points in his article, but that is neither here nor there. Neutrality is always a relative thing, as any philosopher like Sharon would acknowledge. He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of the newspaper pabulum cited as the main sources for this article, much of it written by hacks and POV pushers, as you can see at a glance by checking how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles. Like Thrall, Sharon gives a more detached perspective than what daily reportage allows, and the same is true of JJ Goldberg, with whom one often differs. Some years down the line, it is this quality of reportage, academic, or honest, or relatively balanced, which will replace our unfortunate dependence on newspapers. Newspapers have a 'party line' because they write for a constituency. Those three gentleman do not write or spin their texts to palliate national or sectarian interests. They inform themselves deeply, and strive to give a fair overview. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding to your "how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles". You may like it or not, but the fact is that

"Hamas or its military wing is designated as a terrorist organization by Australia,[10] Canada,[11] Egypt,[12] the European Union,[13][14] Israel, Japan,[15] the United Kingdom,[16] and the United States,[17] and is banned in Jordan.[18] It is not considered a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia,[19] Turkey,[20]China,[21][22][23][24] and some Arab nations."

One can see that "terrorism" is the common word for Hamas. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• "He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of" :)

Haaretz: Molad (where Sharon is academic director) - 'is "committed to leftist renewal" in Israel...'

NGO Monitor (MOLAD, 2012):

Officials: Avraham Burg is a founder and chair of Molad. Head of Molad is Avner Inbar, co-founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. Research director is Assaf Sharon, a leader of Breaking the Silence, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, and Ta’ayush. Director of Policy is Mikhael Manekin, former Breaking the Silence official.
Funders: According to an article in Ha’aretz, Molad is “funded by left-liberal foundations and groups from the U.S. associated with the Democratic party...”

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Shocking! Good grief! TAF employs people who believe in the democratic renewal of their country, try to build bridges of understanding, assist people robbed of their land, and whose futures are foreclosed on, philosophical humanists of distinction so 'leftist' they are funded by the Democratic Party of a foreign power, the U.S., (which is no doubt undermining with such diversion of funding, with such handouts, the chance of increasing the $3 billion + annually is forks out to Israel, which uses part of the cash to, precisely, build on Palestinian land in Sheikh Jarrah! Thanks for the laugh. I sometimes need a smile as I retire with a cup of tea to the saddling paddock after a weary day. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Already not shocking, but it's simply strange for me that you continue to name the man with so definite agenda as 'neutral' placing his own POV only as the fact.

So this your edit: "Assaf Sharon and Thrall alone would be sufficient to write these sections. Added AS" should be revised & attributed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thing to try and get the hang of some elementary things. Saying someone whose work you dislike or disagrees with, 'has an agenda' is meaningless, except as an expression of distaste. Those who use it have their own agenda. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To have an agenda means that “I know that h (my agenda) is true, I know that any evidence against h is evidence against something that is true; so I know that such evidence is misleading. So once I know that h is true, I am in a position to disregard any future evidence that seems to tell against h.” If you can show that Sharon or Thrall are known, in their worlds, for ignoring the evidence, you can say with reason they 'have an agenda'.

Scholars, or analysts in the worlds inhabited by the Thralls and Sharons of this world, cannot 'have an agenda' in this sense, because to have one would mean ignoring any evidence that contradicts what they think they know. Unlike journalistic hacks, spokesmen, politicians, and agenda-driven private think tank resident 'scholars', you can't get very far in your career if you are known by peers to constantly ignore, rather than confront, the available evidence. Journalists, politicians, et al. do not have peer review. If Thrall and Sharon as scholars need attribution, then every article cited on the page requires attribution to whoever wrote it and the organ it was published in.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

TheTimesAreAChanging I’m putting you on notice. You have three times made automatic reverts of the rare edits I make, in a way that violates WP:AGF, are incoherent in policy terms and override talk page discussion. This suggests you are targeting my editing to a purpose, i.e.dislike or for harassment. Do this once more, without exercising the courtesy of addressing a perceived problem on the talk page, and you will be reported.

(1) first automatic revert with spurious edit summary:’Random blog by assistant professor tentatively recounting a "very convoluted" Arab media report that also mentions Hamas' repeated public statements rocket fire would continue until the end of the blockade is undue.’ This turned out, per the talk page, to be an authoritatively sourced statement, and was restored by another editor.

(2) second automatic revert with meaningless edit summary:’ Nishidani, is it that hard to write a logically coherent sentence? (Escalation refers to massive upsurge in rocket attacks until Israel met Hamas' demands.’. 'Premature escalation' is a nonsense expression in English.

(3) third automatic revert, with spurious edit summary, generic accusation and a non-policy based ‘rationale. ‘ RV POV-push with bad formatting.’ It also contradicts the verdict of the relevant talk page section where two editors agreed to my proposal and only you, (aside from the now suspended editor MarciulionisHOF, whose remarks were incoherent in policy terms, disagreed. Given it is now effectively 3 against 1, the edit I made, duly discussed, has legitimate warrant to be reincluded.

Disagreements about formatting are not reasons for reverting. Editors normatively fix bad formatting. No evidence is given for the assertion that an edit I proposed on the talk page is POV-pushing. It was closer to the source, etc. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It was restored by Dr. R.R. Pickles, a single-purpose POV pusher and serial editor warrior, with no edit summary. It is still an additional, excessive, wildly undue incident from a dubious source, but I decided to walk away--even though similar edits by myself had been repeatedly reverted on vague grounds. (I still don't know why Omri Ceren is less reliable than your blog.) In general, I find the sheer number of progressive blogs you pass off as "scholarship" deeply disturbing. 2. That scarcely even counts as a revert. I fixed a completely incoherent collection of words you tried to pass off as a sentence: "According to the allegation, dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification', "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds", Hamas planned to..." The phrase "premature escalation" was never used, and you fabricated the Meshaal quote. 3. Your edit was much farther away from the source, which is why you added another source to supplement it. Contrary to your "consensus", JDiala proposed and implemented a change to the problematic sentence, which I accepted before you went nuclear with lengthy and undue regurgitation of propaganda. Finally, only one of those edits was a full revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

'dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification' (Nishidani)

'You made up the Meshaal quote.'TheTimesAreAChanging)

Adam Cirilsky,' Did Israel Avert a Hamas Massacre?,' Vanity Fair, October 21, 2014

The alleged plan of attack (as pieced together by defense and security professionals through electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds during the war) was chilling: a surprise assault in which scores of heavily armed Hamas insurgents were supposedly set to emerge from more than a dozen cross-border tunnels and proceed to kill as many Israelis as possible. Khalid Mishal, the leader of Hamas, also agreed to speak to Vanity Fair, to give his perspective. He insists that such a nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification and that employing the tunnels to kill Israeli citizens was never Hamas’s intention.

You imply you had read the source, and rightly so, justified its inclusion. Therefore, either you are lying to a purpose in asserting I made up a statement directly quoted from that self-same source, or you didn't read the very paper you selectively quoted from. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the quality of your editing, your contrafactual refusal to accept I edit in good faith, and your attribution to me of a practice of inventing quotes (WP:OR), an extremely serious claim in wikipedia and the kind of behaviour that justifiably earns almost automatic suspensionif proven, in what is a comprehensive WP:AGF violation. You have blatantly falsified my record, and that is the fourth instance of your hostility.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This user has a clear agenda. His inexplicable removal of a sourced claim, which was by no means undue and provided good balance to the otherwise somewhat pro-Israel immediate events section, because it was somehow "POV-pushing"[no explanation given as to how] and "bad formatting" is nonsense. I'd revert it right now, though I've already crossed the 1RR limit. JDiala (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you try to pass off VF's summary as a direct quote? Given the number of things I read every day, you'll forgive me for not remembering that exact line and using control+find to check every quote in the article when I suspected there was something fishy to your edit besides its incomprehensibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not what this discussion is about, but the source should be either explicitly quoted or paraphrased. This use of the source borders on WP:PLAGIARISM.“WarKosign” 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole text as I saw it entered was full of "" snippets. I don't use "", as anyone familiar with my editing knows. I usually change that to ' ' when I quote a source. TTAAC mightn't know that, but in his original edit summary he did not mention this idea he brings up now, that I was attributing the source words to Meshaal. That would have been a legitimate query had he mentioned it, or, better still, had he simply checked the text and fixed it as what it is, Cirilsky's paraphrase of Meshaal's reaction to the 'nightmare scenario' sketched out. Editors are obliged to check, query, and fix. To erase stuff like that is just edit-warring to a purpose.

What caught my eye when I made my rush edit (well past midnight my time, as the sleepy skewed syntax suggests) was the duplicity of this:

'According to "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery" etc.

Here the series of terms are governed by 'according to', which means that the IDF account is a fact. Then the text added that it was 'according to the six Israeli intelligence officials'. The whole sentence should have read 'According to six Israeli intelligence officials'who say they based their account on intercepts, interrogations and informants' etc...

(It can't be based on 'satellite imagery'. Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future, and frankly using it in this context undermines the claim)

That is the sort of devious textual gamesmanship I was endeavouring to edit, by copying and pasting in what VF said of Meshaal's reply, which, had I had my wits about me instead of rushing off an edit before bedtime, would have properly read:

'the allegation, a nightmare scenario dismissed by Khaled as a post hoc justification.'

The fact remains that TTAAC consistently targets my edits with ridiculous edit summaries for his reverts, and the post-facto justifications are just that.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

An edit summary is just that, a summary. The talk page is for detailed discussion. If you want to defend your use of the Haaretz source I reverted, you should open a new section and state your rationale and actually acquire the consensus you claimed to have. Then, I could explain that we already have at least one Meshaal denial that Hamas targets civilians (see "rocket attacks" section of "Hamas violations") and don't need another, ect. JDiala's involvement here is grotesque hypocrisy from an editor who routinely deletes much larger amounts of material with edit summaries like "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE" and who violated 1RR as recently as 18 hours ago, with no sanctions (evidently the admin are harder on perceived pro-Israel editors). As is citing "everyone else is probably a paid editor" Dr. R.R. Pickles as a neutral arbiter while condemning my alleged failure to AGF.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated, you have been put on notice for a dubious pattern of abuseive reverting.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently satellites can be used for detection of tunnels: "American satellites – equipped with special high resolution infrared detection technology – have preliminary findings of around 60 tunnels on the Israel-Gaza border". Information they provide may be used to determine the likely intended use of a tunnel. “WarKosign” 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote:'Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future'. Numerous tunnels were known, presumably also by satellite imagery detection, to have existed before the war. No satellite imagery can determine what a tunnel is used for. No satellite can detect the specific intention of tunnel builders (-this one's to kill Israeli civilians'!) It undermines the briefing's seriousness (well, it made me laugh) and that's why I suggested it was stupid to retain it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:LOL! My (accidental) violation of 1RR was pro-Israel; I was reverting Pickles' borderline-vandalism which was anti-Israel. Regarding the "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE POV claims...removed" edit I made, the edit summary has a character limit. I will explain that edit now: the sources used for the claims I removed ("The high success rate (95%) in blocking such plots is due to the very close cooperation between the security forces of both sides") and ("Hamas has put considerable effort into kidnapping attempts through its large network"), [30][31] [32] were unreliable. The first and third of those three sources can be dismissed out of hand per WP:NEWSORG. Furthermore, the third one is an editorial, and the first one refers to Hamas as a "terrorist" group, so its impartiality and biasedness is quite clear(biased claims are allowed, but they must be attributed and be balanced and not undue). The second one from The Washington Post doesn't say anything about whether or not Hamas "put effort into the kidnapping attempts throughout its large network"; it says that is what Israel says. Remember, biased, controversial, or disputed claims must be attributed and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence JDiala (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Amos Harel writing for Foreign Policy is perfectly good RS. That the PNA polices its own on behalf of Israel and the United States, who pay them, is well known, as is the fact that most of the success rate is due to information given Shin Bet by the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

WarCosin. this use of 'attribution' for the term 'occupation' is completely wrong. It is the status of Israel's presence in international law, underwritten by the UN Security Council Resolution 271 (15 September 1969), calling on Israel to 'scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation' and by the International Court of Justice's Legal Consequences of the Construction nof a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There's no elbow room for playing mickey mouse with the text. Meshaal was using the standard language of law, not expressing his own opinion. I will revert this if no one else does.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I will revert it in just a moment. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: I see that you continue edit warring and again chose to push your version of the article instead of trying to achieve consensus. If you do not self-revert and try to discuss your proposed change I see no choice but to file an arbitration request against you. “WarKosign” 18:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Ok, I accept that Gaza is widely considered to be occupied. As long as "legitimate resistance" and such are attributed, I can live with "occupied". “WarKosign” 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's remarks concerned events in the West Bank (3 teenagers) as well. The West Bank is under law 'occupied', however one might like to equivocate on Gaza, referring to aingle judgement of the Gaza boat incident.

By the way, much effort went in to pinning the blame on Hamas for being behind the West Bank kidnapping, and now we are told Israeli intelligence says the mass civilian killing tunnel plot upset Hamas's plans. Readers will be laughing at the juxtaposition. Hamas upset its own plans.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hamas claimed it was a rogue cell, so not really a contradiction there. “WarKosign” 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WarKoSign, you yourself violated the 1RR. It's clear that Israel is the occupying force in the Palestinian territories. Meshaal actually speaks about the West Bank in this case. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very willing to discuss my edits, I've tried but not a single person has listened or replied to me. I notice you often revert without checking sources, taking part in discussions, does consensus mean your personal approval? You have made empty threats, told me I was breaking rules, and insulted me on many occasions. I don't feel you have any respect for me or other editors.

Considering that 99% of the world knows that Gaza has been under a brutal Israeli occupation for 47 years we can say that Israel occupies Gaza; Israeli propaganda does not outweight the truth. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid adjectives ('brutal') even if they are precise. And don't refer to 'Israeli propaganda'. That there is a 'government line' or hasbara is known, and it is a POV that must be included in every article, per policy. Israelis furnish by their documentation and scholarship our finest witness to events in this area.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: 1967+47=2014 (?) What occupation are you talking about? There is no occupation since 2005. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to be offensive, can someone please block him? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend you to bring some RS approving your version instead of these "offensive" proposals. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "offensive" in stating a fact, in this case that Gaza qualifies as an occupied territory. One may dislike, as I do, Pickles's tone, but the point made is quite correct. I would add that several editors here are not behaving as policy suggests we should, i.e., by careful attention to what other editors argue or edit in. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fact, really? It is a disputed issue and different experts say different things about it. It's very strange though for a territory to be considered occupied when there is no foreign military presence there. Hamas, and before him the PNA, runs Gaza like a mini-state, with its own laws, government, schools, foreign relations etc. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It looks like that you haven't noticed that my quote concerns to Dr. R.R. Pickles's '"offensive" blocking proposals'.

So your considerations about "several editors" have no sense. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an eagerness to pick on Pickles, but note what is generally going on. E.g. Last night.

He was reverted on sight, even when his calls look correct. E.g.this was reverted by User:Veritnight here, but Pickles, though using a stupid edit summary, was quite correct that the source he introduced corrected errors in the earlier sources used.

User:Veritnight then went and reverted him soon after on the page where WarKosign has cited his evidence. I happen to agree with Pickles' edit there: the ITIC I have repeatedly noted is not demonstrably RS. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: Under international law, Israel maintains effective control over the region. It controls the airspace, coastline, borders, the crossing of people, and is currently besieging the region to punish the Palestinians collectively for simply being born in Gaza. It is thus still categorized as an occupying power by most respected international institutions. The "disengagement" was a transfer of the several thousand illegal colonialist settlers to the West Bank, also illegally, and a disingenuous withdrawal of troops to make it seem as though control over the region is actually being relinquished. The motive for the disengagement was explained by Dov Weisglass, a confidant of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in charge of negotiating and implementing it. "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass told Haaretz. "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [U.S.] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress." JDiala (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of these details, the point is that we follow sources and do not use attribution when the view espoused is not, according to an individual (Meshaal), but a matter of international law, i.e., a verified factual situation.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many seem to forget that Egypt from the south also controls the border and crossings, yet nobody calls them occupiers. And whatever the motives were in 2005, they don't change the outcome that Gaza is empty of Israelis and run by Palestinians. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong evidence

@Nishidani: Sharon wrote "in possession of evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead". In your version it became "strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed". The evidence became strong which is a legal term not applicable here, and suddenly it is not "indicating" but concluding. I tried to add 'hinting' but you reverted it without discussing. I am ok with "suggesting" "pointing" or such. Goldberg detailed what the evidence was and wrote "There was no doubt" but it contradicts Sharon who wrote "indicated". A bullet hole and some DNA (even if it's blood) leaves plenty of hope that a person is still alive. They were "acting on the assumption that they’re alive", which is natural in any search and rescue operation - what's the point in quoting it ? “WarKosign” 22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You cited WP:Plagiarism earlier. I had that in mind in changing 'evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead' to 'strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed.'. This is simple paraphrase. You are correct that my paraphrase requires 'suggesting' (not 'indicating' which would close the plagiarism gap, so also teens = three). So write:-

::'strong evidence in its possession suggesting that the three had been killed.'

Ya know, you don't have to clear with me correction of my edits if they need tweaking. It's quite within your rights to tweak anything if there is some problem in an earlier representation of a source.

As to Goldberg vs Sharon (there are many uses of extensive textual citations of rather trivial matter in the text, and you should not make an exception here). 'Indicate' means 'points out'. Again, as up above, I don't expect sources to agree with one another. Each has a way of saying things. In articles where heavy POV interests are at stake, readers should be given in notes a range of views and quotes, and settle their own minds. Goldberg is right of course: the police lied through their teeth in telling Gil-Ad Shaer's mother that the spent cartridges found 'outside the car' proved the thugs had shot out the windows. The shots were registered at 22:25 near Alon Shvut, going west. The last signal from the cellphone came an hour later, when the car was burnt near Beit Einun, where the cartridges were found, some outside the car. The incongruency was patent, and the story to Mrs Shaer and the other families cruel. There was nothing 'natural' about the operation, which was a political choice dictated, perhaps yes, by concern to find the bodies, but also, as is always the case in significant political decisions, many other tactical considerations. In any case, we should ensure that readers have a variety of perspectives, not just a flattened out compatibility narrative.Nishidani (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I added "hinted" and you reverted it. "Suggesting" is ok. What about "strong evidence" ? This is a legal term that is not applicable here. “WarKosign” 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A 'hint' is, in English, something 'thin'. 'Strong evidence' or 'evidence strongly suggests' cannot go with 'hint' as a 'nudge' can't be confused with a 'push'. It creates stylisticf dissonance. I certainly should have replaced it with 'suggested'. My apologies.

As to 'strong evidence' being a legal term, I think that is a cavil. A large number of terms in this and numerous other articles bear both a common meaning and, in legal contexts, a technical meaning: 'allege,' 'defense', 'complaint', 'appeal,' 'examination'. I recall writing somewhere a 'close examination,' in the sense of careful reading. Now all one has to do to make the point you make is link close examination to yield an implication that is not intended, i.e., turn a literary practice into a legal method.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

From an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) Complaint Against Nishidani

No action against Nishidani. MarciulionisHOF is topic-banned indefinitely with provision for review after six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Nishidani: User who is submitting this request for enforcement MarciulionisHOF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Remedies Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13:35, 21 October 2014 Hypebole and misrepresenting Israelis ("genocide"), -- note: three editors make note of this to him (keep reading). furtherance of conflict ("large list"), polemical allusions on Israel ("crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim"), uncivil use of Yiddish. I approached him: MarciulionisHOF "Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation", "could you please remove the offensive text"19:30, 21 October 2014 16:35, 21 October 2014 comparing ("undereported") disputed content from the Arab-Isareli conflict with "challenge Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust". 10:50, 22 October 2014 Hyperbole repeated ("Genocide"), source for "crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim" allusion on Israelis is Historians of the Jews and the Holocaust,, irrelevant material, furtherance of conflict ("massacre of Deir Yassin"), 13:47, 22 October 2014 Incivility ("pull the wool"), half-quoting and misrepresenting Israeli notables: Nishidani's quote: 'Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah,"the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust,') The source continues: but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide." . Three editors explain the misrepresentation further: MarciulionisHOF (The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide'), (<Itamar Shapira> was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue?)12:41, 22 October 2014 Ykantor "Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust)"14:13, 22 October 2014 Ravpapa <Yair Lapid>: "What is happening in Israel now is no less than a shoa' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent."14:40, 22 October 2014, Presents knowledge of real interpretation but rejects this ("use the word 'apple'"), NOTE: the logic is backwards. The fruit (original meaning) does not automatically illicit allusions to The Big Apple. furtherance of conflict (Itamar Shapira, a self described "former-Jew"(see Tuvia Tenenbom's book) fired for inappropriate comparison: "He would make an excellent wikipedian editor"). 15:56, 22 October 2014 Ignoring multiple users' input and use of lengthy soapboxing with several off-mainstream examples (e.g. "Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta") which "justify" earlier soapboxing. ("Many sources say you are both wrong.") Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 15:40, 12 May 2009 Nishidani: "is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely."; Amended by motion 8 to 0, 17:28, 21 July 2011 Statement by Johnuniq: WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Statement by Ynhockey: the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. "should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply." If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously topic banned as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. Also see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Trailing an AE post I noticed these two from after his topic ban was lifted: 26 December 2012 "everything I read on Israel's occupation reminds me of what I used to read over decades of what happened to Jews in Germany, 1930-39" 17:52, 21 November 2012 "Just as the Nazi final assault" The Anti-Defamation League's view of Comparisons with Nazi Germany: Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion", "The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic. Summary of issues: As of 2014, Nishidani presents knowledge that comparisons to the holocaust are a sensitive matter ("A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked."10:50, 22 October 2014) but still ignores input on this matter. A single purpose mind about "genocide", rejecting the input of sources ("Minister of Transportation"19:30, 21 October 2014, "spokesman for Vilnai"="That Vilnai backtracked"13:47, 22 October 2014) and native speakers ("Many sources say you are both wrong."15:56, 22 October 2014), is another noteworthy problem. Side-note: self reflection I have made many mistakes in my first month on Wikipedia. The point is to learn from mistakes. Own up to them.[33] And move forward striving to raise discourse and content to a higher level. -- MarciulionisHOF @Sandstein: If you believe Nishidani should continue to compare Arab-Israeli matters to the holocaust I will retract this case and ignore past and future use of this allusion. Please let me know. @Sandstein:, seeing "the same comparison", I will also notify Igorp lj of the outcome. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Note: In recent disagreement about source use, someone suggested to use RSN (which I accepted). I wasn't sure on the best venue to open the issue of comparisons. As it strongly pertains to Israelis, I've asked input from Wikiproject Israel.[34] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Note: I've accepted the input is: "complaint about WWII allusions (e.g. Warsaw ghetto, Yad Vashem accounts of the Holocaust) appears to come from my MarciulionisHOF's own 'battleground' (per diff from 2 months ago). I've also notified @Igorp lj, Ykantor, and Ravpapa:. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: Considering the Golda Meir quote in Nishidani's response, I "can see" why everyone thinks I'm the villain POV warrior when I asked him to tone it down and he refused. One of my first diffs on Wikipedia (from two months ago) illustrates it further. Input from others on Wikipedia, asking Nishidani to tone it down -- that's the smoking gun for my removal. I've been doing my best to comply with community input. When someone insults your dead relatives and native language, I believe it ok to say "this is wrong". I guess I was wrong. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply to Nishidani: @Nishidani: Why are Nazi records relevant to Sacco's book?16:35, 21 October 2014 MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Self defense: If I am hypersensitive, it is either because I was blocked for less [35] or because Nishidani was disrespecting my family with his completely irrelevant holocaust comparison (on Rafah massacre). I approached Nishidani in civil manner asking he retract some of his exaggerations. He admits to know it is offensive, but only pursued the matter further. It boils down to whether or not (a) it is "content related" to always compare Jews to Nazis and Palestinians to WWII Jews? (what is the purpose?) (b) is it ok to repeatedly use fringe opinions (Gideon Levy, Rabbi Shalom Lewis) and misrepresentations (Ovadyah Yosef, Matan Vilnai) to portray Israelis as threatening 'genocide'? (what is the purpose?) Nishidani ignored the source and exaggerated a cherry pick from a full quote of Yosef to use 'genocide' (on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). Nishidani ignored the source (and the input of 3 editors) and chose his own interpretation to continue using 'genocide' (on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). p.s. he also exaggerated and took out of context what Dov Weissglass said for the same 'genocide' point. Call me "hypersensitive", but asking him to tone it down seems proper, not battleground and a reason to sanction me for his intentional lack of sensitivity. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC) +original complaint about article talkpage and edit summary usage, not user talkpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Added not: To use Rabbi Shalom Lewis as source for 'genocide' is a wonderful example of what Nishidani does wrong. Best I am aware, Rabbi Shalom Lewis has never been published by Ynet (Israel's biggest online news provider) or Israel Hayom (Israel's biggest circulation daily). A Google search for his name in Hebrew brings ZERO results. This non-notable in Atlanta (US) says something offensive to his small community (not in any mainstream source). Virulent anti-Israeli sources Iran's PressTV and Veteran's Today quote him. Nishidani uses him(?) to justify earlier use of 'genocide' on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (article talkpage). (He admits to know it is offensive -- so what is the purpose?) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified: 20:29, 22 October 2014 Discussion concerning Nishidani: Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Nishidani: Just a note, Fram. I don't go about on a rhetorical jihad in there, yelling Nazis, Holocaust, at every opportunity. To the contrary. Unfortunately, these resonances of past/present are in the very sources relevant to many pages. If I add the analogies made in Israeli controversies, it upsets people. In other words, while numerous Israeli critics raise this, in regard to Hamas tunnels, the Gaza wars, etc., editors with a clear POV (defense of state honour) get upset. I understand that, but any Palestinian would, I imagine, be equally upset seeing the systematic case being framed into articles recently to corroborate the old hare laid down by Golda Meir that Palestinian hatred of Jews means they are willing to sacrifice their own children to kill the former (We can forgive Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children- We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”'). For many editors, driving this talk point home at undue length in articles is not problematic. They are right, in the sense that this claim is in RS, and thus must be registered. But you cannot, at the same time, protest if sources we report challenge that meme's implicit Blood Libel, to use an analogy we all understand. I'm for absolute parity in narrative coverage. If I were to respect their sensitives as one widespread in many Israeli constituencies, I would have to disregard many Israeli RS and the constituency it represents. I have had to give up close editing of many articles because there is a reflex tendency by several editors to cancel, erase and revert any mention of what, to any Israeli reader, is a familiar resonance ((1) here (2) here (3) here). I don't play maliciously with such sensitive topics, like a bull in a china shop. I just think WP:NPOV, and WP:RS oblige one to give all sides of an argument if that is in sources. Israeli discourse is, as you would expect in a democracy, very open, and critical. Wikipedia shouldn't suffer from the anxieties of, say, the American mainstream press, that often passes silently over themes it regards as 'sensitive' to some readers' touchy sensibilities. We're global and, despite the immense difficulties of trying to edit this topic area, getting more reliable coverage of both sides than is generally the case out there. I believe we should be held to very stringent standards, of course, and trust that neutral eyes can thresh out, case by case, where NPOV intentions are uppermost (fidelity), and where (at it is often blatant in editors drifting in to argue both POVs) nationalist defensiveness or aggressiveness is evidently at play (zealotry). I have linked to Slavoj Žižek's use of Meir's quote because on p.xiv n.9 he makes that distinction apropos, and it is timely for the problem among editors here. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq: Question: Would a topic ban affect the content of User:MarciulionisHOF? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Nishidani: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This looks like a frivolous request. These are talk page comments that do not appear objectionable from a conduct policy point of view, or if they are the complainant does not make clear how. MarciulionisHOF should be either sanctioned or warned for misusing the arbitration enforcement process to, it appears, harass others only because MarciulionisHOF disagrees with their opinions.  Sandstein  20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) MarciulionisHOF's record since his account was created on 22 August is very disappointing. He seems to be a POV warrior for one side of the Arab-Israeli conlict. The defects of his report here underline my previous impression of his behavior. He has made an appearance on my talk page. At that time I noted him replying to a Discretionary sanction alert with the comment, "Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool. Be cool. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)". I'd suggest a six month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict across all of Wikipedia. That would also have the effect of keeping him from making more reports at AE on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I've undone the filer's deletion of this thread and don't have an objection to this proposal.  Sandstein  06:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Fram and Bishonen: As the admins recently interacting with MarciulionisHOF, what's your opinion?  Sandstein  09:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I've tried to stay away from this mess. While I do think that Nishidani would be wiser to avoid all references to the holocaust, nazis, WWII, ... in not directly related discussions, the way that MarciulionisHOF approaches this and most discussions he is involved in is a serious problem where a topic ban might indeed be a better solution than a series of blocks. His edits display a very strong us-vs-them view wrt ARBPIA, and everyone disagreeing with him is lumped together (his contributions to my talk page, User talk:Fram#Holocaust comparisons, are a good example: out of the blue, I am turned into Nishidani's "POV companion" and "buddy", never mind the very strange impression his initial post and section title give to any passers-by). I will not take any action concerning MarciulionisHOF, but I believe that EdJohnstons suggestion is a good one. Fram (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I only watch AE in a lackadaisical way, and had missed this thread, or I would have suggested something similar myself. I completely agree with EdJohnston, indeed I think the sanction should preferably be framed as an indefinite topic ban with an option to appeal after six months. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC). Addition: The user's pointy "takeaway" from this very discussion, posted in at least five different places,[36][37][38][39][40] is another example of passive aggression and inability to ever let anything go. (Here is an example from my own page the other day.) It strengthens my conviction that a ban is needed. To Johnuniq: do you mean, can he continue to post material referring to or hinting at the Arab-Israeli conflict on his userpage if he's topic banned? Certainly not, all of Wikipedia means all of Wikipedia. (For "hinting at", compare for instance the state of his userpage in September, with its implicit attacks on users.[41]) But if you mean would a topic ban affect the state of his userpage as of now — no, a topic ban would refer only to the user's future editing. Of course you could ask him to clean up his userpage, if you think there's still inappropriate material on it. I haven't looked closely. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC). That looks like a pretty clear consensus to me; I've implemented the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

2014-12-01

As for 'murder' versus 'killing', my impression is that the former is a legal definition applied to taking someone's life, whereas the latter is generic for the same thing. Did Max Schur kill or murder Sigmund Freud? Many Christians would say he murdered him, making a sectarian-theological and legal judgement. Idem for Koga Hiroyasu's beheading of Mishima Yukio, which, like killing one's wounded companion in Britain's Afghan wars, was, in terms of military culture, an act of pity, though forbidden in law. How does one define Herschel Grynszpan's killing of Ernst von Rath? Legally, it's murder, though the Holocaust was round the corner. The Nazis called it symptomatic of a vast Jewish terrorist conspiracy, just as newspapers habitually call these days any murder with some profound political grievance behind it 'terror'. There is a cultural and technical bias in our use and application of these terms. Murder is distinguished from manslaughter in that in the former there is malice aforethought. I guess as distinct from assassinations which, if made by a state, putatively are not driven by malice, but are cold-blooded liquidations of perceived enemies of that state, though to an outside eye, quite primitive notions of vengeance typical of frontier wars or feuds would be seen to be compact of many such acts. The Israeli indictment against the soldier who furtively changed his ammo case, and shot dead, first Nadim Nuwara, and then apparently, after an hour shot dead Odeh Salameh in the Beitunia killings cites the soldier for manslaughter, not murder, though it is difficult to see how, in the space of an hour one can sight up and shoot two individuals without premeditative enmity of the kind usually defining murder charges. We call them killings, but, had the targets been Israelis, the newspapers would have reported them as murders.   Now, to this evening's movie, hopefully a comedy. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding to your "Russian immigrants were raised in an imperial dictatorship..." (without any smile) as well as for the following your edit's description "Sure, but from a PA perspective, inviting an Israeli investigation is pointless. They only investigate Arab crimes against settlers" - I remind you about wp:NOTFORUM & wp:NPOV rules. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(Your friendly neighbourhood stalking Zionist) There may be a grain of wisdom there N. I believe it was meant kindly. Irondome (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might look like a personal attack, but, it was intended as a sociological message, straight out of a remark by Ernest Gellner, tinctured by memories of reading Richard Pipes's Russia Under the Old Regime (disastrously for my education, the Peregrine reprint of 1977 lacks pp.239-270), to alert several editors why I find their approach perplexing. If I find the travails of 'liberal Zionism' understandable in terms of the peculiarities of American history, I find the confusions of Israel's re-varnished, neo-post-Zionist rhetoric illustrative of the impact of a new constituency, that of the ex-Soviet immigration (everyone knows that the demographic urgency to fill that 'empty land' brought unintended (if obvious to the sociological mind) consequences: the Mizrachi inflow undercut the confident Ashkenazi faith in their enduring primacy by electing the marginal world of Herut to Likud ascendency, just as the Soviet influx altered the parameters by the emergence of Yisrael Beiteinu. It is remarkable that Arutz Sheva has more Russian readers than those who peruse its Hebrew version. I learned Russian from very astute exiles who gave me a wonderful education in how to parse a Marxist literary critique of Lermontov or Pushkin to shovel out the regime rhetoric (a palliative to censors) from what Brodsky would call the 'nitty-gritty' of the kernel, which, contrariwise, addressed the realities. Because of this, I expect people, perhaps unfairly, of that background to thresh out the difference between the chaff of ideology (which Zionism, like any nationalism is), from the substance of facts. Igorp's edit, which I responded to, was not necessary. My original edit gave the bare bones of what happened. His edit added an 'explanation' (how can Israel investigate a crime if it is not allowed on the scene?) That is a defensive adjunct. It elicited my second compensative edit (a fact: 90% of Palestinian complaints to the occupation authorities are shelved; specifically, settlers are almost never indicted for observed crimes for 'lack of evidence', and of 10 mosque arson cases since 2011, none have ever come to an indictment or conviction). It's a pity to me to observe that the culture that produced Osip Mandelshtam, Joseph Brodsky, Boris Pasternak and Vasily Grossman is less influential among contemporaries than Ayn Rant, just as one is disappointed to see how Mizrachi culture's standing is tainted by the recent lyrics of Amir Benayoun, better known now than the music of Berakhah Zephira which so moved Einstein to remember his Jewish roots in 1930. Okay, I admit it: I'm a fossil, with the musky redolence of that collapsed world that once, when it heard the word 'Russian', didn't think of politics, but of a great tradition of humanism where, even under Soviet rule, a first edition of Yevgeny Yevtushenko or Andrei Voznesensky would be sold out on day one, and run through numerous editions within a year, till everyone in Moscow and the provinces had their major verses off by heart, and no longer needed a printed copy, something that was unheard of in the sanctimoniously cultured West. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Always thoughtful and challenging. Your post is appreciated. The colleague known as Irondome (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the points you make in more depth, when you, and indeed I, have the time. I am basically a Labor Zionist, a sucker for the wonderful 20's and 30's Boy meets tractor type domestically produced films, so heavily borrowed stylistically from the contempory Soviet school of film. I totally agree with your point regarding the intensely rich Russian Humanist/Artistic heritage, which many early Zionists regarded as a cultural and philosophical touchstone, a unique product of a glorious fusion of the Russian and Jewish identity reflected in the gifted individuals whom you mention in your post. This remarkable period created the Kibbutzim movement, and the true beginnings of the essentially Socialist, communal Israel which was stymied in the 70s and 80s, curiously at about the same period when Thatcherism destroyed the huge gains made by the post-1945 welfare state consensus in the U.K, which has had such toxic effects on this society. This Israeli "Thatcherism" also crippled (for some tragic decades) any attempts for an early 2 state solution, which may have been achieved by the 80s. But I am optimistic due to Israeli historical socio-political patterns. Arguably Israel was the only truly successful Socialist state in the world in it's first 3 decades, coupling a radical political synthesis of State Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism with a unique freedom in the arena of public and media discourse, both intellectual and popular. I suspect you rather approve of those aspects of early Israeli socio-political development, and you have often remarked favourably on the almost unprecedented and unfettered self-criticism in current Israeli media discourse. When the 2 state solution eventually is achieved (as it will) then these aspects will enjoy a resurgence. A nation which has such a pure and almost masochistically democractic inner dialogue, conducted within the Hebrew media in all its forms, has a foundation of intellectual and humanistic granite, which testify to many of the original left Zionist traits still being in place and ripe for a renaissance of thought and deed. I remain optimistic of a socially aware, radically open Israel which regains the admiration of progressive Western socialism and humanism, as it did prior to 67 as a remarkable experiment. It is a disaster that Ottoman oppression inhibited any similar sentiments of socialism and humanism, blended with a sense of nationalism developing in I/P's Islamic leadership cadres which may have dovetailed with early Zionism. (If you are aware of similar movements that developed, I would be interested to hear) Excuse my ill-formed initial impressions, which I will refine. I hope I am welcome on your page by the way. Yours aye Irondome (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I largely agree with that, though I am not optimistic as you are. I agree historically, because it is the Israel I knew when I worked there. I must have a coffee to get my post-prandial neurons stirring, but will reply in duke horse. And of course stimulating interlocutors like yourself are always welcome here, it hardly need be said. Cheers for the mo'. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A horse belonging to the Duke University Equestrian Team? Bishonen | talk 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

Nope, though topologically not far off, if temporally askew. John Wayne's nickname has inflected some dialect jokes, and this was a common misprint, when not intended, in letters back in the 1940s (so it must exude a rather jaded air, easily lost on someone with the youthful moniker of 美少年). As I said earlier above, one problem with my attempts at being comical is that I have to footnote my jokes. Shades of Mark Pattison in Middlemarch! Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[Dubiously.] From Old Horse jalda? Huh. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

Very good! Just a slight correction: Old Horsa:)Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Decisions in politics are, overwhelmingly, when not grounded in ideological obsessions or moral self-inflation (Tony Blair's person decision to trample on what the best legal and academic (Arabist) advice in 2003's invasion of Iraq told him) based on hard numbers calculations, nothing else. Psephologically, there is no basis for optimism. Demographically, the situation overrules confidence for similar reasons: the three constitutive blocks of any viable majority - the religious vote, the Russian immigrant vote, the Mizrachi constituency, all respectively have very rich traditions, but have no roots in the kind of enculturated enlightenment thinking which is required to sustain the institutional fabric of democracy.* Gellner said Russia missed out on the (a) separation of church and state (b) the Protestant reformation (c) the Enlightenment, and all 3 factors predisposed the state to autocratic imperio-religious/slavoiphilic-ethnic thinking. In Israel (a) is deeply problematical (b) is true in the economic sense, (i) in that ethical principles do not conflict with, but rather enhance rationality in the productive sphere, but (ii) not true in so far as ultra-orthodoxy trumps reformist Judaism, tending towards a kind of fundamentalism that is, unlike Protestantism, collectivist and messianic rather than individualistic; (c) the haskalah tradition in Judaism has, after the Holocaust and 1967 and the occupation, dwindled into a fringe of outraged anti-Zionism which liberal Zionism, itself fading as it got compromised with the neo-conservative politics of the U.S,, disowns. The outside world can do little with all this: the battle is essentially between 'Tel Aviv' and 'Jerusalem', but either way, all of these things are swept up in a much larger discourse, in which empires vie for resource dominance and the imposition of a fast-buck-return 'rationality' which will, if it hasn't already, dissolve the old nation-state as a civil and civic construction and replace it with the politics of the jungle. As to Islamicism, this is a trivial thing: in the last decade the West has picked off, isolated or dismantled the three Arab states, Iraq, Syria, and Ghedaffi's Libya, which were secular, two of them protective of significant Christian minorities, and had a relatively high standard of living. They were repellant dictatorships, but so are our regional allies in the Arab world. The states that best embody Islamicism's worst traits, are solid allies of the Western states, despite their largesse to terrorists, while the non-state actors that use it, together with a commitment to social justice and technocratic training (Hezbollah), are dismissed as terrorists and nothing else. Israel is now a key military power in geopolitics, and 'Palestine' is a third-worldish rump-state, a congeries of district statelets or bantustans, with no hand to bid, and nothing to offer in return for recognition. The purpose of Zionism was to create a space where Jews didn't need to think in terms of 'us vs. them', but could grow up, raise a family, work and live out their lives without looking over their shoulder, sniffing a pogrom in the air, or hearing those at times intermittent yet chronic anti-Semitic innuendos even in the finest democracies, not only as one shopped or worked in a factory, but in Yale or Oxford, etc. over casual conversations or between the lines of print: i.e. some place on earth where they could finally be normal people without an identity problem invented by amicably inimical 'others' thrust on them every other day by the ingrained recourse to a millennial toxic prejudice. I don't see Zionism as having solved that effectively. It created an urbane milieu where this dream is now largely realizable, but in an area where a 'they' now penetrates the headlines even more obtrusively, to disturb the equanimity of normalcy, and the 'they' won't go away. It is, to an outside eye like mine, the paradox or irony of the project - the dream to create the normalcy most humanity takes for granted has its nightmarish underside in which the enfranchised minority tormented by prejudice is now a majority threatened by its own ineludible minority of neighbours, who for several decades haven't been allowed the same right, i.e., to live normal lives free of the pressure of demonization. Until that enfranchisement towards the secure sense, even in the unconscious, of normalcy comes to terms with the hidden cost of Zionism, the disenfranchisement of Palestinians aspiring to precisely the same thing, there is no solution. Sometimes an apology can do wonders. This is a very scrappy reflection, digited while listening to a relative's woes over the phone, so, my apologies.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Netanel Arami

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/ Death of Netanel Arami

See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/ Murder of Netanel Arami:

The Israeli authorities (after intense lobbying from the dead man's family and friends) have claimed the death to be a "terrorist" death. No one arrested charged, much less found guilty of terrorism, or his death. Delete pr WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWS --Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Not a shadow of a doubt the author is abusing wiki pages to make a point. I suggest outside editors look at the page as it was first created by Shulmaven, who has been engaged recently in a crusade to make one-off articles on every Israeli death in pursuit of his thesis that there is a Silent intifada underway, the Jewish people are victims of a massive terror campaign by Palestinians, and the world should be tipped off via Wikipedia. I feel responsible because I wrote this ignored case up in the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014‎ today at 13:10, and two hours later Shulmaven (re)created this article. I say 'recreated' because I didn't know, not following people around, that a similar article had been deleted earlier this month. So it's not as if, in deleting this, I am trying to rid the encyclopedia of knowledge of the case: to the contrary, I wrote a sketch of the essential details of the case there, which this article doesn't essentially add to. - Nishidani

'On 16 September construction worker Netaniel Arami (27) fell from the 11th storey of a building where he was working, closing vents using a rappeller's cables. His family, as well as Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin and some websites, suggested he had been murdered by Arab co-workers. The police initially insisted his death was accidental. In late November, it emerged that Shin Bet had arrested three suspects on suspicion it was a nationalistically-motivated crime. They were subsequently released for lack of evidence. The investigation is now treating it as a terror crime, and his family have been recognized as victims of terror.[55][56].'

So my suggestion to delete is not 'ideologically motivated' or an example of some 'activist' censorship.

Correcting Huldra. The only three Palestinians on the tower were arrested on suspicion, detained and interrogated and then released for lack of evidence. We just don't know anything at the moment, other than a fact and some suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'likely to inflame tensions, already used in inflammatory ways, and all the more notable for that.' Oh, good-oh! It was designed for incitement, using wiki pages. I guess I'll just have to lull myself to sleep singing Amir Benayoun's recent song, which has gone viral in Israel for the same reasons. G'nite.Nishidani talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I closed the previous AfD and just compared the two versions; I suppose they're different enough so deletion via WP:G4 is not warranted, but I'd like it if another admin would look at it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Untrue The three suspects were arrested after "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation."[42]. It is now confirmed as murder and as an act of terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I've also compared the two versions just now, and while they are not identical, I feel like the differences are somewhat superficial. The sources are different, but come from the same time period. Some claims have simply been moved to different sections; for instance, claims about about comparisons to other incidents now appear in the Death and controversy and Political fallout sections instead of just in a single section. The section about this topic in the context of criticism of the government (Repercussions) is even less specific than before. I don't see a lot of new information that addresses the "lasting consequences" concern of the last AfD. I, JethroBT 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is now substantially different because within the last 24 hours the victim's family have been officially declared victims of terrorism, i.e., a deliberately committed murder committed for ethno-political reasons.ShulMaven (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The deleted version contains this article from September where the WP article noted that it was being investigated as an "apparent" act of terrorism. That the investigation has now concluded does not seem like strong evidence of persistence I, JethroBT 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, after reviewing these newer sources, I believe that alone does push it over the G4 threshold, so I will also decline the G4 speedy. I, JethroBT 00:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Jethrobot, I only had a cursory look at the sources. Thanks for checking it out. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I did ask you to un-delete article before I wrote a new article, but received notice that my request was deleted form your talk page.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ShulMaven, you posted that on my user page, I see now. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigation is ongoing. Just noting that this is still an evolving story, there may be more arrests, more evidence. Certainly there will be more coverage.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep facts of the case changed today. It was known to have been murder during the first AFD. There was a gag order put in place by security services at the time of the AFD, so that although some editors suggested that a decision be deferred until a gag order was lifted, others argued for deletion. Now the gag order has been lifted and this murder has been confirmed as an act of ethno-political terrorism. More to the point, the death gained notoriety because of the political support and public demonstrations demanding that the police investigate. Not an unfamiliar scenario in any country, but certainly the sort of thing that makes a murder GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There were only 3 Arabs on the site. They were taken into detention on suspicion of murder, for nationalistic motives (ergo terror). Following 'an extensive interrogation', and following a review of the case by the State Attorney's Office, it was determined that "there was no legal justification to keep them in custody.(Israel Hayom) What we have been seeing is a massive campaign by the family, and far right wing politicians like Moshe Feiglin running parallel with the investigation, that has now endorsed the view that this was an act of terror, with no evidence against the only suspects in the case. Shulmaven is, nolens volens, actively using Wikipedia to promote that view here. For all I know, it may be terror/murder. But the only fact in the public arena is that the ropes were 'cut'. If that obvious state of the ropes was known by the police since the 16th of September, why did they keep insisting for some weeks it was an accident? This is a very weird story. If the 3 suspects were thoroughly interviewed and nothing emerged that could pin a viable charge of murder on them, or even keep them in provisory detention for a longer time, how can their intentions be defined (since no other Arabs were on the site) as terroristic? The handling of this in the news has been intensely 'political' and makes no sense to any attentive reader. There would be a case for the article if, once the hysterical replication of the few facts is dropped, a case is actually made, with real evidence, leading to detailed coverage, analysis of the suspects/culprits and trial. We have at the moment, zero, posing as a certainty, and to use Wikipedia when the facts are so thin, while the gossip is immense, sets a parlous precedent (incitement). Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:EVENT. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a recreation without significant change of a page deleted via AfD. If a speedy is declined, delete as WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:EVENT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As indicated above, there was a significant change. The assessment by the authorities changed from murder (more common) to terrorism (less common). Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The version of the article that was deleted also claimed it was terrorism. G4 isn't about whether factors external to Wikipedia changed, it's about whether the article that's recreated is substantially the same as the one that the community decided to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances changes, as indicated -- the authorities' position changed. And that was in turn reflected by a change in the RSs -- new RS articles reflected that change. That's a significant change, along the lines that makes a call for speedy delete a hollow request. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for all the reasons expertly articulated by the fine editor Nishidani; the entire article is extremely WP:POINTY DocumentError (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, as minimum according to this Drmies's decision about prev. version's deletion

At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are already new consequents and RS say about new ones after the gag order will be lifted . --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems noteworthy and sensational, and the event is likely to continue to inflame tensions, and already has been used in inflammatory ways, and is all the more notable for that. I don't have any view about the legitimacy of the accusations. But it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this significant, notable event. Keeping the coverage balanced is a matter for editing and for Talk page discussion, not for AFD. There are numerous reliable sources including this Times of Israel coverage (that is already included in the article). --doncram 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - whatever the problems with its creation, the article seems to be about a notable death. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, per DonCram, Bearian, and it meeting GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

(GNG reads:

'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

This is fascinating to me because (1) WP:EVENT says

• Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
• Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
• Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
• Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

The article is trumped up, as any experienced editor can see at a glance. Perhaps those who vote 'delete' assume what they see should be obvious to eyes inexperienced with I/P sourcing guidelines. This may not be obvious to the very experienced outside admins whose judgement is very important for a neutral, policy based perspective. Seeing that this will be approved, for the record I will note down why it, like many other articles of its kind, is a fudge.

The article seems to show extensive coverage over time. It has 27 citations. Examined these break down into

Arutz Sheva (9), actualite israel (1), Alya Express News (1); Jewish Pulse Radio (1)=Arutz Sheva; JNS.org (1); JerusalemOnline (1) (13 articles from sites that are not considered reliable for facts. Arutz Sheva being an extreme right wing settler organ, the rest being mainly obscure and derivative. Mainstream RS mention this over 2 months on about 9 occasions, concentrated in 3 days. The event was not reported in any general Western newspaper I know of.

Analysis by dates

12 February 2014 1 article (WP:OR by Shulmaven) nothing to do with this article

Sept 19. Three days after the event. 1 source non mainstream RS (The Jewish Press).

Sept 21 (non-RS Jewish Pulse Radio = Arutz Sheva)

Sept 22 Arutz Sheva

Sept 23 I from The Jewish Press

Sept 30 Arutz Sheva (1), The Times of Israel, Haaretz

October 1 (Arutz Sheva) (1)The Jewish Press 1

October 2 Arutz Sheva (1)

November 3 (WP:OR) nothing to do with this article.

November 20 Arutz Sheva: a political tirade about no Arab labourers being employed in the Knesset in a settler organ citing it en passant as an apparent murder, before the gag was lifted)

• November 25, 1 article (Jerusalem Post)
• November 26, 9 articles, actually 8 articles. The mainstream picks up the story (6 articles mainstream, 2 are not RS:2 of them are one (Marissa Newman note 1, note 23).

In RS terms, the death was briefly noticed twice at the time on 19/23 September though not by mainstream Israeli newspapers was picked up 3 times Sept 30-Oct 1. On 25-26 November (Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of Israel The Forward JTA) all picked up the announcement of 1 item of news: that the reported death was now classified as terror.

All the rest is reportage from the ultra right wing margins of a dubious source with a notorious contempt for Arabs, namely Arutz Sheva, which represents the settler constituency and is the only rag which kept the fringe chat on the boil. Thus we have the report of the death(mid September) and 2 days reportage it may be a crime (25-26 Nov) in the mainstream. The sourcing is thus a Potemkin village act that falls to pieces in terms of WP:RS and WP:EVENT. Once the mainstream press made the gag order news, it has dropped interest, because there is nothing to report further. I appreciate admins are often overworked and cannot see the obvious in the details, but sometimes it goes to farcical lengths:) Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed your very long post. Assuming I didn't miss something by getting lost in it, I don't see your post as convincing. I still stand by what was said by editors DonCram and Bearian, as though I had said it myself, and I stand by it meeting GNG, which is the key to wp notability. I'm not sure that your POV (amply reflected in your choice of language, above) is reason to delete an article that meets GNG, which this one does. Plus, why there are a host of articles that you didn't mention. For example, look at all the (many more recent) articles here and here and here and here and here.

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - article may or may not have problems. but the article subject is notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Since WP:GNG does not seem to apply, given the analysis above, I'd appreciate the courtesy of people actually responding to facts, rather than making quick atmospheric judgements. I may be wrong, but the mainstream newspapers in Israel have mentioned it on 2 days, over two months, and no (mainstream) newspaper across the globe, thought it worthwhile picking up or following. That suggests little national impact, and no international impact, which, per WP:EVENT means that this fails.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Israeli media were all over it. Haaretz is one of Israel's smaller newspapers, circulation less than that of Yedioth Ahronoth by an order of magnitude. It was covered internationally by JTA and the Jewish newspapers of France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, the US, Australia, and Canada....ShulMaven (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not accurate. Nishidani omits statements by Members of the Knesset, omits coverage in Haaretz, ignores independent reporting by The Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel pretends that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service, only ran a single article, ignores coverage in Hamodia, and who knows what else, not to mention slurring news sources he does not like..ShulMaven (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fudging again. I do not list commenta, I list the type of articles that have been used to report the event by source, and date, including the papers you cite. Of 25 sources, a full half are unusable, and most of the details comes from Arutz Sheva, which hosts crackpot conspiracy theorists (Obama,'most contemptuous and hate-filled Apologist-in-Chief,' panders to Islamic terrorists and considers Israel a hostile power!!!!) and which has been the major vehicle for pushing this (so far) non-story and has yet to obtain a regular licence. And is being increasingly pushed into Wikipedia these last weeks, despite a general tacit agreement not to use that kind of disreputable sourcing. If this case is not media hype pushed by noted political extremists and this settler media outlet, but rests on evidence, as yet unknown, that leads to an indictment, I'll race you to write the appropriate article. So far we have sheer speculation and, unlike every terrorism story from Israel, it has been totally ignored by the international mainstream press.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion articles by MKs (members of Israeli Knesset) used to source MKs' opinion. Those by opinion columnists used to support sentence re: ongoing references to incident by opinion columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

'Ongoing'? The story as reported by the mainstream, emerged 25-26 November, and then died in its tracks. No one is mentioning it these last 4 days. It is a blip so far. This could change, but wiki doesn't (normatively do blips, especially those showcased byb marginal, and ferociously polemical inferior sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I might note Shulmaven that you keep adding minor non RS (letters home from a PhD student in Melbourne mentioning his name en passant in a list, really! etc.) mainly sources for the same 3 unit time frame (Sept 19-22, 29-2 October, November 25-6, and not actually following them. One important source was added:

This where Ben Hartman talking to Larry Derfner on Tel Aviv radio on the 26 November, when the overwhelming bulk of reportage is located, blows up the whole reportage in the Israeli media as a misconstruction of what the court documents say: A rough paraphrase:

(He fell to his death. It was described as an accident. The only people at the scene was a co-worker and a couple of Palestinian workers in the building. Speculation arose he’d been killed by cutting cables possibly because he was Jewish. Today the court partially lifted a gag order allowing it to be said that earlier after the incident happened, the Shin Bet arrested 3 men and held them and questioned them on suspicion of killing this man but then later released them when it determined that as there was no way to really to connect them to the crime or prove it. That’s the only thing that 100% confirmed today but from that it has been extrapolated in a lot of the Israeli media it has been presented that it has been 100% considered to be a terrorist crime. It's more accurate to say that they have been investigating it as a terror attack and they arrested people in connection with that but haven’t been able to prove that.

What Hartman says is that the court records gave no evidence indicating it was a nationalist crime rather than a work accident, but simply said an investigation of it as a terror act had been conducted and the suspects released since there was no evidence. What Hartman noted was a media inference not justified by the facts revealed, whatever your fringhe sources (Arutz Sheva shouts). There was a political judgement to call it 'terrorist', a classification which allows the debt-ridden amily compensation. You cite the source, then fail to alter the article in accordance with what the source says, because it conflicts with the thesis you are pushing, from Arutz Sheva etc., that this is a terror murder. Hartman says this is, so far, an illegitimate inference from media hype. (He may be wrong, but if you cite a source that contradicts what you wish to claim in the article, you are obliged to include everything, not just use the source as one more proof the incident is 'widely discussed' to pass WP:EVENT.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that explains why foreign reporters based in Israel have ignored the story: there's nothing to it (so far) except local political use of the event in terror discourse, and no facts to write about (so far), except that a thorough Shin Bet investigation of the 3 Palestinians at the site led to their release after a week, for lack of evidence. It may be a crime, but it may be what the police reported it as for some weeks, a work accident (spun out as a terror crime by the family and political friends). Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Nishidani's analysis of the sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Although I declined the speedy on the basis of new sourcing, I agree with Nishidani's evaluation of the sources. This is a bit of an edge case with the November coverage, but I ultimately think it does not clear the need for persistent coverage or our criteria for events. I, JethroBT 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and Userfy. Nice analysis of the sources by Nishidani. It may turn out to be a notable death, but that cannot be determined as of now. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe a good idea for now it to userfy it and move it back to article space when and if there are significant changes? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. There are unlikely to be developments until the security gag is lifted or an arrest made.ShulMaven (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed my opinion to userfy. My view is that once it is clear that there are important implications of his death, it will clearly be notable. I suspect that it will happen. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete -- As per WP:EFFECT & WP:GEOSCOPE. The subject is not significant enough globally to keep. - Maduwanwela (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - It is a death in region chock full of murders and revenge killings for those murders, and the cycle goes on and on. This is simple WP:NOTNEWS; while a tragedy, it is an abuse of this encyclopedia project to use it to catalog each and every casualty in the Israeli-Palestine war of aggression. I also note some of the same, Israeli POV-pushers here and in a recent DRV, ones that have been pushing this same sort of stuff for years on this project. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• That begs the question of whether widely covered murders and revenge killings, with GNG coverage, should not be covered because there are many of them. If it's terrorism, this isn't notable? Terrorism is inherently non-notable? Actually, that's confusing real-world "notability" with wp notability. For us, notability doesn't mean "there aren't many" (or else we wouldn't cover all major league baseball players), but rather "does it attract GNG coverage?" Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Everything attracts some degree of coverage these days, but the simple "I saw it in a source so I must create a Wikipedia article about it" mentality no longer carries water, if it ever did at all. Matters that are routine news stories, local in scope, or one-event wonders, we exercise editorial discretion and separate thru truly newsworthy from the run-of-the-mill. As of 11/23/2014, 286 people have been murdered in New York City this year. It is reasonably certain that there is some coverage to be found in some newspapers for each of those 286. It's a big city, shit happens, and I doubt any of those 286 have an article here. In this case, it's just another Israeli killed by just another Palestinian in a region fraught with violence for decades. Shit happens, and not many of those individual deaths are encyclopedic, despite your personal best efforts to make them so in this project over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The debate is now closed. The above discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article. The result was delete. User:Nishidani's evaluation of the sources pretty much makes the (very weak) keep arguments moot, and there was no proper counterargument offered. Clear consensus that this fails WP:EVENT. This is how sources should be evaluated in every potentially controversial AFD. Secret 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

From Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN):

CounterPunch

I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as FrontPage Magazine, which would be its counterpart on the right. Jayjg 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Zeq (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how I approach it. Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMD in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq. CounterPunch was prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers started to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to FrontPage Magazine, is completely off-key. If Counterpunch has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page Magazine, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for Counterpunch are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read Michael R. Gordon for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to selection bias, and would not get useful information about the probability of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the WP:V criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleo-conservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right, e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM. - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV, let's not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for The Independent which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

From Talk: 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre

• Counterpunch is not an RS for facts, especially in contentious articles. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The debate was indecisive. You quoted one opinion, and the discussion is 6 years old. If the animus challenging a report by a political scientist (Ramsy Baroud) who is thoroughly familiar with the factional politics of a little known organization (PFLP) challenges Baroud's report because it is in Counterpunch, on the basis of some old discussion, I'm looking forward to hearing, Epeefleche, from you and others as to why here we have

• Arutz Sheva (used 4 times);
• Israel Hayom, an Israeli tabloid rag run by a US Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson as a mouthpiece for one politician, Netanyahu, used 4 times, once snuck in via Hebrew. There is a Knesset Bill which has passed a first reading banning the paper’s free distribution;

Algemeiner;

jspacenews.com;

nrg.org )Hebrew)

New Jersey Jewish News;

The Hollywood Reporter.

Fox News. ‘Examples can be multiplied ad nauseam but the mere existence of Fox News’s stable of commentators whose stock in trade is preying on their audience’s fears and hatreds is more than sufficient to make Nbussbaum’s point’ Alan Ryan ‘In the Spirit of Maya Lin,’ New York Review of Books October 9 p.43)

I.e., your selective protest isolating just one, Counterpunch, of many sources in the article as problematical because it shows selective policy bias. It happens to be 'dis-establishmentarian'.

I look forward to editors telling me why, in particular, Arutz Sheva and Israel hayom are reliable whereas Counterpunch, for a very nuanced analysis of an obscure political group, is not.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Because some of these things are not like the others. Counterpunch is a political newsletter that primarily features opinion and analysis; when it does investigative journalism there is some actual reporting, but most of the content is a re-analysis of material originally reported elsewhere - and it does not attempt to cover the daily or weekly news. The New Jersey Jewish News is typical of local Jewish newspapers worldwide, i.e., it does reliable, original reporting in its region, reprints national and world Jeiwsh news drawn from wire services, and offers analysis and commentary. Arutz Shava is a constantly updates news source with a great deal of original reporting, and also analysis and commentary; so is Fox News on a larger scale. But, then, so are the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, The Guardian,,Le Monde and Haaretz, and Fox News. All of these, like Arutz Sheva (which differs in that it is local to Israel and Israeli news) are unlike Counterpunch because they are constantly updated news sources, that do publish commentary and analysis inflected by the politics of their respective publishers, and that select what to cover according to their particular biases, but that strive to report facts substantiated by journalists on their news pages.ShulMaven (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Epeefleche that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for facts, especially concerning contentious issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with Epeefleche that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for facts, especially concerning contentious issues.ShulMaven (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Counterpunch

We have 4 sources for the statement, all issued on the day of the murders, repeating the same information. We had from Ramzy Baroud a piece written 10 days later which analysed claims and counterclaims in an historical light. Just editwarring without examining sources is pointless. This is the lay of the textual land, copied to allow resaders who don't read links to actually check.

• Note 2 Ben Lynfield The Independent 18 November 2014

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a small left-wing group within the Palestine Liberation Organisation that is usually dwarfed by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement and the militant Hamas organisation, came to the fore today by claiming responsibility for the attack on the Jerusalem synagogue that left four worshippers dead.

• Note 10 Jodi Rudoren, Isabel Kershner,Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault, NYT, 18 November 18, 2014

The Israeli authorities arrested 12 relatives of the assailants, family members said. Local news organizations said neither man had previously been arrested, though a cousin was among the 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released in a 2011 exchange for an Israeli soldier held captive for five years by Hamas, the Islamist faction that dominates the Gaza Strip. That cousin was affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a militant group that celebrated Tuesday’s attack and claimed credit for it.

• Note 25. Robert Tait, Jerusalem synagogue axe attack kills four The Telegraph 18 November 2014

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a secular Left-wing organisation, took responsibility for the attack. Family members said they did not know if either men belonged to a political faction, although another cousin, Jamal Abu Jamal, is known to be a prominent PFLP member and was recently arrested by Israeli security forces.

• Note 26 PFLP claims responsibility for Jerusalem synagogue attack The Hindi 18 November 2014

A Palestinian left-wing group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), said on Tuesday that two of its members were responsible for the deadly synagogue attack in west Jerusalem earlier in the day that left four people dead. The PFLP said in an e-mailed press statement that the two attackers are members of the group, and that “the attack was a natural response to the Israeli attacks on Jerusalem and on the Palestinians”. Rabah Muhana, a senior PFLP leader from Gaza, said in an e-mailed press statement that “the Palestinians should work hard on making the Israeli occupation of our territories illegal by unifying our efforts and ending the internal Palestinian division”. He called for an end to the security cooperation with Israel and for “intensifying armed resistance together with focusing on the Palestinian diplomacy to end the occupation and gain back the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”, Xinhua reported.

• Note 2 (now reintroduced) RAMZY BAROUD The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists Counterpunch 27 November 2014 written 10 days later, after investigating sources.

When news reports alleged that the two cousins behind the Jerusalem synagogue attack on 18 November were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a level of confusion reigned. Why the PFLP? Why now?

Then, Ghassa and Odai Abu Jamal attacked the synagogue. The initial assumption was that the attack was also the work of individuals, before reports began linking them to the PFLP.(link to Ben Lynfield in the Telegraph

To begin with, there can be no easy answers. In fact, the PFLP’s own muddled responses suggest an existing tussle within the group, if not politically, at least intellectually. Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the movement’s militant arm issued a fiery statement, but refrained from taking responsibility.(link to the PFLP’s website

It neither took responsibility for the attack, nor did it declare the attackers to be its members. Instead, it merely conveyed the Israeli accusation that the assailants were affiliated with the PFLP. Another statement (Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014) declared the attackers as heroes, yet still took no responsibility.)

It matters little whether the cousins who attacked the synagogue in Jerusalem were affiliated with the PFLP or not; the repeated muddled statements by the group – justifying the attack, explaining it, owning it and disowning it all at once- matters more. This confusion is becoming symbolic of the PFLP following the signing of Oslo. And while there are those who employ clever language to maintain the group’s radical status, NGO perks and socialist prestige, others expect a more serious discussion of what the PFLP is and what it stands for after two decades of political failure, for which the PFLP, like Fatah and Hamas, should also be held accountable.

Extra Note not used by us, but citing Baroud.

• Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014 , updated 29 November 2014.

There has been a raft of conflicting reports regarding the cousins’ affiliation to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) - a revolutionary, leftist organisation that gained notoriety in the 1960s and 70s for a series of aircraft hijackings - and whether or not the group had claimed responsibility for the incident.

At least rhetorically, armed-resistance remains a central component of the PFLP political posturing and literature. This may explain Tuesday’s conflicting reports. “These two statement are likely the result of wrangling between factions of the PFLP, those mindful of the status quo, and the more revolutionary elements,” said Baroud.

At the same time, a tradition of honour among Palestinian resistance groups to claim the affiliation of any person who carries out an attack against Israel could also explain the situation, according to Baroud.

“If someone is a martyr in Palestine, it used to be acceptable for everyone to claim that person belongs to their group. By everyone saying he/she is ours, it becomes more difficult for Israel to crackdown on a single organisation,” he explained.

While several media sources have reported that the PFLP has claimed responsibility for the incident, sources on the ground in Jerusalem confirm that no formal statement has yet been made on behalf of the group.

Furthermore, a spokesman for the PFLP said Wednesday that it was "premature" to talk about his organization's responsibility for the attack, reported the Jerusalem Post, leading observers to infer that the operation may not have been organised by a group at all but occurred upon the attackers’ own initiative.

Analysts say that while reports remain unconfirmed, non-factional attacks have been on the rise in Israel.

“We’ve seen this pattern over the past few weeks - most prominently from Hamas which keeps some distance from actions while describing them in a positive light,” said Ofer Zalzberg, senior Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG). “This kind of action is more effective in harming Israel. It means that Israel cannot react with a full-scale operation against the organisation and is left to deal with individuals as the less organised [the operation], the more difficult it is for Israeli intelligence to detect it in advance,” Zalzberg told MEE.'Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• The RSN clearly does not view Counterpunch as an RS for facts, especially disputed facts. If Nish thinks that he would like to get new input from the RSN, because he feels somehow the publication has changed its ways, he is free to do so. But this has been considered by the RSN, and the consensus view (not just the view of one editor) was that it should not be relied upon for facts. Nish - feel free to ping us here if you open up a new discussion at the RSN, for the use of Counterpunch as an RS for disputed facts in this article (where the NYTimes and others says something that Counterpunch disagrees with). Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, and I'm having difficulty following the block of text above, and am not sure what it has to do with Counterpunch. Coretheapple (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. Counterpunch is garbage. I would spend time creating an argument for my assertion but it would be just as easy to find another source and move on. Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly, CPTONO. Counterpunch has a large range of academics, reliably published authors, ex-members of the Knesset, Ex-Undersecretaries of the United States government, ex-CIA officials, historians, economists, and notable journalists. I myself only read 'name articles', those written by competent specialists and carried in that journal.

Epeefleche. It is a fact that the organization was named as claiming responsibility for the attack. It is a fact that articles in Al-Jazeera and Counterpunch go into this in detail and cast doubt on the attribution. To remove evidence that the claim is contested is to push a POV. The proof that this is complex is given above, and though Coretheapple seems to think it TLDR, no one who read it has replied to the points made.

There is nothing wrong with citing the widely mainstream-published Ramzy Baroud for his views on this point, with attribution. It is a fact that Baroud went through the Arabic sources, and a fact that he has an intimate knowledge of the factional politics, something the other journalists we cite do not have.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A source that is proud of its muckraking and that receives criticism for being extremist isn't something I would seek out while writing an article. In regards to well-known contributors, Matt Damon is a great actor but Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was still shit. Is there really not another source?Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be unfamiliar with a term you take to have only pejorative implications. Read Muckraker, which refers to 'investigative journalism' as one of its main characteristics, as opposed to journalism which simply rewrites what the wire-services relate. By definition, exposures of corruption in high places cops criticism as extremism: the New York Times is moderate and was complicit in the invasion of Iraq scenario building, which was regularly exposed at the time by journals like Counterpunch. It publishes Paul Craig Roberts, the founder of Reaganomics; Michael Hudson, a former Wall Street trader; it hosts retired CIA intelligence officers like Raymond McGovern,and Kathleen Christison, or analysts for the Pentagon like Franklin Spinney, or Congressional Budget analyst Winslow T. Wheeler; or historians as various as Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Kolko and Patrick Cockburn. These are neither extremist nor identifiable with some collective 'leftie' movement. The cast of that journal is strongly libertarian. The crack about Matt Damon is slapdash because, analogically, one cites the Matt Damons on Counterpunch for their analyses, not for the venue. To invert the logic of your analogy, Judith Miller is a lousy journalist, but her writing for the New York Times doesn't make that august mainstream source, or the Wall Street Journal, thereby disreputable by wikipedia standards. If Ramzy Baroud's analysis is wildly off the mark, full of egregious errors, or seamed with rhetoric, you might have a case. But Baroud's analysis is informative, level-headed, and notably more nuanced than the immediate march of on-the-spot rumour recorded in the 4 sources we earlier had. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.

Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?

I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.

Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.

As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.

In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).

• Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
• The Hindu
• Al-Araby
• Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
• The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
• Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
• Jspace community paper
• PFLP website Primary Source
• The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
• Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
• La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
• Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
• Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
• The Hollywood Reporter
• New Jersey Jewish News

Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:

• CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
• Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
• Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.

11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).

• ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
• PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
• Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral

• Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
• Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
• Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
• Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
• Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)

• User:Blueboar
• User:eleland
• User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')

So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if:

A) Counterpunch is reliable?

and

B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion?

Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani)

It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum.

• "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts"
• "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" are "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian"

your personal views & negative characterisations of these sources make no sense without concrete examples proving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a license. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources (Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press, etc) are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing. Nishidani

As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports (in this case regarding an obscure group of militants), can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the verdict of the 2008 discussion on Counterpunch?

There is a dispute above in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on d Ramzy Baroud about the interpretation of a prior discussion's results, concerning Counterpunch as a source. Almost no outside editors have pitched in as yet (topic may look too complex). Could experienced wikipedians please read and interpret precisely the 'majority view' at this discussion which took place in 2008. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if 2008 tells us much anymore, but I fail to see why Counterpunch should be considered a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors throughout the years who have argued that it is not rs. The argument is that the magazine presents writers whose opinions tend to be on the left, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. Most of these editors use the term "left" to mean someone who would never consider voting for The Tea Party or UKIP. The fact is that most articles are written by respected journalists whose articles are also published in the most repected news sources. Robert Fisk for example "holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and has been voted British International Journalist of the Year award seven times." Ramzy Baroud's articles have been published in hundreds of newspapers. The only issue I would mention is that columns are rarely reliable for facts and something only reported in one source is rarely significant.

A 2008 discussion does not bind us today. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions. Amazingly enough, opinions are not facts, thus the cavils about this source or that source being biased in their presentation of facts is a tad useless when considering using properly cited opinions. Collect (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem in our facts vs. opinion distinction. What appears to have happened is that 4 mainstream newspapers within hours of the incident reported that the PFLP had claimed responsibility for the atrocity, drawing on one wire service. This is in wiki use a fact,(both the fact that they reported this, and a fact that the PFLP claimed responsibility). Fisk as an historian and journalists is reliable for facts,- and it would be odd to argue that his books can be cited for facts, but a piece of his in Counterpunch cannot be thus cited because he uses that venue. I think Baroud's reportage with links for what the PFLP websites say is reliable. Attribution is the solution, surely, not blanket dismissal of the medium in which this or that article appears.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude. CounterPunch has been brought here more than once. Stop trying to make arguments based off of a single discussion. This might be in regards to yet another attempt to put it in or it is based off of above. If it is the latter, just chill out and let the conversation develop without freaking out. Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

At my age, I am a dud, not a dude. I came to this board because shouting 'garbage' at a source as you did, is not a sound argument. It is just an attitude. Secondly, my analysis shows that both you and Epeefleche are distorting the result of the 2008 discussion. Thirdly, you opposed Baroud, and supported a text that is now known to be false. Fourthly you had a thin number majority to enforce the suppression of Baroud, and refused to reply to detailed analyses showing that the conclusion you drew about the 2008 discussion was incorrect. WP:IDONTLIKEIT was thrown my way. So I have requested neutral colleagues to review. At the moment, it would appear that the issue is far more nuanced than you would make it out to be. I don't freak out or get inflamed to the point that editors ask me to chill out, so please desist from the hostility. This is a request for technical construal of a discussion, and a review of the merits of including a scholarly source, and attitudinizing or not assuming good faith are atmospheric noise. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why CounterPunch should be excluded from consideration as a reliable source because of its radical leftist stance, or because of its sour view of Zionism and Israel state actions. The founder, Alexander Cockburn, was a highly respected writer for publications as widely varying as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Nation. CounterPunch writers are real journalists. CounterPunch sources are referenced in more than 140 Wikipedia articles. The CounterPunch source should be considered a notable opinion, and its conclusions should be enough to question the "facts" of other sources. If CounterPunch says one thing and another source says another thing, then none of the sources ought to be conveyed to the reader as fact. Instead, the conflicting opinions should be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If a video accompanies a text by an 'alternative' news outlet does this affect our definition of RS?

In the WP content area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them.

At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that

• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine
• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss

cannot be used.

These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage.

The objection is that these are blogs. +972 Magazine has quite a lot of journalists who publish in Israeli Hebrew-language newspapers, and some like Larry Derfner, former editor for the Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward.

The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the WP article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the source informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific sources as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise under-described (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Both the +972 magazine article and the Mondoweiss article have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of WP: RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipedia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses the letter of a rule in a mechanical, technical way to violate the spirit of NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it is based on such incorrect base as:

• "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers"

See the following examples which I found in one minute:

• IDF uses 'skunk bomb' in Bil'in demo jpost
• Jerusalem: Between Ferguson and Damascus jpost
• Land Day: 1 reported killed in Gaza ynetnews
• Jerusalem Arabs: Police using riot control means for collective punishment haaretz
• Jerusalem mayor orders crackdown on Palestinian area to curb riots haaretz

... & besides of

• Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem ft
• Israeli Skunk Spray Effectively Dispersing Violent Arabs (2 Videos) jewishpress
• Unrest by Palestinians Surges in a Jerusalem Neighborhood nytimes
• Israeli ‘skunk’ fouls West Bank protests arabnews

So I do not see any need for those two biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in Ma'an News Agency as violence to Palestinians has no echo in the Western press. There are 10 incidents per diem on average of violence or clashes throughout the occupied territories, and you're 'lucky' to see one reported in a week in the mainstream foreign press. Systemic bias is at play, and while I subscribe to a strong reading of WP: RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, What I wonder why does it have to be reported on every single incidents you found? For that you opened a page List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 or 2014 or 2013. You have on the page the fact it was and is still used, you have names of places, you have a few examples and then you move on and criticism of the way it is used by Israel. At some point the article seemed like an index for any news reports you could put your hand on.

Do you now put on article for Tavor any time it was used? I don't compare and I think the Skunk article should reflect the problematic use but between that and obsessing over it, there is a big distance. Ashtul (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? I've been silent for 8 years on the fact that editors have dedicated an enormous amount of their time and mainspace on a unilateral classification of types of violence of Palestinians against Israelis. The Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel alone has twelve articles registering by year rocket attacks. User:ShulMaven's Silent Intifada, which started out as the usual monocular focus on a series of incidents in which Palestinian acts of terrorism were highlighted, was hived off, by common consent, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, which I helped then build, and then created the new page for this year. The premise of POV-pushers creating this stuff is that an incident is worthy of article-length description if an Israeli/Jew is injured. These are all well-covered by RS. If an editor like myself reports violence against Palestinians, rarely in an article, mostly in lists, then the sources are fine-combed to complain of violations of a very rigid reading of WP:RS. That is the point here. Any source is fine for violence to Israelis, but only the New York Times etc., if they ever notice, (which they don't mostly) is a valid source for violence to Palestinians. When you have videos reporting an event attached to an article, written by acknowledged Israeli professional journalists, this should pass all reasonable standards for WP:V and WP:RS. Yet one group grouches.

There is one difference, in the work I do in this area: I define the article to refer to all incidents of violence Israeli vs Palestinians, as well as Palestinians versus Israelis, in accordance for once with WP:NPOV. I don't scour for results. I read the newspapers, and add events as they occur, and have an impact on either side. I don't obsess. I watch what editors do, and try to ensure that this encyclopedia comprehensively covers all sides to a conflict, rather than being a vehicle for one state's complaints.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Caution-2015-01-06

Unfortunately, in December, your selective choice of sources and the same selective edit, only confirming your point of view - See HAMAS: "are Nishidani's last edits NPOV?". Today, (diff), it seems me close (sorry), to some kind of falsification. I have to remind you again that selective choice & quoting is a violation of the rules of NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are well-meaning but this is silly. I can't do everything you and others may want - this is a collegial workplace where we each contribute and, collectively, build articles. No one is expected to figure all the angles. Specifically, when I look at most WP pages, I see that most editors do little to improve the article, or rather, put in bits of stuff they note or like, without reading the page. What was remarkable about the page in question, which I went to edit in the article on Bennett and that incident after reading about it in The Times of Israel this morning, cited in your diff, is that, reading it before editing I noted it cited Fisk minimally, ignoring most of what he said, which is a far more horrendous account of what actually happened and the mechanical nonsense spun out by the IDF in justification. Please note I could have added dramatic accounts of bits and pieces of over a hundred bodies being picked up in body bags, of bits of kids' bodies stuck on burnt trees etc. It's there. And the text before my edit was mainly concerned to contextualize the reasons (justifications) for why Israel fired on a UN compound, and accidentally killed 106 people. I fixed that, and then added Bennett.

You complain that I was obliged to add, what you now, in garbled English (please correct it) added (getting there of course by pure chance, not following me around)

Indirect Drucker's evidence denied then Deputy of Bennett, who called them "Vanity of vanities, nonsense, a pile of bullsh*t", Haaretz daily's defense analyst Amos Harel and others . . (verb?).

I think facts are important. I laugh at the way we have reactions sections, listing the usual spokesperson claptrap of shock at some I/P news report. No one reads that crap because it is predictable and meaningless. Just as no one is interested if Bennett, in reaction, brushed off the story by mixing an inane allusion to the preacher's exclamation " הֲבֵ֤ל הֲבָלִים֙ " in the Book of Ecclesiastes with the manure pats one finds in a cow paddock. By all means, exercise your right to add such outbursts. I myself am waiting for serious details of Bennett's role in the incident, which may or may not emerge, i.e., field reports.

If you are worried about partial or partisan editing on that page and numerous other I/P articles, there are hundreds of editors you should worry about, not just me. Look at editors like Baatarsaikan whose silly edit to the page show she is unfamiliar with Robert Fisk, an historian with a book that goes into great detail on that incident and period, who was on the spot when the massacre occurred above him on the hills, and interviewed everyone in the UN and Fijian high command, and the survivors, that very day, within hours, and for weeks and months afterwards. As for the rest, this place is packed with lazy editors who are ignorant of everything but the concept of POV, and can't read anything except to figure out if the enemy is insulting them in this or that edit. A new year augury is that you avoid temptations to fit the mould of that type, the partisan Wikipedian who only edits in terms of what she or he thinks is the potential political fallout of any one else's contributions.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. please don't use 'refute' for 'dismiss'. Bennett 'dismissed' the report by brushing it off as a heap of shit, and laughably by using a biblical phrase 'vanity of vanities' that is meaningless in context, a sputter of evocative terms resonant of Weltschmerz, wholly inapplicable to the situation. 'Refutation' refers to a logical and factual rebuttal of, or reply to, a charge or accusation. I note several editors recently consistently ignore this simple but crucial distinction. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Fisk, this is a good, if somewhat emotive example of why some people like him and myself regard this part of our discursive universe as utterly contaminated by topsy-turvy 'logic'. Nothing makes sense in what is passed off, daily, as commonsense. But you're under no obligation of course to read it. Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

: WP:ARBPIA -- general 1RR restriction

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 14:33, 11 January 2015 removed "Palestinian"
2. 22:47, 11 January 2015 removed "Palestinian" , thus violating 1RR per ARBPIA

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notice about ARBIA in September 2014, by NeilN

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• He has been given opportunity to self-revert, but declines to do so. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• User:Number 57: His first edit was a revert of the long-standing text, removing the word "Palestinian". As you correctly points out: it had been in the article since the start. Davidbena has now removed it twice, in one day. Huldra (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• User talk:HJ Mitchell: I read the first diff as a revert of long-standing text, a partial revert from this edit. 2nd diff, the same. Huldra (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Davidbena

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Davidbena:

User:Huldra seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, User:Huldra prefers to mention Bayt Nattif of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious issue, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of WP:NPOV and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, see Bayt Nattif's Talk Page (bottom section) Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: What is the proper way of seeking professional advice from experienced editors, without abrogating the WP guidelines which look with disdain on "canvassing"? Honestly, how can I go about seeking professional counsel and advice? If anyone notes my own words, I have actually called out for advice, rather than asking editors to side with me in this dispute. Davidbena (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell, as far as I'm concerned, the issue has already been resolved. As for the use of the words "lands owned by the Palestinian-Arab village of Bayt Nattif," we have often seen the word "Palestinian" used in our generation, especially by Arab writers, in the context of the overall Israeli-Palestinian issue, i.e. with a political connotation. I was simply asking the editor to avoid this word because of its "political" connotation. I have since allowed her edit to stand. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57

Not sure whether I am uninvolved, as I have been editing related articles, but as far as I can see, the first edit is not a revert of any other edit (the very first version of the article used the phrase in question), so Davidbena has only actually reverted once. Number 57 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Huldra: I think you misunderstand the concept of a revert. A revert is reverting some or all of a previous edit to the former version. If an edit is doing something for the first time (which the first edit here is), then it cannot be defined as a revert. Number 57 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: [43] [44] [45] [46]. Zero 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani:

No violation, but, David, (you asked for advice), your reasoning is deeply defective, and you are trying to establish a precedent that would affect several hundred wiki pages. When the impact of an edit is so far-reaching, it requires consensus. Your reasoning is defective because the verb 'to be' (was) describes a continuous state. It was a Palestinian (under the British Mandate for Palestine) Arab village. The argument that, once its inhabitants were driven out by a conquering Israeli army it became overnight therefore 'governed' by Israel and therefore became 'Arab' not 'Palestinian', is meaningless. The village was blown up (partially on the suspicion that some of the villagers had destroyed a Palmach relief convoy to the Etzion Bloc earlier in January that year), and nothing remained to be 'governed'. The article is not about the village on 23 October, 1948, but the historic village that existed until the Palmach brigade blew it to pieces. It is customary to define such places as Palestinian Arab on Wikipedia, 'Arab' satisfying an Israeli POV that Palestinians did not exist, and 'Palestinian' to satisfy Palestinian traditions that they did exist before 1948 as well as before 1967. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Davidbena This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• @Huldra: Unless the first edit was a revert of a particular edit, it does not count as a revert for the purposes of enforcing the 1RR. @Davidbena: Please either provide diffs for the allegation that Huldra is pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948 or strike it. If you do neither, you risk being sanctioned for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, there's no evidence that the first edit was a revert, and that Davidbena was even aware of the 1RR rule in particular (the discretionary sanctions notice does not mention it). Leaving this open until the personal attack issue mentioned above is resolved. In response to Davidbena, we're all volunteers here, so there's nobody around to give you professional advice. As to other advice, you might ask on community fora such as WP:VP. Sandstein  16:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

From the talk page of User:Cptnono

I don't mind, indeed I relish the stimulus, of hard challenges in editing from any userr. But Skunk (weapon) is getting farcical. Would you do me the courtesy of looking at edits like this. It is wrong on all technical grounds, invites edit-warring, and is not healthy for the encyclopedia, regardless of POV merits. Of course, a request is not under an obligation, but while I almost never agree with you, your editing is rigorously based on a respect for wiki protocols, and there lies my trust that you can examine that page fairly. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The level of tagging and adding language that dismisses a source is not good for the Skunk (weapon) article. I think the article could easily be fixed in a way that will satisfy both you and the other editor. I'm not convinced that Who Profits From The Occupation (WPO) is RS from looking at their 'about us' page. Ma'an has been problematic in the past but looks to be growing into the real deal. I would be surprised if those sources couldn't be replaced with pieces from less biased organizations. I think that other easy ways to reduce the appearance of "propaganda" include:

• Beefing up the lead and product sections with general information
• Trimming the history section of individual incidents. The primary concern is the notion of collective punishment. There is a strong argument that the problem exists and a simple paragraph should be sufficient.

I also do believe the other editor is treading on shaky ground. It is obvious a lack of experience but it is still not acceptable. Is there an admin that can explain possible sanctions while still being diplomatic and understanding of how green the editor is?Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think my record will show I have steered away from Ma'an, until relatively recently. Reading it now regularly, I find it toned down, fairly focused on names, facts and incidents and quite reliable for them. It also frequently cites the Hebrew Press coverage which is only otherwise available to me in Mondoweiss, Tikun olam, and other websites not deemed generally acceptable. Since NPOV requires both sides, and there is little out there that records things reliably from a Palestinian perspective, I think it qualifies by now.

As to Who Profits From The Occupation (WPO), it is a joint Israeli-Palestinian activist research group. We in practice allow a good deal of citation to the IDF, its allied (i.e. IDF-funded) research centres or groups like Israeli Intelligence & Heritage Commemoration Center or the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) etc., but we label any research group like WPO 'activist' and non-RS thus not-usable. I am a contextualist: I try to judge everything according to the context. I read a document thoroughly to see if it is useful, careful, well-supported by evidence/ proof and footnoted, regardless of some formal mechanical or technical idea of what is, or is not, RS. The three papers I have read from WPO are all thoroughly sourced and internally verifiable. That does not make them free from errors in accuracy - but our mainstream newspapers never footnote or source themselves. In this case, in the paper we cited at Skunk (weapon), we have an academic un-hysterical presentation of documented analysis in a field lacking so far in good sources. In these cases, one uses such sources, I would think, until better ones, preferably books with a good academic imprint can replace them.

I'm quite happy with your suggestions, which are sensible, and ready to work out a a solution on the talk page of Skunk (weapon). It's hard enough doing these articles when editors don't understand the rules or lack experience. Don't want to drag you there, but if you could briefly outline these and/or other suggestions there, then I'd deeply appreciate it. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As to admins, I think they're overworked, and only to be called on when necessity demands it. Ed Johnston obliged when User:Ashtul was having problems, and a note led to him reverting. I think it too early to bother admins with the other editor. These requests always tend to look like one is using admins to win a point, and are a last resort.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the WP article on the Israeli settlement named Carmel, the two articles from Haaretz and the New York Times which I introduced there have really a lot of excellent material on the farming, commercial activities and industries at that settlement. I had that in mind when I read them, particularly the Haaretz article. I hardly have much time for Wikipedia, what time I have is devoured by pointless bickering that eats into productive additions. It was obvious to me in adding the excellent Haaretz article the other day that there was an hour or two of work needed to balance out the article with details on life, work and productivity. But, fuck it, I can't do anything. My real complaint with editors is that when a source like that is used partially, as I did, because of lack of time, they don't study it closely and add everything else in it that balances the perspective. I should do that of course, but every edit I do takes a long while, since I usually check several other sources as well before I do it.The material on the Israeli 'positive' side's there, and should be harvested. If you or anyone has time, they'd save my honour (lack of time these days) by filling it out.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Much like on the ground, it is fucked. It feels like "The only winning move is not to play". I'm fortunate that I care more about my local sports team in Seattle that working towards a good and then featured topic makes editing more enjoyable. I do agree with you that that 0404 publisher looks questionable.

Oh snap... TOUCHDOWN SEAHAWKS.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lucky bastard! My first home was near a golf course, like my second, and I live in a country with none within 30 miles, and even there they charge like wounded bulls. I've just realized that editing Wikipedia was probably a life-choice dictated by the fact that Italy provides me with no golf links, and their soccer is boring. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If we could all just walk around in the grass for one hour every other day, then life would be better. It is a goddamn shame. Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Systemic bias: he who pays the piper calls the tune

On 'mainstream source bias, and many links to relevant analyses that show the corruption that threatens many of our sources Stephen Walt 'Hacks and Hird Guns,' Foreign Policy 9 September 2014.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As to the recent flutter of insults here and here i.e. 'Listen, you. When I get a hold of you, I'm going to gull out your eyes and shove them down your pants so you can watch me kick the krap out of you,' I much prefer the imagery in that antipodean idiom.’May your balls drop off, bounce off the turf and turn into bicycle wheels that backpedal up your coit.’Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's just let him or them waste their mornings. Who cares, really?Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll keep blocking as it's no trouble for me and makes more work for them :)  —SMALLJIM  10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove reduplications of the same stuff in the interests of page economy, and here I'll just add for the record a few more accidentally removed. Sometimes, we need to conserve abuse to document the kind of 'toxic' atmosphere of hostility in which some of us have to work. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) Dirty Jap. It was a wonderful moment when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. (2) You'd better watch your back, Muslim. Nazis like you are known to die of asphyxiation; (3) You and George Galloway are gonna get it. You'd better watch out. (4) You squinty-eyed yellow menace - I'm going to kick your irradiated ass! Nishidani loves having anal sex with George Galloway, and together they have orgies in which they rape Palestinian Arab children - The Arabs children's parents love to watch. That's how sick and twisted Arab culture is. --- Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone with "issues", clearly. Hopefully, he restricts himself to getting his rocks off calling people he disapproves of paedophiles and nazis and imagining himself handing out beatings rather than editing articles.     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not for an article but, cripes, such is one man's war against terrorism

Lisa Goldman, How Bibi Tried To Make Paris All About Him The Forward 12 January 2015

For those who haven’t been following the story, Netanyahu crashed the national solidarity event despite President Hollande’s explicit request that he stay at home. Then, after the VIP reception at the Elysee Palace, cameras for a local media outlet caught him elbowing aside a female French minister as he tried to jump the queue for the bus that would transport the group to the starting point of the march. Finding himself relegated to the second row at the march itself, he shoved aside the the president of Mali and inserted himself in the front row, one down from Hollande himself and within eyesight of Angela Merkel.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I liked especially the last bit, how he "marched with world leaders"...and then he Crops Out PA President Abbas From Photo Released Of World Leaders At Paris Rally when tweeting the picture. Noted. Huldra (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, dear. I always thought politicians were supposed to be sharp, cunning, cluey, devious calculators and manipulators, but, this and the earlier stuff suggests this is not the case. Such patent, easily exposed, crassness means, that he hasn't the foggiest notion of how others view him. He's Mario-magician'd Congress, but no one else. What are Auden's lines?

Here great magicians, caught in their own spell,

Long for a natural climate as they sigh

Beware of magic to the passer-by. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Paris: Little and Big Monsters:   "Glen Ford and Paul Jay discuss the march against terrorism in Paris and the participation of leaders of countries who have committed and encouraged various forms of terrorism and war crimes." The Real News

"Circus of Hypocrisy": Jeremy Scahill on How World Leaders at Paris March Oppose Press Freedom. Democracy Now!

IjonTichy (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, double-think, and loads of hypocrisy. Under Berlusconi's Bulgarian edict, top journalists like Enzo Biagi were expelled from the national RAI network. Over the years, brilliant comics like Daniele Luttazzi, Corrado Guzzanti and Sabina Guzzanti, Michele Santoro, all experienced career problems after political pressure was waged on networks, to name but a few. Vauro Senesi contemporary Italy's most proficous and genial vignettista was likewise punished for revealing ahead of time the trumpery of trhe pseudo-reconstruction of Aquila after the great earthquake, and got into hot water for mocking Fiamma Nirenstein who pretends to be 'objective' about Palestinians while having a house in occupied territory, when she joined Berlusconi's party, crammed with fascists with a tradition of defending Mussolini and his racial laws (Vauro was eloquently defended by the wonderful Yiddish theatreman, singer and thinker,Moni Ovadia . All fired, shifted, told to piss off. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

'The reproduction by Charlie of the caricatures published in the Danish magazine seemed to me appalling. Already, in 2006, I had perceived as pure provocation the drawing of Mohammed decked in a turban in the form of a bomb. This is not so much a caricature against Islamists as a stupid conflation of Islam with Terror; it’s on a par with identifying Judaism with money!. It has been affirmed that Charlie, impartially, lays into all religions, but this is a lie. Certainly, it mocks Christians, and, sometimes, Jews. However, neither the Danish magazine, nor Charlie would permit themselves (fortunately) to publish a caricature presenting the prophet Moses, with kippah and ritual fringes, in the guise of a wily money-lender, hovering on a shlomostoppedstreet corner.'Shlomo Sand, A Fetid Wind of Racism Hovers Over Europe, Counterpunch 18-20 January 2015.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Netanyahu's Elbowed Presence in Paris. Shir Hever: "Netanyahu responded to the terror attack in Paris by calling on French Jews to emigrate to Israel. Netanyahu's statement is a clear attack on France. This is a vote of non-confidence in France's ability to protect its own citizens. And it's also contributing to the very dangerous and worrisome rise of anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic ideas, which is when people associate everything Jewish with everything that represents the state of Israel." IjonTichy (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's election time in Israel, and new evangelical fundamentalist Republican party majorities hold Congress and the Senate. I'm sure the fellow knows all the flak that would fly in Europe, but Eurabia is not his constituency, and the feisty banana-republican thumb-in-your-eyes circus act was intended for the only two state actors who have an impact. Politically, his egregious vulgarity and offensiveness was quite 'rational.'Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Good analysis and insights by Max Blumenthal.   IjonTichy (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wie geschickt sich Abbas an Merkel ranschleicht :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that. Of course (a) the Bild is a dumb tabloid, which is underlined by the introductory lie to the piece:

Deutlich zu sehen ist es auf den Fotos bei Palästinenserpräsident Mahmud Abbas (79), der sich und seine Fatah-Bewegung nie deutlich von der terroristischen Hamas distanziert hat.

This is a contrafactual hasbara meme, so Bild merely served as a witless pipeline for the Israel Foreign Office.

It ignores the fact that France invited neither Netanyahu nor Abbas. When Netanyahu insisted on being present, France duly, per diplomatic NPOV, invited Abbas. Neither was designated to march in the forefront.

Netanyahu elbowed out a French minister to get on the bus, elbowed his way to be in the front line, (Abbas was in the third row, and appears to have (been) moved up after Netanyahu made his move.

Still, thanks. The slow achievement of parity by Abbas when Netanyahu tried to disrupt and take over the parade was missed by the sources I'd seen. Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal says: "Netanyahu's politics, just as they align with those of the Tea Party in the U.S., are of a part of the far-right parties in Europe, the party of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the National Front of Marine Le Pen in France, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, who are simultaneously anti-Semitic and pro-Israel. All of these parties align on the issue of Islamophobia. And Netanyahu's Israel, to them, represents a Fort Apache on the front lines of the clash of civilizations.   So Netanyahu, by his or through his arrival in France, is aiming to undermine French liberalism, to undermine small-r French republicanism, and to advance the hopes of these anti-E.U. far-right parties, which are now completely aligned behind a Likud-run Israel. Netanyahu's presence, everywhere he goes, is deeply divisive. He represents Israel as the ethnocratic apartheid state it is. And his natural allies are those who support Israel for that reason and because they would like to advance those same values in their own countries."   IjonTichy (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"hasbara meme", "Blumenthal says", ...

- Guys, do you really take all this nonsense seriously? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still thinking over what Blumenthal argues. Not convinced, but then again, I take a lot of time to form an opinion, and when I do, I can explain it. I don't hyperventilate.   Regarding 'Hasbara meme', you may have a point. The phrase may be a grammatical tautology, and redundantly pleonastic. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

0.22 bullets

Probably this ought to be mentioned on one of those pages I don't like to edit. Note the link to an audio recording of the IDF commander assuring a group of settlers that his guys are using live ammo and getting lots of hits. My old man had a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits but one day a rabbit looked him right in the eye and he put the rifle away for ever. Zero 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Coincidence. I read that yesterday while adding material from B'tselem to the Susya page. Probably one needs a separate page on the thing I've been noting over several years, and its in the old intifada reports: the use of a team of 2, spotter and sniper, in clashes ( the point of departure for such an article would be this). One picks out the target, usually a youth who looks like a leader, and then the other shoots him, often (as here) after a provocation is staged. Your father's reaction was mine, when we shot an owl once. I was only 13. Never touched a gun for personal use (aside from cadet training until I was expelled as a pacifist after getting the best record in target firing with a .303!), or trusted groups, after that.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BY the way, here is more evidence why Arutz Sheva should not be considered a reliable source. Compare this account in the Times of Israel (mainstream more or less), (Stuart Winer, 'Two settlers arrested for shooting Palestinians,' The Times of Israel 20 January 2015)with the version (Ido Ben-Porat, Ari Yashar, "Scandal" as Samaria Guards Arrested Instead of Arab Terrorists,' Arutz Sheva 20 January 20155) in the settler organ. While the latter does indeed provide many details one would like to use, its overall reportage states as 'facts' what are the versions given by the settlers whom the police indictment now states faked the whole scene. Because they confuse evidently falsified stories with facts, the evidently real details (precise locations of shepherd, one of the settler gunman is part of an elite IDF unit) cannot be used. (Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Arab rock throwing terrorists caption is awesome in that A7 article. At least have a picture with a throwable rock. nableezy - 20:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From Talk:Islam and antisemitism:

Biased

The whole article is written based on the Sunni hadith and references. Both, Sunnis and Shias have different view on the Jewish people that was summoned here [47]. All hadith presented in this article are not accepted by the Shia muslims.

Please consider adding content on this issue to the article with reliable sources. Thank you. RebSmith (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources on Antisemitic Verses in Quran

Pamella Geller is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of Pamella Geller and the people she represents. She and others consider a number of verses in the Quran to be antisemitic. Those verses are listed. I've added additional references that also view the Quranic verses as antisemitic. It could be disputed that the Quran has antisemitic verses, and certainly there are Muslims who would argue this, and perhaps there should be a subsection under the Quran header that discusses this point of view (provided the section is not original research). Some Muslims would argue that there is no antisemitism in Islam, but that is not the point of this article. Wikipedia should be a source of information. Just because we disagree with a source doesn't make it unreliable. RebSmith (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Pamella Geller is considered an extremist even by mainstream Jewish scholars like Deborah Lipstadt. Put her opinions on her own page and don't make Wikipedia a mirror of her outlandish views. You even used her opinion without attribution in the section title. The second source you give does not mention antisemitism. Spencer and Bostom wrote books, so what? A whole book is not a source. The obvious fact that your sources are all from the right-wing anti-Islam group of writers also means you have not attempted to follow policy. Zero 08:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. There are numerous scholarly works on the subject. Where controversy exists, we are obliged in writing for an encyclopedia to use sources that exhibit meticulous care in interpretation. There is no place here for political shouting-matches. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article really does need a rewrite. If you took a look at the list, it included verses from the second link that were not included in Pamella Geller's list. The second link doesn't say "antisemitism" but it does say "disparaging". Indeed, Pamella Geller represents a view that many consider extreme. She was even banned from speaking in the UK. Her confusion of Islam with modern day radical Salafi movements is abhorrent. Her list of antisemitic verses comes from Robert Spencer's analysis. Many people would consider Robert Spencer as representing the views of Islamists in relation to his analysis of Islam. I believe it would be nice for this article to include a list of controversial verses from the Quran that both Robert Spencer and his cohort, as well as the Islamists, view as "disparaging of Jews". Islamists draw from these verses as well to justify their antisemitism. Pamella Geller & Co. draw from these verses to justify their analysis of Islam as "Jew-hatred". The former, as well as the latter, groups should be mentioned in this article. If my additions have appeared in any way to have infringed on the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia, it is due to simply not having enough time and not doing a good enough job at displaying the content. It would be nice to have you all work constructively with me in trying to improve this article rather than flat out rejecting any inclusion of relevant information to the reader. Thank you. RebSmith (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting this kind of useful collection instead of refining it and sourcing it more effectively is by definition a political shouting match, shouting down the topic instead of helping it be covered in an encyclopedic fashion on Wikipedia and is a gross violation of policy. Kindly refrain from destructive and tendentious deletions. The whole article stinks and should be rewritten, but any encyclopedic coverage of the topic must include Koran verses that are foundational to Islamic anti-Jewish thought. If this is disputed between different Islamic schools then cover the dispute in an encyclopeic way here. Deletion is not the solution to incomplete content.Bkalafut (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

May I add that WP is an encyclopedia built piecewise by amateurs and there is no obligation for any to have a comprehensive coverage of the sources. The process is meant to lead to encyclopedic content. Somebody who does not know well or understand importance in the overall scholarly discussion of the left-wing anti-Islam group of writers or Islamist writers is not enjoined by WP policy from contributing. WP is not an experts-only affair and to represent NPOV as requiring every edit to be comprehensive treatment of the sources is way out of line with the site's history and policies. I suspect it is a deliberate falsehood wielded like a club for tendentiousness's sake, but we're supposed to assume good faith, so consider it a clarification. Be constructive.Bkalafut (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is not required of every edit, but it is required of every editor. Speaking generally, not particularly about anyone here, editors are violating policy if they make no effort to promote neutrality in articles. That could mean putting in all sides of a debate or it could mean adding one side that is underrepresented. A simple way of putting it is that every edit should make the article better (which includes policy-conformance) than it was before. Zero 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My objection is very simple. Of course there are passages that inveigh against the Jews. Of course anti-Semitism exists, in Arab countries as well. But in Biblical, Talmudic, Quranic, New Testmental contexts, just citing either primary sources for 'anti-Semitism' is polemical and unhistorical. The only way this kind of material can be used is when specific verses are cited by reputable Arabists as pointing to what we now call anti-Semitism. One cannot retain a list from a twit, and then remove the twit's name, and proceed to document it alternatively. By a similar technique, one could get some (they abound) netspeak listing the use of 'Jews' in a hostile context in the Synoptic gospels (far more contexts yield this) and plunk it down as proof of 'Christian anti-Semitism'. The state of the art scholarship doesn't allow this, since most of those documents were written by Jews, or members of a Jewish sect, in dispute with more traditional Judaism, and threshing out what is generally 'anti-Judaic' from infra-Jewish polemics is difficult, and can only be followed by close attendance to what reputable scholars argue. The same goes for the large number of anti-Christian or minim attacks in Jewish religious literature. People who rush into this either do it in a scholarly manner, or they cohabit with shit-stirrers, in an age when playing the racist/religious zealot card, (predominantly against Muslims while all keep quiet about the dirt under their own ethno-religious carpets) is of tidal proportions. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality only finds a defense in fidelity to qualitative scholarly arguments on these sensitive issues, and I cannot for the moment finds a parallel with what goes on in "fixing" the Islamophobic image into Islamic articles in articles on other faiths. As it stands, this editing is political, not historical. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The list has substantially changed. Verses have been added and more verses have been documented where they are used by Muslim clerics in their antisemitic comments. What is a "twit"? I'm unfamiliar with that expression, but I do assure you that the editing was not politically motivated (I in no way endorse the opinions of Pamela Geller). The only reason that I used Pamela Geller's list to initially begin was because it was the most comprehensive and used Robert Spencer's material, which draws from antisemitic Islamist writings and statements. Yes, I do understand that Robert Spencer is political, but he is accused on representing Islamists (from several Ahmadi Muslims). So, I decided it was easiest to start with that list, then source it and change it (which is what I've done, although it is not done). But please consider reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. On side notes: Although I understand this is a matter of opinion, I would contest the idea that there are more "hostile contexts" to Jews in the gospel than in the Quran, and I would also contest the philosophy that history is not political. RebSmith (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I just want to emphasize this. Pamela Geller's opinion doesn't come from a vacuum. It has been argued by Muslims that She and her cohort (Robert Spencer) represent the view of Islam that is in line with Islamists. In light of this, I believe it perfectly responsible to consider her opinion on Islam (in the context of the Muslims who criticize her arguments). RebSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, if we want to talk about reliable sources, it could be argued that the opinions of Western academics are not reliable, even if they have "Islamic Studies" degrees. The only truly reliable sources on Islam are those with ijazah. I've had Muslims tell me this, and it is one of the reasons they reject the recent self-declared Caliph al-Baghdadi of ISIS (although he has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, he doesn't have an ijazah). RebSmith (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. 'Western' academics are anyone in the world, from any ethnic background or religious or secular tradition, who has a doctorate attesting to analytical competence at the highest level by a college of peers, of different ideological religious or personal persuasions. 'Western' is a technique of comparative textual analysis and peer review to achieve provisory knowledge, not ultimate understanding. To use the old cliché there is no intrinsic reason why we should believe an 'emic' statement is more correct or authentic or closer to the facts than an 'etic' interpretation (Emic and etic). Indigenousness yields no intrinsic epistemological edge over outsiders. A doctoral degree by an insider is no prophylactic against stupidity, and in this case, encyclopedias give more credence to scholars who know eight or a dozen semitic languages and the respective cultures and history, than to scholars who know only what they have read or been taught by one of the many traditions in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. As for anti-Semitism, it was a product of Western civilization, which almost exterminated the Jews, whereas Jews have survived in the Middle East for millennia without any known attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth, and the roots of anti-Semitism come from Christianity (and from Christianity's Judaic heritage, where extermination in the name of God, as in the Book of Judges, was inscribed in its theological mythistory).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Western education, this is not my opinion, but according to Islamic tradition (at least Sunni tradition). An ijazah requires personal training by (at the feet of) a learned scholar. How can we write about Islam and consider the opinion of Western academics on par with or have even more weight than those who have ijazah? To me, this is clearly a Western supremacist point of view.

The roots of Western culture and Christianity are Judaism. If we follow the logic in your thesis that the "roots of antisemitism come from Christianity", then we will ultimately arrive at the conclusion that the roots of antisemitism are Judaism and Semitic. If you've ever actually read Mein Kampf, on the other hand, you would understand that it is in competition with Christianity and anti-christian [[48]], and if we consider the pogroms conducted prior to Hitler, you will find that they were conducted in direct violation of Church teachings and orders (and simply mob frenzy with perhaps a touch of pre-Christian (pagan) ideas). RebSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I do also find this article Oldest synagogues in the world quite telling. I wonder why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc are not listed... We know that Jewish tribes did live in some of these places during Mohammad's time (7th century). What happened to all of their synagogues? Perhaps it is just due to the article itself not reporting correctly... Synagogue construction to me represents a tangible indicator on the flourishing of a Jewish community, and the history of a synagogue (its construction and destruction or conversion into Church) should mirror the state of the Jewish community in the local area. I am not at all convinced that by simply looking at the history of synagogues across the former Islamic empires, you would come to the conclusion that the Jewish community was flourishing there. Many synagogues were popping up throughout Europe during the height of the Islamic empires. Why? And why were there 9 million Jews in Europe pre-World war II, while the population of that was much smaller in the Middle East? We can talk till we are blue in the face about antisemitism in Europe and how Islamic empires treated the Jewish populations better, but the remnants of these Jewish communities (or lack there of) speak for themselves. RebSmith (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebsmith, in your hands the section you have been editing might as well have come directly from Geller's website or from some Islamophobic youtube video. Not the slightest, teeny weeniest attempt to provide balance is evident, just an cherry-picked compilation of sources supporting a particular viewpoint. Have you even looked for Islamic sources which deny the interpretation of those verses? Instead you link to some cleric who nobody ever heard of before the quotes he generously provided. Nishidani's "we could do that too" is not an idle comment; with a little time one could compile a similar list for Christians against Jews, Jews against gentiles, whatever you like. But we won't, because this is not what Wikipedia is about. It simply isn't possible that we will keep this material in the form you have constructed it. Zero 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Come on. It's hard to work on something when I'm busy fighting to retain content. Please see my "to do list". It would be very helpful if you guys chipped in on developing this section rather than trying to delete everything. I only have so much time in one day to work on something like this when I'm busy with my own life. For balance, I am going to Ahmadi Muslim sources, who I know interpret the Quran in a very tolerant fashion, as well as Hamza Yusuf and other scholars at Zaytuna College. It should be noted that what you see there is not cherry picking. If you don't understand how influential the scholars of Al-Azhar University are in the Muslim world, then you shouldn't be commenting on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on Antisemitism. I am first citing the antisemitic stances. Then, I will include the rebuttal of those stances. If you want to help develop this subsection: "Muslim Interpretation for Tolerance of Jews in the Quran" or some such title, here are some news sites [[49]] and [[50]] to know which clerics you should investigate. Also, look into Hamza Yusuf in what he has to say about the Quran and Jews. He's quite good at representing a very tolerant stance on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here is a reference that should be used by Hamza Yusuf:[[51]]. RebSmith (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is already a travesty of what we are supposed to do on wikipedia, noted for the crap which we allow for Islamic-related articles, while we sedulously block fringe lunatic ravings, or authoritative figurehead dopespeak, abundant in other monotheistic quarters, when it is used to characterize Christianity and Judaism. 'Across the Muslim world, depicting Jews as apes and pigs is quite common' and so is depicting Arabs as insects, animals, beasts, bacteria. I have a private list of dozens of such remarks made recently: I don't make an article of it, or draw generalizations about 'across the Jewish world Arabs are likened to primitive beasts or insects'. What has been done here can best be understood by comparing it to another article, which is in an indifferent state, Christianity and antisemitism but at least tries to subscribe to encyclopedic demands for quality sourcing. That article is not distracted by fingering and corralling a huge list of ultrarecent statements from the fringe (WP:Undue) to make a case. It gives a scholarly review of the institutional, theological and historical moments underlying Christian anti-Semitism as a tradition.

This article does start by an attempt at scholarly overviews, but then from note 124 to 215, it goes into overdrive to scour for contemporary expressions from an assorted scramble of obscure or otherwise figures, to create a picture of endemic anti-Semitism in Islam. The authoritative views of Bernard Lewis ('According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[24] )' is noted, only then to be overturned by a huge blast of contemporary idiotspeak often from the fringes, while any reaction from the Islamic clerisy critical of what this shiekh or that mullah said, is ignored. I could imagine someone coming along to plunk what rabbis like the Ovadia Yosefs (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/shas-spiritual-leader-abbas-and-palestinians-should-perish-from-this-world-1.310800 here) Shmuel Eliyahus (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Eliyahu-advocates-carpet-bombing-Gaza here), Dov Liors (http://www.timesofisrael.com/hardline-rabbi-calls-to-cleanse-israel-of-arabs/ here), and David Batzris and Shalom Lewis and their ilk to make a case for Judaism and anti-Arabism, misconstruing 2000 years of complex thinking by slanting the subject to a focus on contemporary ravings. The Christian anti-Semitism article deals with the institutions, structure and theology as elaborated over time, relating to anti-Semitic currents in Christian tradition. What we have here is a hundred examples of the Terry Joneses, Stephen J. Andersons, Stephen Sizers, Jeremiah Wrights of this world, material we do not stuff into every article on Christianity.

Secondly, no use of primary materials, unfiltered by scholarly citation and analysis, is allowable in this kind of minefield because it suggests WP:OR. For everyone of those statements, there is a literature of analysis, hermeneutics, and refutation even. One could make a marvelous case for both Judaism and Christianity being favourable to ethnocide or genocide, starting with Deuteronomy 7:16 by using the techniques employed here. For this reason I will revert you, and ask you to work out collegially here the material you have added, so that it respects Wikipedia standards.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are dissembling. Because there appears to be some original research--but even this is only due to style problems all of it is taken from the references--you blanked all of the edits, which clearly represent secondary sources. It appears that you are trying to do this for reasons of POV and/or violation of fringe. Kindly cease edit warring or I will have to request a block.Bkalafut (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets take a look at the material returned here:

• Completely unsourced:

  The Quran is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God. Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years. Muslims regard the Quran as the most important miracle of Muhammad, a proof of his prophethood, and the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption. There are various interpretations of how Jews are presented in the Quran. Some Muslim clerics have used Quranic verses to justify antisemitic statements, while others have used Quranic verses to argue tolerance of Jews. Some Western trained academics view the Muslim antisemitic interpretations of the Quran as recent (19th century) phenomenon drawing from European antisemitism, while others insist these interpretations are historical and rooted in early Islamic history.

• Subsection titled Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - not a single secondary source, with the second paragraph being completely unsourced.
• Subsection titled Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - one cleric's views do not a religion make. Belongs in the article on
• Subsection titled List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic" or Disparaging to Jews - sourced either to unreliable sources (I'd say a Regnery published book by Spencer is unreliable, but that may be up for debate, but JVL and Pamella Geller aren't reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#Pamela_Geller_blog and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Sources_for_casualties_relating_to_I.2FP some of the things that JVL hosts are fine, others are just webpages by random people and this one is nothing more than a number of verses with no reliable source commentary on them), or to primary sources (the Quran itself). Material requires reliable, third party, secondary sources to be included.

In short, that entire edit returned material that violates WP:OR and WP:RS. I'm removing the material on that grounds. nableezy - 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Could whoever supports retaining this material explain how it is not a straightforward violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS? Thank you. nableezy - 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would have been to remove the paragraph, not revert the edit which restored both that paragraph and kilobyte after kilobyte of properly sourced material. It is difficult to assume good faith if you blank 10X to remove X. Looks like an attempt to cement vandalism. Please keep it civil.Bkalafut (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, I outlined what was wrong with the kilobyte after kilobyte of material, and none of it properly sourced. nableezy - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've put back the paragraph and it is now completely sourced. Nothing I've included has WP:OR. Hamas (which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) clerics represent a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world (Qatar). I'm not exactly sure how you can call these opinions fringe when they are representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the few free elections in the Muslim world, the Muslim Brotherhood won across Egypt, one of the most populated Muslim countries and Hamas won in the Palestinian territories. It seems idiotic to have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include any views from modern-day Muslim clerics on this topic, as well as call their views "fringe" simply because they are contrary to the views of Western non-Muslim academics. RebSmith (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - This clearly comes from the secondary source: Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008.

Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - How is a Western academic's view more important than a Muslim cleric's view on Islam? This section is not to say that all of Islam is this one cleric's view, but Muhammad Hussein Yacoub is representative of certain Islamists' view on Jews and has gained notoriety in the English speaking world for his view.

List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic". Just because you disagree with a source doesn't make the source unreliable. There are four sources there, two are scholarly and two are from commentators, in addition to the actual Muslim clerics that use these verses. RebSmith (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hamas ... clerics a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world

That gives the game away. Get an obscure cleric from some Muslim enclave to say something eminent Muslim clerics would, as often as not, dismiss as hillybilly nonsense, and you can say that it 'represents a large section of the Palestinian population'. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

?? Qatar views Hamas as an "humanitarian organization". Your comment "from some Muslim enclave" and "hillybilly nonsense" give away your view of the Palestinian people. RebSmith (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

But please, by all means, add content from "eminent Muslim clerics" that says this is "hillybilly nonsense". RebSmith (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it absolutely insane to have an article titled Islam and antisemitism and for editors to refuse to include popular modern-day Muslim sources that hold an anti-Jewish interpretation of the Quran. This interpretation has been discussed in many scholarly works:

Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008.

Kramer, Martin. "The Salience of Islamic Antisemitism." Full text of a lecture delivered by Prof. Kramer at the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London and published in its “Reports” series 2 (1995).

Webman, Esther. "The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism." Middle Eastern Studies 46.5 (2010): 677-697.

Clear, A. "Muslim Anti-Semitism." (2002).

Zeidan, David. "The Islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle." Middle East Review of International Affairs 5.4 (2001): 26-53.

My intention was present this interpretation, not with Western academics sources, but with Muslim sources. The article should include this interpretation, as well as the mainstream scholars that rebuke this interpretation. It seems that some Wikipedia editors are engaging in gross censorship of this topic. RebSmith (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Christianity therefore should include any outrageous or controversial remark made by every Florida pastor, Congolese evangelical, Chinese Baptist, Alaskan Methodist, Aboriginal Anglican, Indonesian revivalist, Mexican fundamentalist, Brazilian Seventh Day Adventist, has been recorded as uttering, about the Bible and any contemporary political issue or contiguous people? That is the trick being played by polemicists, and by editors here. The only way this error of WP:Undue fishing for a POV purpose, is to look at the academic scholarship on the problem, which tends not to be hysterical, and to get its facts straight or its interpretations less seamed with the urgency of utter conviction and persuasive necessity. I think anyone with a University degree understands the statistical rort liable here (A billion Muslims, perhaps half a million clerics, and we have just a baker's dozen of hysterics to represent them). Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is a large group of people endorsing that opinion (even if it is a minority opinion), if academics have taken note of that opinion and have written copious amounts of material on it, if that opinion is influencing geopolitics, and if there is a Wikipedia article made to address this opinion, then, yes, we should include it in the Wikipedia article. RebSmith (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whether you think it is nonsense or not, you are required to provide secondary third party reliable sources for material. What one random cleric says isn't that. And directly quoting from the Quran without secondary sources discussing what you are quoting is a straightforward violation of WP:OR. Quoting from that policy: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• From WP:IRS:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.

In a discussion on Islam and anti-Antisemitism, using Muslim clerics as a source would be perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. RebSmith (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• And for the record, none of my content was OR. RebSmith (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• And let's make sure we are clear on something. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric.

Nobody said that a source has to unbiased. It however has to be reliable. Which means, quoting from the policy, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and later editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. If there is some cleric who has published his work through a publishing house known for its fact-checking, then by all means include him. But some random person on the street that MEMRI got a clip of is not that.

And, for the record, oh yes it was. The entire compilation of verses is straightforward OR. It is using a primary source and providing your own interpretation of it by virtue of its inclusion, without any reliable secondary source provided to back up that interpretation.

Yes, you are clear on that part. What you seem to be missing is the reliability of the secondary source. nableezy - 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The list was clearly sourced, although it could have been sourced better with the actual page numbers from the books. Nonetheless, it was due to the secondary sources that this edit war began. Say what you want about the reliability of the sources, but it was not OR. And for the record, I wouldn't call renown clerics from Al-Ahzar University nor the leadership of Hamas "some random person on the street." MEMRI is reputable and fact checks, identifying who, when and where. I understand that you take issue with the Muslim clerics' POV. That's your problem with an ideology not with reliability. RebSmith (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The list of verses were clearly sourced to the Quran. You need reliable secondary sources including such verses, specifically, to include such a list, otherwise it is original research by WP:SYNTH. As far as renown clerics nor the leadership of Hamas, uhh no, you still need published reliable secondary sources. You have no idea what I think about any of this, so no you do not understand, and my issue is with using reliable secondary sources in an encyclopedia article. MEMRI has been discussed at WP:RS/N multiple times, and no, they are not reputable, and at times they have blatantly distorted what a person said. nableezy - 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I find no mention or discussion of MEMRI at WP:RS/N. I do understand that it's been declared a "pro-Israel" organization given its selection, but its materials are used in major reputable new organizations, from the New York Times [52] to the Washington Post [53], as well as academic articles [54] [55] [56]. The onus is on you to explain how it isn't a reliable source.

The list of verses were sourced to: a) Robert Spencer's book, b) Andrew Bostom's book, c) Pamela Geller's website, d) The Jewish Virtual Library. I hadn't had time to source each individual verse separately before complete deletion of the material. It was a compilation citing secondary sources. How in the world is that OR? The proper behavior in this situation is not to delete but to put up a notice of possible unreliable sources or improperly sourced material.

I find this whole debate suspicious of a coordinated effort to block relevant information on this specific topic. If you look at the current subsection of the article as it stands, you have this kind of discussion: "Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that references to Jews in the Quran are mostly negative." or "According to Tahir Abbas the general references to Jews are favorable, with only those addressed to particular groups of Jews containing harsh criticisms." or "According to Bernard Lewis and other scholars, the earliest verses of the Quran were largely sympathetic to Jews." without detailing anything about what Muslims actually believe about the Quran or their interpretation. There isn't even any mention of Naskh! which makes me very suspicious of the entire subsection (Note that there is another Quran subsection that appears to be a POV fork in the article). There are no Muslim sources, by which I mean no one trained as a Muslim scholar is actually cited. Imagine if we were to write an article on Judaism only citing Muslim sources or Catholicism only citing Protestant sources... This makes no sense. The analysis provided by the academics provide no understanding of the actual subject at hand. Even this comment, "Thus, Kramer concludes that there is no doubt modern Muslims effectively make use of the Quran, using Islamic tradition as a source on which antisemitism today feeds, but it is also a selective and distorting use.", is out of left field as it provides no context to what Kramer is discussing. I understand it perfectly only because I am well aware of the views to which he refers. I was attempting to cite those particular views in an easily accessible manner with legitimate Muslim sources to provide context to the reader. Unfortunately, people wish to block this content. There are people who fear this particular interpretation, but failing to add relevant information (that's even mentioned by a source in the article) isn't good encyclopedic behavior. RebSmith (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

First, kindly keep your opinions to yourself. I have views on your motivation, and they aren't exactly glowing, but I keep them to myself. Back to the point. On MEMRI, see e.g Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#MEMRI, or for a reliable source showing their shoddy work here. Pamela Geller's website is a complete non-starter, see eg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#Pamela_Geller_blog. Her blog is not a reliable source, full stop. Spencer I dealt with below. Bostom is probably fine, even though he is a medical doctor and not a historian of religion, but it may be fine. JVL is just a list of verses, and their website isnt a reliable source by itself, though it may host material from other reliable sources. Random websites are not reliable sources, please please please go actually read WP:RS from start to end. It is extremely difficult to have the discussion when you seemingly refuse to actually look at the requirements. You can include a Muslim scholars views where that scholar has been published by an organization with a reputation for fact-checking and strong editorial control. That does not mean any random comment a newspaper or MEMRI picked up. And for somebody to come here with Pamela Geller as a source and then accuse others of not engaging in good encyclopedic behavior is sadly not the most foolish thing Ive read on WP talk pages, but its up there. nableezy - 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion above if you question my motives, as well as the reason for using Pamela Geller as a source on this particular topic in the first place. I clearly state my reasons and motivation. This was to be simply an initial start. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an ongoing process where the end result leads to encyclopedic content, but it is hard to work on an article when people just blank delete rather than put up notices and discuss. If you look at the history of this page, you will find that it was I who insisted on discussion. This article is far from encyclopedic content as it stands. As for MEMRI, even the article you linked says "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations". It is full of innuendos and doesn't present anything concrete against the organization. It's only contention is that it doesn't translate all of the Arab world, but only selects the most inflammatory. It is good behavior to know the criticism of a source when using it. Knowing this, MEMRI thus provides a good source for identifying antisemitic sentiment in the Arab world, at least who supports it. If I wanted to find out who was saying anti-Nazi comments and had anti-Nazi stances, I might very well get this from pro-Nazi organizations provided that even the critics don't dispute their content. Clearly, from that article you linked, no one is disputing the translations of MEMRI, it simply casts suspicion, which can be cast on any source, including (and especially) academics. RebSmith (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

To do for the Quran section

1) Add subsection on Muslim sources that use Quranic verses to preach tolerance of Jews.

2) In the subsection Western academic analysis of the Quran

-Reorganize into parts: a)those claiming presentation of Jews in Quran is mostly positive, b) those claiming that presentation of Jew is mostly negative, c)those claiming that antisemitic interpretation of the Quran is a recent phenomenon, d) those claiming that antisemitic interpretation is historical.

-Cut and paste discussion of ahadith on Mohammad that don't focus on the Quran into the appropriate hadith section.

RebSmith (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Pagination

When using books as sources, please provide pages. This may necessitate some work in the Koran verses section as not all verses are mentioned in the two books covered. But note that this is reason for improving the article, not reverting it to 2 days ago.Bkalafut (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The list of Koran verses may be unencyclopedic. I would prefer it be removed. Thoughts?Bkalafut (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, go ahead. RebSmith (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You guys realize now that the Koran verses section unsourced and undocumented, was the germinal cause of the friction? All this fuss for nothing?

Please cease dissembling. It was inappropriately documented, and you and your cadre were blanking it instead of fixing the documentation. Whatever was the "geminal" cause, your deletions were inappropriate. You cannot justify disruptive POV editing by some provocation. ("Part Y (the citation style) of the article is bad so I'm going to revert X and Y and Z.") You were caught red handed. If you cease making excuses we can move on constructively. If deletion was the most appropriate action it should be discussed here--as I did. I put up the "synthesis" warning and brought up whether or not putting citations of each verse was a better option than deleting. Bkalafut (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This stuff has to be shown to be WP:RS. If it passes, which is unlikely, then it is necessary in each case, when we use a book, to cite the exact page, and provide, optimally, as I did in the lead, a link.

• Fazlur Rehman Shaikh, Chronology of Prophetic Events, (2001) p. 50 Ta-Ha Publishers

• Ahmad Hussein Sakr, Understanding the Qurán, Page xii, – 2000
• Gray Lambert, The Leaders Are Coming!, WestBow Press 2013(Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Gray Lambert was awakened to the realities of the Christian faith through materials that emphasized the teachings of Christianity related to the return of Jesus Christ. Dr Lambert has served with distinction in ministry, teaching, and business and is listed in numerous Who's Whos. He received a letter of commendation from the 400-member diaconate at the First Baptist Church of Houston, Texas,)
• Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008 (no page ever given)
• http://www.memri.org/report/en/print754.htm
• http://www.altafsir.com
• http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2042.htm
• http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html Sahih Muslim 41:6985
• Spencer, Robert. A Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing, 2007 (no page ever given).Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I must note that it's standard elsewhere on WP to have to argue that something is 'not' a reliable source unless it is obvious that it is not. (For example, it had to be argued that Naomi Klein was not an RS about Milton Friedman.) I reject the standard you attempt to impose on this discussion. Bkalafut (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with Spencer's book. No reviews found which treat it as unreliable. Favorable coverage by the Middle East Quarterly. The author's work (more broadly) is well treated by reputable magazines such as National Review. He's a popularizer, yes, but popularizers qua popularizers aren't non-RS. One may say he has an opinion (but don't all working in that field have them?), but I need not remind you that biased sources aren't unreliable by virtue of their bias. I've done more than is necessary here (the burden is on you, not me!), you prove now that this book is not an RS. Bkalafut (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what Middle East Quarterly is? Or National Review for that matter? I cant find a review of this book in any serious source, but of another I can, at least some of which applies to this book as well.

Asian American Law Journal published by University of California Press:

Before making an attempt to understand Spencer's arguments, it is necessary to place the book in its larger political context. The Truth About Muhammad is published by Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, whose website proclaims itself "the leading conservative publisher in America." Regnery has also published a series of "politically incorrect guides," including The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why it Will Rise Again) and Robert Spencer's first New York Times bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

Spencer often puts forth grand assertions about Muslims and Islam without providing any substantive or reliable evidence.

Spencer's unfounded statements about Islam reveal a major substantive flaw in his work: his failure to acknowledge the alternative and diverse discourses on Islam and the interpretation active today in Muslim communities.

Middle East Quarterly and National Review? Please, that isnt more than enough, thats knowing how to use google and calling it a day. nableezy - 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So you found an article which itself just blusters but doesn't actually state where and why Spencer or this book has been unreliable. MEQ ran the only serious review of the book--these days MEQ is even peer reviewed (and seemingly better than Asian American Law Journal in what it accepts, in that it requires evidence!) Spencer is the premier popular historian of Islam in North America, and commentator on Islam as it is practiced by Islamists, in North America. This is why he is a contributor to National Review (do you know what it is?) and First Things and a frequent radio guest, etc. But let's get down to brass tacks here. Books that are as popular as Spencer's yet unreliable typically get their unreliability exposed somewhere. Consider the work of Naomi Klein, Ian Plimer, or Bjorn Lomborg, for starters. If the best you can do when asked to show Spencer to be unreliable is to say that somebody else, also without providing any evidence, says so, you fail, and you are in the wrong in this discussion. "I do not like Robert Spencer" is not the same as "Robert Spencer's book A is unreliable because X, Y, and Z".Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do tell how Deepika Bains (B.A. Berkeley in whatever) and Aziza Ahmed (M.S. Harvard School of Public Health) in an opinion piece in an Asian American Law Journal are reliable sources for a review of a book on Islam, while Andrew C. McCarthy (former assistant U.S. attorney who has prosecuted terrorist) and Bat Ye'or (a prolific writer on Islam for decades and has been used as a source by the likes of Bernard Lewis) are not? If reliable sources simply mean those that comply with a specific point of view, then Wikipedia is a failure. RebSmith (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A law review journal is peer-reviewed and published by a university press. Bat Yeor lol, wow. nableezy - 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing authority and reliability. Please adhere to WP:RS or get out. You are deliberately disrupting the discussion and your "lol" contributes nothing except incivility. What is your agenda here? You are not here to build an encyclopedia.Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, can you please for the love of anything you hold holy actually read WP:RS?

*Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

* Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Peer-reviewed works published by a world renowned academic press is presumptively reliable. Im getting a bit tired of asking you to read the basic policies of this website. And you got some nerve telling anybody to get out. And then telling somebody else that they are the one being uncivil. nableezy - 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above sources were derived from Quran article. It was an attempt to let the reader know what the Quran actually was. I think the contention that "Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril)", which was sourced to Gray Lambert, was never in dispute. Nor "They consider the Quran to be the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption." (which sourced to Ahmad Hussein Sakr). The http://www.altafsir.com was simply a link to the relevant text of the hadith mentioned by a cleric. This is what the website says: "ALTAFSIR.COM is a completely free, non-profit website providing access to the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic Commentary (tafsir or tafseer), translation, recitation and essential resources in the world." MEMRI has been used by major news organizations and academic articles (see above for in prior section for examples) as a source - but here the secondary source isn't MEMRI, it was the Cleric. MEMRI is simply the translation of the cleric, and the publisher of that translation. This source http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html simply links to the text of a relevant hadith (Sahih Muslim 41:6985). RebSmith (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The point you miss is that the Qur'an (and anti-Semitism) has been subject to extensive analysis, philological and historical, by competent specialists, thoroughly trained in the necessary tools and languages. Therefore it is quite pointless, given the abundance of scholarly work on all of these passages, to use inferior, popular, secondary sources, or primary sources, mugged up or indexed or referred to by authors, controversialists who have no peer-reviewed competence in the topics. Altafir.com

again is a primary source: primary sources mean nothing unless interpreted competently, since, esp. in Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic contexts, they are swathed in exegetical notes, glosses and commentary. To ignore this is to verge on WP:OR. Memri is not a reliable source. See our article:

Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. . .Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.'

I don't question many of the things Memri translates. I do question editors who use its minute scrutiny of Arab discourse to pick out the worst, and present it as a representative opinion (it may be, case by case, but you can do the same 'job' on Israeli or Western sources, and the effect is the same: to skew perspectives towards a unilateral focus on hatred, while ignoring contrary evidence, which is abundant. I'm all in favour of letting it all hang out, as long as WP:NPOV is scrupulously adhered to, and the only way to do that is by careful use of scholarship, attentiveness to source bias, elimination of agenda-driven islamophobic editorialists and writers. I see no evidence of this sensitivity in the editing here.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know who has a phobia of islam. But supposing we substitute for that word "opposed to Islamism", what you propose is starkly against both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. WP is not an encyclopedia which draws only on scholarly sources. Please stop appealing to WP policy if you have no intent to follow it. And you acknowledge yourself that MEMRI is an RS, so it is done, MEMRI will be treated as an RS and not cut out because you prefer only other sources.Bkalafut (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, do you not see the title of this article? It is labeled "Islam and antisemitism". So, it needs to identify what that antisemitism is. As for sources, let's get this straight. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric. Publisher of translation - MEMRI. If you have a problem with the source, you should tell us why a particular cleric shouldn't be included or why they aren't relevant to the discussion or why the particular cleric is unreliable or why MEMRI translation of them is unreliable. Of course there should be a discussion on the scholarship surrounding where antisemitism in the Muslim world derives. I never suggested taking any of that content out of the article. But to completely censor material that identifies the actual antisemitic content, even when its from scholars of highly regarded institutions or from clerics associated with the leadership of Hamas, is ridiculous. RebSmith (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead

EJ has done the sensible thing, and locked the article. The lead I wrote however has gone out, when, in the edit-warring, no one, to my awareness, contested it. I have asked EJ to consider its reincorporation as uncontroversial here. If on the other hand, someone did object, or challenged it, and I missed it, please note that here. It's not of course definitive, but it is not, surely, what we were to-and-froing about?Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to restoring that lead, then? Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, editors can vote pro or contra for its restoration.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, one to the article as is and another to RebelSmith's lede. Nobody but you knows what you're talking about. Contra until discussion around those has taken place.Bkalafut (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In your reverts here

• here
• here
• here
• here

The lead I wrote remained untouched, from the moment I posted it. If there is some diff that challenged that lead I can't see it. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• • The lead has a blatantly anti-Christian POV. The article is Islam and antisemitism, not Christianity and antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion. Unfortunately, all of the serious literature notes that you cannot handle the topic of anti-Semitism (a Western concept born within the bosom of Christianity,) and Islam without looking at the impact of Christian prejudice on Islam. The lead simply reflects that. The question is

'how and why has anti-Semitism, historically rooted and concentrated in European Christian culture, diffused into the Arab and Islamic world? 'Jeffrey Herf, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence, Routledge, 2013 p.xi.

'The old and stale anti-Jewish stereotypes that appear in European Anti-Semitism, and have been copiously replicated in Arab and Muslim anti-Semitic writings, have of late affected some new twists, concurrent with the enhanced anti-Semitic mood in the West.(Raphael Israeli, Muslim Anti-Semitism in Christian Europe: Elemental and Residual Anti-Semitism, Transaction Publishers, 2011 p.7

'The history of Jew-hatred in the Islamic world is not as intense as that of the Christian world. Jews have generally had a tolerated and protected status in the Islamic faith, in contrast to the demonization of Jews as Christ-killers, which has been so much a feature of Christianity through the centuries. . .In modern times, parts of the Islamic world have also been influenced by antiSemitic conspiracy theories that have their origins in Christian Europe.' Toby Greene, Blair, Labour, and Palestine: Conflicting Views on Middle,Bloomsbury Publishing USA,2013 p.170.

' A principal source of anti-Jewish prejudice and hatred in the Middle East is the Arab Christians, few of whom have renounced, as required by the Second Vatican Council, and parallel Protestant guidelines- the inherited teaching of contempt in favor of the new teaching of respect.'Marvin Perry, ‎Frederick M. Schweitzer Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 p.14.

'Antisemitic libels previously typical of Christian anti-Semitism and staple propaganda of Nazism, such as the blood-libel, now form a regular feature of Arab propaganda. . .It must be concluded that there now been a confluence of Christian and Muslim anti-Semitism in the Middle East, for which the brokers were the Nazis.' Hyam Maccoby, Antisemitism and Modernity: Innovation and Continuity, Psychology Press, 2006 p.151

'The reason why anti-Jewish feeling has existed in all Christian culture for centuries before it appeared in a deep sense in Islamic culture is that the status of the Jews in Christian mythology has always been much deeper than it ever was in pre-modern Islam. It is part of the fundamental myth of Christianity that its divine founder, Jesus,. was opposed as an enemy by the Jewish leadership, who actually brought about his death by their false representations of him to the Roman leadership as a danger to Rome.' (something Islam lacks) p.148 (There is no parallel, he continues, in Islam with this)

These and many other sources make the connection, view it as intrinsic. These are not my views. They are the views of various authorities, and must be duly registered here. The lead as I wrote mirrors a number of views of key scholars on major themes, which the text then develops. To be defensive about one religion, while hauling in truckloads of material critical about another, is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia, let alone polite society (if that still exists).Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom. It is thus inappropriate for an article about antisemitism in Islam. You may treat the topic of imported vs autochthonous antisemitism in the body of the article. Strong Contra as lede is POV relative to article. Bkalafut (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the focus is from the sources. When sources discuss the impact of Christianity on Islamic antisemitism, and do so regularly, that belongs. nableezy - 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom.

Leads summarize. One strong thesis is that anti-Semitism in Islam came from contact with European prejudices. It is supported by the eminence grise of the topic, Lewis, and many other scholars. It has to be there for that reason. Please note, that so far, neither of you has introduced, or shown familiarity, with any of the standard scholarly works on the subject. Your unique contribution is scare-monger additions or primary sources culled from them. No page numbers, nothing...Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, A reminder of its content for those who cite it without apparently reading it

Wikipedia is not strictly about scholarship and the popular commentary has a place, too,.Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC

Articles should be based on 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

On articles riven by scholarly disagreements, but amply covered by academic work, there is no place for 'popular commentary'. This is particularly true of inferences and deductions drawn from translations of ancient books.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you must replace or augment the reliable popular sources with reliable academic sources, not write an NPOV article with the material from popular sources removed just because you cannot abide popular sources. This is what appears to be what you propose and is indeed the most charitable description of your earlier uncivil behavior. It is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The bit you cite: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" argues my point and not yours. Please stop being obstinately against this. If you're going to strut about braying like a jackass in accusing somebody of not reading something he cites, you had better read it before you stick it in his face. I caught you in dishonesty once again. I get no enjoyment from that. Bkalafut (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, he must not do any such thing, and you really need to chill on calling others uncivil. Referring to others edits as vandalism, calling somebody a jackass, making completely asinine accusations of socking, and generally acting as though you have learned more about the policies of this place in your 656 edits as opposed to Nishidani's nearly 37,000 or Zero's (an admin by the way, one of the reasons it was so foolish for you to call him a sock of Nishidani) 22,000+ is both uncivil, disrespectful, and, to be blunt, foolish. Kindly learn something about the topic you intend to write about instead of searching high and low for the most garbage sources that can be found on google, because the people you are arguing with actually know a thing or two about both the topic and the way this place works. Things that might have passed you by in your 656 edits. nableezy - 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No matter what my logged-in edit count is (or how many times you've been topic-banned), I was not born yesterday. If somebody cites policy at me when it actually supports my point of view, I'm going to call it as I see it. You two have been blustering this whole time ("braying like a jackass" in colloquial English--but you read that, in bad faith, as calling you a jackass) and attempting to chase off a new editor by preferring reverts to quick remediation. And I don't care who an admin is or is not. If a guy is going to jump in and ratify a bully's actions using the bully's language, it's a sock in spirit if not in substance. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not?Bkalafut (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

All I see here is someone who registered a few weeks ago, coming straight to this obscure and difficult article, and in editing it, showing a profound nescience of policy, not to speak of the subject, while exhibiting a profound dislike for one half of the subject. The other who has made 600+edits in over a decade, and just happened to be galvanized into action by my editing this one article. Okay WP:AGF but there is, so far, no evidence of either understanding how to debate policy and the topic. All I hear is a plea for popular sources written by dilettanti, some of whom (Spencer and Geller) are behind organizations classified by the Anti-Defamation League as hate groups. I mean you have to be really off the planet to think there is a skerrick of intelligence in anyone who can seriously campaign to 'Stop the Islamicization of America. That we should have to make an argument about the inappropriateness of input from such sources on a technical article is proof that this place is not run on efficient lines, but demands masochism from the serious.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Nishidani, I think this matter is in need of outside intervention because it doesn't seem like either RebSmith or Bkalafut is going to read the relevant policies and guidelines or cede an inch. I recommend bringing the matter to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard soon, as this discussion keeps going in circles. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought of that, but, judging by the unfocused argufying here, I expect that one would get more of the same. I regret every minute spent from books, and being tied up in endless procedures. In the real world, the problem is obvious, the solution is simple: encyclopedias require scholarship, not animus, nor opinions. If people really think popular books by dilettanti associated with hate pressure groups trump the work of great scholars like Bernard Lewis or Reuven Firestone, and if wiki has no simpler efficient efforts, to ask such editors to read up on the serious world of scholarship before venturing onto articles that require delicacy of judgement, and humility before the accumulated erudition of the academy, then it's rather a pointless exercise. You're right of course. I just can't stand the prospect of more banter. Enough. I need some humour from Clive James, after wasting a day here.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear that you are engaging in censorship on this particular topic and that you seek to misrepresent my position. I've never advocated for not including academic scholarship on this particular subject. Nor will I ever do so. I didn't touch the analysis of the Quran included by Western academics. So, please don't build up a straw man here. It is quite obvious that you are not abiding by Wikipedia's own policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is also obvious that you are pushing for a particular point of view under the veil of academic authority, while refusing to include truly relevant material. To have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include what Muslim clerics (from prestigious Islamic institutions or from leadership positions within Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah or the Iranian government) say about how the Quran represents Jews is truly the height of censorship. You are bowdlerizing this particular topic. I simply added content that contained sources you find bias or offensive (please note that this is very different than being unreliable). Everyone here has only reaffirmed that MEMRI is considered a reliable source. No one has demonstrated that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source, merely that he offends. Your claim that he (and others) are dilettanti is ridiculous considering that one can argue the same thing about a Western academic analyzing the Quran. And I'll end this comment with a quote from Edward Said in his book the Orientalist:

The Orient and Islam have a kind of extrareal, phenomenologically reduced status that puts them out of reach of everyone except the Western expert. From the beginning of Western speculation about the Orient, the one thing the orient could not do was to represent itself. Evidence of the Orient was credible only after it had passed through and been made firm by the refining fire of the Orientalist’s work

RebSmith (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are quoting again a source you are unfamiliar with, as is obvious from the silly blooper of citing it as the Orientalist. It's called Orientalism, which states what you quote on p.283.

Robert Spencer dismisses Said as a soi-disant scholar who destroyed Western studies of Islam. For how wryly dismissive a deeply competent scholar of Islam Mark LeVine can be of Spencer's ridiculous uses of old texts to describe the contemporary world, see the former's response to one of Spencer's articles here

(it) 'falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue. This is probably not the best way to understand what Muslims think about various issues today; just as basing the opinions of Jews solely on the writings of Maimonides or even Americans based solely on the views of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (or better, the Magna Carta) would likely produce a distorted understanding of contemporary views. But such thinking is among the primary ideological moves in Orientalism and the larger discourse of imperialism (if saying this makes me a “Saidist”–a term I’ve never encountered before. Shouldn’t it be “Saidian”?–then so be it), as evidenced so well in James Mill’s 1817 primer for British imperial rule of India, the History of India, which argued with great fanfare, and just as great error, that the thousands year old “Laws of Manu” were a primary basis for understanding, and so governing, Hindu society. . .Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists. The 99.9% of Muslims who don’t engage in violence against the West, the vast majority of whom don’t base their life of the ‘Umdat as-Salik (however important it might be for religious scholars), whose lives are incredibly diverse, complex and conflicted, and whose dreams for their futures and those of their children and their societies are in fact quite close to ours, just don’t seem to count much to you'

Someone who is listed by organizations that document this nonsense as engaged in defamation of Muslims, should not be a source for Wikipedia articles. It is pointless continuing this conversation. The burden is on you to show that the Spencer, Geller and Bostoms of islamophobia are adequate to WP:RS. Go there, and make a case. Any page on an institution that contains very large numbers of adherents must optimally employ high quality sources. See Wikipedia:BLPGROUP Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is really rich. Your quote makes my case. To discredit my argument with a minor error rather than face it and address it is ridiculous. You make the fallacy of thinking that because I cite Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom that I endorse their opinions, and because of this fallacy, you contend that I am unfamiliar with Robert Spencer's take on Said. I was equating all "orientalists". You call one a "dilettanti". I'm saying that they can all be called dilettantis, which is why we should include Muslim sources, but all those sources you wish to brush off as "hillbilly nonsense". The above argument centers on Robert Spencer, and let's actually get into the criticism of him by Mark LeVine: "(Robert Spencer) falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue." and "Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists". Clearly, Mark LeVine is not contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on certain interpretations of religious texts, nor is he contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on "extremists" stances. He is contesting Robert Spencer's analysis as representative of the majority of average Muslims. No one is claiming this. Robert Spencer doesn't even claim this. You simply don't want to use Robert Spencer nor Andrew Bostom because they are very critical of one particular orientalist perspective, that European Christianity infected the modern-day Muslim world with antisemitism. But just think about this thesis, it's a classic orientalist perspective on par with "those savages couldn't possible develop any idea, good or bad, on their own". RebSmith (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is this: Robert Spencer's book that I cited got favorable reviews from Bat Ye'or who has been used as a source by Bernard Lewis and other scholars. And the conclusion is then that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source while Bernard Lewis is. Obviously, we can consider all of these sources as reliable in the field of Orientalism. Bernard Lewis's thesis should be mentioned in the body, but so should the criticism of it provided by both Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom. What I would like to see with the Quran section is separated into two section: the Orientialists (Academics trained in the Western tradition studying Islam and the Muslim world) and modern-day Muslim sources (here, I don't mean Muslims trained as Western academics. I mean Muslims trained in the Islamic tradition). The Muslim sources section should have two parts: 1) Muslim sources who use the Quran to say negative ideas about the Jews (with their particular arguments) 2) Muslim sources who say that the Quran views Jews positively (with their particular arguments). The Orientalist section should also be divided into two sections similarly as well. In an entirely different section that is not under "The Quran", there should be a discussion about the roots of modern-day Islamic antisemitism with sections divided into the different theories (Israeli occupation, European Christianity, Nazism, Islamic tradition, etc.). RebSmith (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Muslim Clerics as sources Here are a list of the Muslim Clerics that I used for the anitisemitic interpretation of Quranic verses:

• Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
• Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais
• Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi
• Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
• ‘Atiyyah Saqr
• Yunis Al Astal
• Muhsen Abu 'Ita (Hamas Cleric on Hamas sponsored television, he is a veteran of Hamas leadership [57])
• Muhammad Hussein Yacoub

These clerics should be considered reliable sources WP:RS on Anitisemitic (or anti-Jew) interpretation of Quranic verses unless determined otherwise. RebSmith (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Ah yes... Nishidani thinks these men are "hillbilly" and their opinions "nonsense" ... lol RebSmith (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A few of these people are notable and the opinions of those few are also notable. The problem here is ably illustrated by your list. Why did you only list clerics whose opinions are (you believe) supportive of the story you wish to tell? Have you looked for clerics whose opinions of the same verses are different? (Try searching for things like "Quran Jews misinterpretation" and you will find many to choose from.) Basically this is cherry-picking of the first order, a violation of WIkipedia's core principles. As well as that, most of what is claimed to be the opinions of these people comes to us not directly but via the anti-Islam machine. Have you looked for alternative opinions on what these clerics believe? Zero 01:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

From WP:Cherrypicking:

Deletion or debate

Contradiction may justify deleting contradicted information more weakly sourced, but often it justifies presenting both sides of a topic, as by leaving intact the original statement and adding a new statement, so readers can know multiple perspectives. Which course to follow depends on the case, but hypothetical examples may illuminate the difference:

*An author says something is true and a year later retracts the statement. Usually, only report the later statement or nothing at all. The exception would be if the earlier statement remains especially notorious after the retraction and must be discussed even though it was retracted, but that is rare.

*A book says that according to one religion only persons A, B, and C are prophets but according to another religion only persons D, E, and F are prophets. Although that is contradictory, in an article about both religions both statements should be reported, perhaps in the form of a fully disclosed disagreement. The reason is that the book is itself relying on two other sources, each of which may be authoritative for its own subject but not for the other source's subject.

*A book's title appears to be a statement of fact but the author, inside the book or elsewhere, denies what the title says is correct as a statement of fact. This did happen with one book, the title of which placed one class of people as superior to another class, whereas inside the book the author denied that superiority. This can happen because a publisher wants a catchier title in order to encourage more sales, and some publishing contracts take control of the titles away from the authors. We do not ordinarily report a fact on the basis of a book title alone, but in a case like this we would be especially unlikely to do so.

Qualification probably does not require deletion or even debate, as long as significant qualifications are reported.

I've mentioned before in this talk page, but I fully intended to add the opposition of those opinions. I've previously mentioned that I specifically intended to add Hamza Yusuf's opinion on this particular topic [58]. He constantly speaks on it [59]. In addition, the Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi, listed was added to refute the idea that Jews "descended from apes and pigs". An entire sect of Islam, Ahmadi Islam, would vigorously refute the antisemitic perspectives made by the mentioned clerics. RebSmith (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare this article with Christianity and antisemitism. Here we have notes 113-205, half the text, documenting specific instances of anti-Semitism and Arabs. In the Christianity and anti-Semitism article, nothing of the sort. No one is fingered. No editor has gone and crammed in dozens of names and instances one can get in two minutes, of evangelical, protestant, catholic etc., pastors and priests making anti-Semitic statements, from readily available sources:

• Frank E. Eakin,What Price Prejudice?: Christian Antisemitism in America, Paulist Press, 1998
• Skipp Porteous, Anti-Semitism: Its Prevalence Within the Christian Right, (Great Barrington, MA: Institute for First Amendment Studies, 1994
• Skipp Porteous Anti-Semitism:Its prevalence within the Christian right
• The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America, Anti-Defamation League 1994

Names, just a few randomly clipped off the net of people strongly identified with Christianity who have made anti-Semitic remarks or are anti-Semitic.

• Rev. Dan C. Fore, former head of the Moral Majority in New York
• Jerry Falwell
• John Hagee
• Pat Buchanan (here)
• Pat Robertson (here)
• Gerald L. K. Smith founder of the Christian Nationalist Crusade
• Rev. William Holmes McGuffey
• McGuffey Readers Since 1982, Mott Media has sold a whopping 100,000 sets of the Readers, which are widely viewed as antisemitic and widsely used by Christian to home-educate their children.
• Rousas Rushdoony, Presbyterian minister
• Tim LaHaye, former leader of the Moral Majority
• Donald Wildmon the Methodist minister who heads the American Family Association (AFA),
• Pastor Pete Peters
• Steven Anderson
• Pastor Arnold Murray
• The Shepherd's Chapel
• Bishop Richard Williamson
• Thomas Robb
• Surrey priest Reverend Stephen Sizer
• Father Tadeusz Rydzyk
• Father Andrey Evstigneeva (Russian orthodox)
• Lutheran Reverend Mitri Raheb
• Pastor Herman Otten
• Robert Grant
• Methodist antisemitism

It's easy to 'frame' the narrative you want to jerryrig. What you and other editors here have done is what anyone could do for Christianity and anti-Semitism. But fortunately, that page is free of this gaming (probably because, the Religious Right is cultivated for its support of Israel, and it is important to lampoon Islam, as the common enemy.)Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, I am not trying to do anything. There is real theological debate within Islam today about the Jews. You can clearly see this raging on with articles like this [60]. Whether it is due to the influence of European anti-Semitism or has its roots in Islam itself or is the product of Israeli occupation of Palestine is contested by orientalists (I would like to add that Bernard Lewis is a Zionist himself [61] and blaming it on European anti-Semitism may be considered a pro-Israel POV). I agree that the notes 113-205 are not very useful to anyone. My thoughts are that if they contain commentary on Islam or Islamic history, they should be incorporated into the appropriate sections, otherwise, they shouldn't be in this article. I'd like to see this article completely reorganized into several sections: Quran, Life of Mohammad, The four rightly guided caliphs, apocalyptic theology, the Dhimmi, Medieval Islamic empires, the Ottoman Empire, Modern-day Sharia governed countries (as defined by the OIC [62]), roots of Islamic antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about Islam, but about anti-Semitism and Islam, and while I agree the article needs extensive work, and while I concur that anti-Semitism is a notable issue in the modern era certainly, an article on Islam (with the vast majority of its adherents outside the West, where we are writing this) should respect the same criteria observed in Christianity and anti-Semitism.

I advise the use of the vast scholarship on this because (a) scholars often disagree on fundamentals, (b) authors generally don't get far in that world being a bigot in their books, whereas being a media controversialist is the primrose road to success and accolades, (c) major non-academic financial bodies invest substantially in denigrating Islam and Arabs, and much of what one reads has to be carefully assayed for its integrity to the facts and disinterest in distorting them. (After giving a dry-as-dust lecture on the intricacies of György Lukács's exposition of Hegel, and its relevance to modern nationalist ideologies illustrated by my citation of numerous pseudo-academic scholarly books, a senior scholar ignored the epistemology, and just asked me who paid the people who wrote that stuff. I didn't know. So he told me: 'Just follow the money trail', meaning I was taking seriously ideas that were floated as if they had intrinsic interest. In his view, those 'popular ideas' had no merit, but were produced because it was profitable to support their diffusion in the public mind.)

This is true of all prejudice - public hysteria is the aim. A serious scholar will take several years to analyse a problem; in contrast, the 'public intellectual' or controversialist survives by quickie 'analyses', and rarely takes the trouble to master a foreign language, live among its speakers, absorb its complexities, work his or her way into their world-views, and measure the culture in its historic depth. The temptation of Wikipedia editors is to use search machines to come up with evidence to support a preconception they have come across - one that may seem full of verisimilitude. The only barrier against this temptation is to read deeply and broadly. If one does that, even the glamour of controversy fades, as one slowly absorbs the intricacies of understanding other worlds.

That is what I aspire to do here. I have no problem in documenting anti-Semitism, wherever it exists. I have very strong objections to any use of anti-Semitic (or anti-Christian/anti-Islamic) accusations for manipulating the public imagination one way or another for political ends. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Typology of views on the relation between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

Yesterday, the following typology of views on the relation between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism was introduced, subsuming widely diverging views on the nature of this relation under the following three headings:

1. Not the same
2. Not necessarily mutually exclusive
3. Interlinked

Note that this typology doesn't only constitute WP:OR – it is outright nonsense. Noone would reasonably consider the two (exactly) the same, while everyone would acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive, and in one way or other interlinked. So all of the personalities cited here would fall in all of the three categories, which however wouldn't clarify their real perspective at all. Also, the reworded heading "Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism" already suggests a non-relation, while the nature of the relation is what the section is all about.
So, while I'm not going to revert this nonsense within the next 24h again, others might do so. Note that I'm not against giving this article a better structure. But clearly, if an edit is WP:BOLD, and if a number of contributors consider it too bold, then we need to discuss it here trying to find a consensus. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For several decades, anti-Zionism was predominantly unrelated to anti-Semitism, being in the Western world overwhelming a position associated with Jewish criticisms of the Zionist project, and, in Palestine and further east, related to a political struggle for that land not primarily motivated by hostility to Jews qua Jews. Unless the article has a history section (every time I try to begin to write one it gets wiped off the page) showing the diversity of meanings associated with both Zionism and anti-Zionism, and the shifts through time, the page will remain a meaningless jumble, because we don't know, in each case, what aspect of either is being referred to. Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery are, for example, opposed to Territorial Zionism, but strong supporters of the state of Israel. Israel Shahak was a Political Zionist opposed to Religious Zionism,etc.etc,etc. Attempts to make an essence of either Zionism or opposition to it and then make them face off, as though they were two simple antagonists, are flawed in principle.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nishidani, you may be mistaken here. Israel Shahak, who I was privileged to know, was explicitly anti-Zionist. Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, calls himself a Zionist even when promoting a position (a unitary bi-national state) which most people would consider anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that Shahak was opposed to the foundation of Israel in 1948? I was using the term 'Zionist' in that sense, in the historic sense used by Laqueur that Zionism as a project finished in 1948, when its fundamental aim was accomplished.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I am saying that, whatever his views may have been forty years earlier, by the late 1980s Shahak was opposed to the policies and practices of the then-existing Zionist movement. I fundamentally disagree, as do all anti-Zionists that I know and work with (and that is a very large number) with Laquer's definition. In fact, many Zionists would also disagree with this, seeing the state of Israel as a tool to achieve the Zionist aims, rather than as the goal itself. There has been extensive discussion of this in Zionist circles for the past fifty years or more. (In using the term "Zionist aims", I am not referring to or implying some sort of nonsensical Jewish global conspiracy, but rather the stated aims of many Zionists: the "normalisation" of the Jewish people, "inverting the pyramid" of diaspora Jewish class structure, creating a spiritual centre for the world's Jews and other explicit positions).RolandR (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Roland, I agree with you on what you are saying. But, at the same time, as an editor, I have to follow what the numerous sources on Zionism in all its shades, state. My problem is that I see, not specifically in those anti-Zionists who have a profound and articulate mastery of that discursive tradition, but in the representation of anti-Zionism by its adversaries (in Israel and the diaspora), an utter conceptual confusion, a reflex boiling down of 'Zionism' with all of its internal contradictions and meanings, to one thing, which, if opposed, means the anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic (when not proof of the so-called "self-hating Jew"), because Israel is putatively the quintessence of Judaism, instead of being, as I think it is, perhaps the most parlous threat to its great tradition since the Holocaust. Playing the anti-Semitic card to defend whatever Israel as a state does, will, unless opposed vigorously, undermine Israel, as it encourages a recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the old sense.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to add more smoke than light, but many of the authors cited would completely disagree with this claim and assert that Anti-Zionism has always involved (even sometimes from Jewish commentators) a distinctive element of prejudice and malice against Jews primarily because it is the Jewish state. As for the suggestion that NC and UA are 'strong supporters of the state of Israel', why has Israel banned the former entry since 2010?[63] There is value in distinguishing between those who see little overlap and those who see the two phenomena as inseparably joined at the hip. Cpsoper (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The failure to distinguish the two is often a matter of deliberate political choice, to make a case that, for example, people who oppose Israel's colonial project in the West Bank are, ipso facto, antisemites. Thus the ADL comes up with the laughable idea that the most anti-Semitic country in the world is the West Bank, where, they assert, 93% of Palestinians hate Jews as Jews, not because in their daily lives, a system engineered to make life a hardscrabble struggle to get water to wash oneself, or permission to cultivate more than 12 tomato plants, or visit one's family a few miles away through detours that make the trip a 3 hour negotiation through checkpoints, or struggle to have one's Fulbright scholarship award implemented, is run by people with guns who justify the intricate machinery of prejudice against the occupied, as necessary to secure, and those wonderful settlements flush with water, schools and modern conveniences over the road, a homeland for Jews in a world that persecutes them. If the 200 million Christians in the world (10%) who face daily restrictions and humiliations in 60 countries, used that logic and their "brethren", reading day in day out detailed coverage of every instance of such persecution, rallied to the idea they all had to be gathered into a Christian homeland, at whatever cost to other secular, ethnic communities there, you'd get the development of a similar pattern. Yield to the strong pressures to think from within one specific ethnic or religious identity at what happens to any one of "us" anywhere, and you will get, as a general result, a sense of panic at being a member of a 'uniquely' targeted group which would muffle any discourse, like that the Chomskys of this world, articulate, for the indispensability of universal values in secular states.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Short remark: I don't think this polemic is helpful. We should focus on our agreements, not celebrate our disagreements – otherwise we'll never come up with a halfway viable consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that there was a time when anti-Zionism used to be predominantly associated with Jewish anti-Zionism, while Zionist ideas were mainly discussed within Jewish circles. This however already started to change with the early opposition against the first settlements in the 1880s and 1890s. From then on, a second strand of non-Jewish anti-Zionism evolved that more often than not overlapped with some of the forms of Antisemitism. With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe. From then on, it was no longer possible to easily distinguish the two.
Things got even more complicated with the foundation of the state of Israel, with different interpretations of whether the Zionist project had been completed or remains a continuing struggle for Jewish self-determination. It is hard to uphold that Jewish anti-Zionism wasn't ever tainted by one or the other form of antisemitism – undoubtedly a number of anti-Zionist, European Jews were influenced by the general population's antisemitic prejudices. Other Jewish anti-Zionists however managed to draw a clear line, as did a few non-Jewish anti-Zionists.
Now as @Nishidani: stated, the anti-Zionist authors cited in this section are referring to very different aspects or framings of Zionism and, accordingly, of anti-Zionism. Many of them try to establish their own definitions of what exactly the Zionism they're opposing actually constitutes. While many of these definitions may be legitimate – finally there is no single authoritative definition – this matter of fact needs to be carefully taken into consideration by us. Thus, we need to be very careful with typologies or oversimplified characterizations. I think it is possibly and I agree with Cpsoper that there is value in distinguishing different strands of criticism. But what we may not do is establishing an WP:OR typology ourselves. Nishidani might be right that in order to be remotely able to put these quotes in a meaningful context, we'd really better start with writing a really good history section, possibly even a background article History of anti-Zionism. Our easiest starting point might be improving and expanding Jewish Anti-Zionism and condensing the respective section anti-Zionism#Jewish Anti-Zionism to a comprehensive summary. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe

That's way out of focus. The protocols only began to have a minor diffusion in partial translations in into Arabic in the mid-20s, mostly written by Lebanese Christians. You have to distinguish opposition to policy from the way it is spun, i.e. the British army, experienced in handling the concrete effects of government policy on native populations, thought Balfour's plan a prescription for chaos - they were correct- and opposed it for practical reasons: the Zionists responded by spinning this as reflecting traditional British anti-Semitism (cf.Richard Meinertzhagen), this as early as the 20s, while the influx of East European Jews after WW1, many from areas like the Ukraine where savage pogroms had devastated their communities, produced, in local Jewish newspapers, a rhetoric that native Arab opposition to the takeover of Palestine by immigrants, was just 'antisemitic', since the template through which they perceived persecution was from their experience of the traditional, if by then protocols-influenced murderous anti-Semitism implemented by Symon Petliura and Anton Denikin, and the White Volunteer Army. The older Yishuv, thoroughly at home there, were hostile to these new Zionists: they were disruptive of traditional arrangements between Jewish and Islamic communities, in their ignorance of the local culture and inability to understand Arabic. They could see that the anti-Semitic charge laid by these newcomers had nothing to do with it.

All wiki articles ignore this strain between the Yishuv and the Zionist project, reflecting the Zionist spin. Many classic anti-Semites were pro-Zionist, precisely because Zionism offered to 'fix' the 'problem' of Jews in Europe by getting them shipped off and out to Palestine, something well documented which makes statements identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism farcical. By the same logic, one could argue, gentile pro-Zionism is anti-Semitic (which among American evangelicals it often is,-just as it was with Balfour, but that is, in newspaper coverage, mostly swept under the carpete),etc.etc.etc.

The only way to handle this is to refer to specialist studies for everything, written by historians who are not directly involved in polemics. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion bizarre, and a digression. There is a body called the World Zionist Organisation. It has its own structures and policies, and it has quasi-governmental powers in the state of Israel and territories it occupies, while not being answerable, even nominally, to the citizens or residents of that state. Anti-Zionism today means opposition to the policies and practices of this body. If neither Zionists nor anti-Zionists accept that the Zionist movement and project came to an end in 1948, it would be presumptuous of us to claim that it did.

I agree entirely with Nishidani about Balfour, I have written articles about this[64], and I will be writing more towards the centenary of the Balfour Declaration next year; but I doubt that this can be considered a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I agree with everything in that analysis (though surprised, but then I'm not an expert, at the dating of Storrs' Jewish Ulster remark to 1917. I'd always thought that was something he wrote retrospectively in his 1937 memoir). I apologize for any annoyance in the above. My problem is that here (a)I am obliged to work under wiki procedures (which do not oblige editors to actually understand a subject before contributing to it), that (b) the article has only one pointy version, the major one now, of a dozen interpretations of Zionism, and anti-Zionism is simply, by implication, the opposite (c) that good sources say both terms are used imprecisely (d) that a lot of sources, from Wistrich to Ottolenghi make frankly silly definitions of anti-Zionism, which however are by wiki rules, to be admitted, and therefore, I feel obliged to sort out the conceptual mess, via RS. An article cannot be written well unless one defines the topic precisely. Comprehensive sources on anti-Zionism, other than Yakov M. Rabkin's, which has predominantly a religious focus, don't appear to exist, and much of what we have is hostile and muddle-headed, even by reputable scholars.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Storrs, the remark is indeed first noted in his memoirs, published in 1937; but he there uses the phrase, in quotes, as the belief in British circles in Jerusalem in 1917. It is not clear that he is quoting himself, but he is certainly quoting something said at the time, not twenty years later. There are some other comprehensive works on anti-Zionism. Apart from several collections of essays and articles (notably in Khamsin magazine and the related anthology Hidden Agendas), there is Ran Greenstein's Zionism and Its Discontents, Gabriel Pitterberg's The Returns of Zionism, Laurence J Silberstein's The Postzionism Debates, and Ilan Pappé's recent The Idea of Israel. Those are just the titles that come to mind immediately; I could produce a much longer list given a couple of days. I agree with much of your criticism of the article; my problem is that I am too closely involved, and could be considered to have a conflict of interest, so I try to limit my editing here. RolandR (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful, and I'll look into those bibliographical indications today. Precisely because you have an intimate knowledge from the inside, your close supervision of the work here would be indispensable, even if only as a corrective overseer (to avoid, as you say, WP:COI). As to the Storrs thing, given my background - though most of us have roots in the south, we had 'refugees' from Ulster fleeing the kind of madness you saw in later times with Ian Paisley and I naturally thought 1917 was too early to make a natural Ulster Protestant enclave-Jewish Palestine enclave analogy, since this wasn't juridically formulated until around 1920, then consolidated in 1922 (from memory). I guess however that it might well have been what top British military echelons would have thought in the wake of the Easter Uprising in 1916 of what was necessary and then would reemerge when the Balfour plan was announced in late 1917. I've always been interested in the analogy given the seminal impact the Irish tactics in their rebellion against the British had on the Lehi/Irgun school of 'thinking'. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have looked further into this, and the phrase "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" was apparently quoted in an article in the Daily Mail in 1923 by journalist Joseph Jeffries. He notes the phrase as having been used by a "mirthless Zionist propagandist" in 1917. I don't have access to a reference archive in which I can check the Daily Mail from then, but I'll keep looking. RolandR (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Now this is really interesting! Just the sort of thing Zero0000 loves to ferret out and track down. here are some notes that might help.

• J. M. N. Jeffries, The Palestine Deception 1915-1923:: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the Balfour Declaration, and the Jewish National Home , (ed.) William M. Mathew Institute for Palestine Studies (USA), Inc. 2015 would have the article but it doesn't seem to be searchable to pin down the page and context.
• It must have been in wide circulation since then because the Australian historian Keith Hancock, who visited Palestine in the summer of 1936 (and was philosemitic: when he was fronted by Nazi youths in Marburg in 1934 he famously turned on their anti-Semitic haranguing by telling them that he was an Australian Jew, that General John Monash was an Australian Jew who beat the shit out of Germans in WW1,a and that all Australians were Jewish, one of the lost tribes. His experiences in Palestine however made him change his views, to adopt sympathy for Palestinians. he wrote to his friend Charles Hawker that 'The British govt. has lost control in Palestine –it just takes the bumps from both sides . .Arab cities are the only ones we blow up . .The Mandate is a shadow: the reality is the exodus of terrified Hebrew from Poland and this invasion of Palestine behind our tanks..And our realists not knowing whether to make a Jewish Ulster in the Arab world or to permit a Smyrna massacre.’ (Contextually that must be around December 1936-Jan 1937, before Storrs' book was published). The details are in Jim Davidson, Three-Cornered Life: The Historian W.K. Hancock, University of New South Wales Press, 2010 p.164.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is unusual, in a way, coming from Hancock. His sympathies were English, his paternal grandfather had married a Mary Higgins from Londonderry, etc. I gather in any case that in his contribution, Keith Hancock ‘The Medicine of the Body Politic’ in Keith Hancock, Richard Thomas, Edwin Latham,Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs vol.1:Problems of Nationality, 1918-1936, Oxford 1937 p.482 he notes that analogy once more:'He envisages the Jewish community as a majority in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, but as a minority in the larger Arab world. ... It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East ; it will be an imperial mission like that of the European settlers in Kenya.'

Mathew's website has a variant on this: 'As a minority community in the larger Arab world, it would, in W.K. Hancock`s paraphrasing at the time, `be bound by necessity, no less than by gratitude, to uphold British interests in the Arab world. It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East` (this, as may be recalled, being Herbert Asquith`s nightmare).'

Aside from the “principled” objections to Zionism currently advanced by the left. You have many practical objections often based on fear, confusing the two is not helpful.

1: Could a Jewish state defend itself

2: Could it develop and maintain an economic base.

3: Would diaspora Jews be forced to move to said Jewish state.

4: Would a Jewish state negatively affect diaspora Jews. Still a sore point among Jews in certain career fields such as American and other countries military, security service and foreign policy establishments who feel that their loyalty is questioned.Jonney2000 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Read Rabkin's book. This has nothing to do with the 'left'. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are so detached from public life outside of Israel that their religious ideologies both pro and anti-Zionist have little baring on the Jewish question. Frankly rehashing that history by some on the left is very damaging.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As I implied, everything I have said in comments above, comes from arguments within the Jewish anti-Zionist tradition. Our function here is transcribal, reformulating what sources regarding a topic say about that topic. Since our job is to write the topic per sources, the point of the talk page is to clarify what sources are saying. Familiarizing yourself with the history of the topic would be useful.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? I am very familiarized with this topic. Jonney2000 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The one history on the topic of this article is by Rabkin. From your remarks, it appears you are unfamiliar with it. If so, read it, since it is indispensable for writing the history section.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting from:'The Judaic opponents of Zionism are thus often absent from Israeli historiography. Aside from a few monographs and collections of texts devoted specifically to the history of the relations between Zionism and Judaism, the great majority of histories of the country written in Israel and elsewhere make no reference to the rabbinic resistance. .. The opponents of Zionism hailing from liberal Judaism are even less visible in the historiography both of Zionism and of Israel.' p.11 Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani for agreeing about the value of categorising commentators by view, as long as the categories are widely acknowledged. I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading Rabkin, the article comments that his history 'has also been criticised for its "combative writing style and a selective use of history." One critic wrote that: "Rabkin can't resist from widely citing people who name-call and painting all Zionists as evil" and that this style of writing "diminishes the credibility of his argument'. The work may be detailed, but it sounds tendentious and in the round we'd need care re WP:RS/AC. He too seems part of the fray, and this is corroborated by his political activities. Per, RR, the WZO's platform does seem to serve as useful focus for the definition of opposition to Zionism. Cpsoper (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't take any notice of the opinions of reviewers, critics etc. who can't get beyond dismissive generalizations, particularly if they are added to pages by editors unfamiliar with the books or work of authors involved. I read 50 pages of the French edition last night and can see no trace whatsoever of evidence supporting that kind of mechanical disparagement. To the contrary Joseph Agassi and rabbi Baruch Horovitz testify to the quality of the scholarship. They seem to underline what he documents, the intense pressure, financial and otherwise put on any Jewish critics of Zionism, which include withholding financial support and even shutting down Talmudic centres whenever one of their members came out with criticisms of that ideology (for me, Zionism is just another ideology, nothing else. it has no relationship to the way modernity understands social practices, being grounded in religious myths, imposed by sheer force, and defended in its contemporary colonial ambitions by cynical prevarication). As to 'tendentious' that would apply to everything written on the subject (Wistrich, Ottolenghi, Marcus etc.etc.), depending on your perspective. In any case, we don't make, as editors, metacritiques of RS. It is totally irrelevant, once the RS status has been determined, which is self-evidently the case for Rabkin's work.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

From Talk:Zionism:

• The notion of "re-establishing" the Jewish state should be queried - this is of course the use of langauge to prejudge the conclusion. The sense it which it is being "re"-established is very peculiar to Zionism and Judaism. It is as though the Romans were to "re-establish" Britannica in Britain today. (It is not like the Native Americans who very justifiably could argue the need to re-establish themselves in North America.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.114.39 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Israel was national home for Jews once, and the goal of Zionism was to make it a national home again, i.e. to re-establish it. It is very much the same as Native Americans (assuming they lost their national home). If Romans were to re-capture Britannia, they would certainly be re-establishing the province. The prefix "re" indicates repetition, and it is indeed the case here. *Not* using the prefix for Israel is biased, since it's an attempt to hide the fact that Israel was the national home for the Jewish people in the past. “WarKosign” 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"national home", there were several Jewish kingdoms, who weren't always sovereign. The terms of "re-establishing" portrays that there was a unified Jewish kingdom whose native inhabitants were expelled and only to return, ignoring all the different places that some Israelis today belong to; Yemen/Russia/Argentina/Ethiopia.. Its inaccurate and generalizes, a simple google search shows that "re-establishing" is overwhelmingly used by Jewish sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Another problem with "re-" is that it implies some similiarity between the modern country of Israel and an ancient state. None of these ancient states were defined as a "Jewish state" or a "Jewish homeland". Not to mention the fact that the Hasmonean state was arguably more of a "Hellenic Judean" state than a Jewish state, and the "Kingdom of Israel" has no archaeological evidence supporting its existance. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Romans never argued Britannica was 'home' - what nonsense, they came from Italy. Whereas every passover welcomes the prospect of a Jewish return to Jerusalem. The religious foundation of Judaism and Christianity is based on the old Jewish state, and its reestablishment under Zerubabbel, Yeshua, Ezra, Nehemiah, only wilful ignorance can deny this. This is extremely similar to North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state, in a since occupied land, as genetic studies of Levitical lineages confirm[65]. That there are differences from Herod's kingdom, which was imposed on the inhabitants of Judaea by force, is of little relevance, it was a predominantly Jewish state then now and it is now. Cpsoper (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Which "Jewish state" exactly are we talking about? "North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state", thats ethnicity not religion. Anyone can be a Jew. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is right. This is also true from other perspectives - what it means to be a Jew today is different to the ancient term Ioudaioi or equivalent, which had a geographical sense as well.

And the modern state was established by followers of Rabbinic Judaism, a sect whose forebears the Pharisees were a very small minority in ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research, and even that you got wrong. See Who is a Jew? - there are many definition, and it's open for interpretation whether Jewish state means religion or nationality or both. Nobody in their right mind would think that re-established State of Israel is identical or even similar to ancient kingdoms. "Re-established" refers to national home, not to a specific type of state. It's a plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again. Please refrain from edit-warring and do not repeatedly apply a change that clearly lacks consensus. “WarKosign” 09:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: you wrote that "plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again"; that is an incorrect statement. In fact the opposite is true - the land within the borders of 1948 Israel had technically never been any kind of "homeland" for Jews. Ancient Jews, or more correctly "Ioudaioi" were from "Iudaea", a region in the West Bank. Jews were not from the Paralia coast, or Galilee or the Negev, although some of those peoples did convert under the Hasmoneans. I am focusing on the Hellenic period because any interpretation prior to that period must be based solely on the Bible, and Wikipedia does not quote the Bible as fact. But even if we did follow the Bible the same holds true - Biblical Judeans were from Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, more correct would be "Yehudim" which was/is the Hebrew pronunciation of Jews. Though "Am Yisrael" and "Klal Yisrael" are used by the religious as well. Iudaea is the Roman pronunciation of Yehuda. The word Jews is short for Judeans, which is the English pronunciation of Yehuda, in Hebrew it's Yehudi. When speaking of re-establishing the Jewish Homeland, Zionists are referring to before the Roman destruction, not the Hellenic period (for example, Masada is an important icon in Zionism) Drsmoo (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, Hellenic was before Roman. I think you are confusing with Byzantine. Does your comment mean that you agree with my overall point. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Hellenic was before Roman. Your statement that the land within the borders of 1948 was never a homeland for Jews is factually incorrect. Your choice of the Hellenic period is strange and arbitrary as well. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: If it is factually incorrect, please explain why. "Jews" / "Judeans" are named after Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. If you think I am missing something, please explain. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there's a disconnect here. I don't see what your argument is? Are you saying that the actual location of the Jewish homeland doesn't matter, because the name of the people is "Jews" are therefore it can only be the most geographically limited version Judea, regardless of where their homeland actually extended to? Even that argument, which isn't relevant to the discussion to begin with doesn't make sense, as Judea included the provinces of Samara, Galilee, and Edom, though the general area was predominantly Jewish even before then. Maybe you should consider asking Jews where they consider their ancient homeland to be? Drsmoo (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am simply saying that the closest one could come to for a concept of "homeland" for ancient Jews / Judeans is the region they were named after - that is the region of "Judea".

Your point about inclusion of Samaria, Galilee and Edom is mistaken; the expansion of the Hasmonean state into those regions was temporary, for less than 50 years, and anyway is totally irrelevant to the concept of "homeland". Your argument is as absurd as saying that Persia was part of the "Macedonian homeland", because it was temporarily part of their empire and they expanded their culture within in. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Those regions were all part of Judea, why are you focusing on the most geographically limited version? They were part of the Jewish homeland before 44 CE as well. Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years. Who do you think you are telling them what their homeland is? This is also well documented in history books written about Jews. Your personal animus, while legitimate as far as your feelings as an individual, has no bearing on an encyclopedia article. Btw, I sent you a message on your talk page, I hope we can continue to collaborate effectively. Drsmoo (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the homeland of the Judeans / Jews was Judea, the homeland of the Samaritans was Samaria and the homeland of the Galileans was Galilee. Judaism expanded into the adjacent terroritories under the Hasmoneans, and when the Romans came along they temporarily applied the name across the whole area.

Cutting to the chase, this question between us boils down to "what is a homeland", and when considering an "ancient Jewish homeland" where should we draw the line when considering who were the "original Jews".

On a separate note, your statement "Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years", couldn't be less true. The influence of Zionism on Jewish thought has been so massive that it has affected the Jewish memory and perspectives on history. This is not a Jewish-specific issue but a worldwide nationalism-specific issue. Nationalism fools its learners into thinking that the way we conceive history today is the way we have always done. See Historiography and nationalism. That you believe the sentence you wrote suggests you have yet to test some of the narratives you learned over the years from less-than-scholarly sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the homeland of Jews is Judea and Israel, and has remained so. Your claim about the "influence of Zionism on Jewish thought" is both insulting and ridiculous. I went to Yeshiva for over ten years, both orthodox and ultra-orthodox, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old. This is similar to a "discussion" we had on the Jews talk page where you claimed that Jews never considered themselves descended from the patriarchs until recently, only to be confronted with reality. As someone who studied in a Yeshiva for over 11 years, reading many, VERY old texts that are central to Judaism, your claim is profoundly and demonstrably wrong to an amazing degree. But here are just a few, let me know and I'll add as many as you could possibly read.

"Have mercy, L-rd our G‑d, on Israel Your people, on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the abode of Your glory, on Your altar and on Your Temple. Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us up into it, and make us rejoice in it, and we will bless You in holiness and purity"- from the Hagaddah (this is what Jews read on Passover, btw, as I pointed out to you before, and have continued to read since around 300 CE)

"A person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by non-Jews, and not in the Diaspora, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by Jews. For all those that live in Eretz Yisrael are as if they have a G-d, and all those that live in the Diaspora are as if they have no G-d." - This is from the Mishnah (Ketubot) It was written around 300 CE

"And to Jerusalem, thy city, return in mercy, and dwell therein as thou hast spoken; rebuild it soon in our days as an everlasting building, and speedily set up therein the throne of David. * Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rebuildest Jerusalem." From the Siddur (this is what Jews pray from, in case you were wondering.)

In fact, of all the religions on earth, there is likely no other one that holds a physical place to as much centrality and importance as Israel and Jerusalem in Judaism. Your perceptions of Judaism are incredibly incorrect and profoundly ignorant Drsmoo (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I am sorry to push this as it is clearly sensitive, but I think perspective could be helpful here. Imagine if I took your words and amended them to have been spoken by a Muslim: "I went to Madrassa for over ten years, both Sunni and Wahhabi, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old." How would this give an editor any right to a more balanced and encyclopaedic perspective on Pan-Islamism than any other editor?

And to suggest that Zionism has not influenced mainstream Jewish thought profoundly is absurd. Perhaps the most visible proof is that every mainstream synagogue built today exhibits the Star of David in pride of place. Perhaps your Yeshivas did too. Yet many Rabbis and synagogue leaders do not realise that it is basically a Zionist symbol, and has no religious value. The same is true for many of the currents in modern Judaism. Look at the way certain prayers and holidays have been emphasized over the last centuy. Sure the longing for Jerusalem has always existed in the religion, but prior to Zionism it was but a quiet corner.

To the quotes you brought, the first and third only underpin my point as to Jerusalem (in Judea) being the focus, not the coastal region, negev and Galilee. As to the Mishnah quote, that says nothing about it being a homeland, only that it is holy (as Christian and Islamic writings also state). In fact it acknowledges that many cities in the region are not mostly inhabited by Jews, which is inconsistent with the concept of a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's just very clear you know very little about Judaism, which is fine, this is an opportunity to learn. If I said something about Islam that was clearly incorrect, I would welcome correction from someone that was knowledgeable about the history of Islamic thought. I would never try to claim that I knew more than them about Islam. Your claim about a "quiet corner" is also laughable to any Jewish person. I see that you started a new talk page topic as well, which is strange as it's about the exact same subject as this one. In any case, I started reading it, it talks about the term ancestral land as something common to nationalism. There's a flaw in your logic though, in that you didn't bother to actually be aware of what Jews have been writing about the subject for thousands of years. More so, something that's been central to Judaism for thousands of years. Most startlingly, you didn't even bother to look, yet you spoke with such confidence about something you know absolutely nothing about. The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism. For example, just using the term "Homeland" we have "

"The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their homeland." - Radak (This is from the 12th century)

"The Jewish people when in their ancestral land, by contrast, will have to depend on the rain to irrigate their land. As a result they will realise the need for their G’d being well disposed towards them as else He might withhold the required rainfall at the appropriate time for securing their success in the fields." - Daat Zkenim (13th century)

"Our sages have said that the expression "your tents," refers to periods when Israel is at peace in its homeland, whereas the word "your dwellings," refers even to periods when the Land and Temple of Israel is in ruins." - Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, 16th Century)

It boggles my mind that you read something about modern nationalism and therefore thought you could just dismiss Judaism. Btw, your uncivil accusation in the edit commentary is uncalled for. There is no tag-teaming, but there is consensus. The combination of wilful ignorance and conspiracy theories is a bad look. Drsmoo (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It really boggles my mind when you bring up mentions of Islam and Judaism as if this is a religious conflict. The core of this is a political conflict, and bringing up some random quotes is WP:ORIGINAL at best. If your so knowledgeable about Jewish history and its link to Zionism, why don't you publish a book, professor. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile brought up both Judaism and Islam, I only responded to his incorrect religious claims. Nothing I posted is linked to zionism btw, just fundamentals of Jewish religion. If you went to the most anti-zionist Satmer/Neturei Karta member they'd tell you the same thing. Drsmoo (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a biased view of fundamentals of Jewish religion. I don't think Hebrew bible says you can, for example, ethnic cleanse people. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. According to the bible, god commanded genocide of several peoples, and of course performed several genocides himself (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Looks like the bible is not a good guide for morality. “WarKosign” 12:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, well its always good to be an atheist. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: thank you for bringing those quotes. They prove my point to certainty. I did the same as you, and searched through the tens of the thousands of texts on the Sefaria Project. In all those texts, these are the only three I could find which use the term homeland or equivalent in the sense we are discussing it here. But I then took it one step further and looked at the Hebrew text. You will find that both Radak's and the Tosafot commentary are very different in Hebrew. Again the inaccuracy of these modern English translations is another example of how Zionism influences Jewish thought subconsciously (again, this is a trait applicable to all religio-/ethnic- nationalisms). As to the early modern Horowitz quote, his mystical writings were and are not representative of mainstream. So a pitiful three out of tens of thousands becomes none. So, I suspect you have stopped finding "quiet corner" laughable. The themes you believe so deeply in are not as deeply embedded as you have been led to think. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You just said random words but didn't actually respond. A bad translation? Not mainstream? Those aren't responses. We're not actually having a debate btw, I'm telling you about Judaism. The point has been made as I'm not only talking to you. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: Have you read the Hebrew versions yet? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that it's a bad translation then substantiate your claim. The point regarding homeland has been established, as has consensus. If you'd like to continue this debate, feel free to head to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism as we're no longer talking about Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, ok since you were not willing to read them yourself, here are the Hebrew excerpts in all their glory:

• Radak (no mention of "the Jewish people from their homeland"): ואיל הם מדי ופרס, ולפי שמלכו בבל נקרא מלכותם איל, והנה רמז מלכות בבל ופרס, אע"פ ששלחו גלותם, מלכים מהם האריכו גלותם ואחרו בנין הבית והעיר
• Daat Zkenim (no mention of "The Jewish people when in their ancestral land"): שהיא ארץ מישור שאדם יכול להמשיך מים לשדותיו מן הנהרות כמו שעושים לגן הירק הנזרעים על שפת הנהר אלא היא ארץ הרים ובקעות ואין אדם יכול להשקותם כי אם למטר השמים תשתה מים ותמיד אתם צריכים להקב"ה ולכך הזהרו במצותיו כדי שיוריד לכם מטר בעתו

The English translations you posted above from Rb. Élie Munk appear to have been influenced by Zionist thought. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought you were going to post an alternate translation, no contradiction here. This discussion has been settled, if you'd like to continue with your conspiracy theories about Judaism, feel free to start a topic at Wikiproject Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So you have not been able to find a single pre-modern source about Jewish homeland. Correct? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: you made a clear statement relevant to the edits at this article that "The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism". The quotes on which you based this judgement have since been proven to be nothing of the sort. And the discussion has provided another proof point as to how nationalism has infected Jewish thought, such that even neutral people like yourself can be misled. So, do you withdraw your statement, or can you provide new evidence? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk page isn't for screeds against thousand+ year old Jewish texts, if you'd like to continue discussing Judaism, feel free to discuss it at the appropriate talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_JudaismDrsmoo (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your withdrawl. Your intellectual honesty is appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Ancestral homeland" is more accurate than Palestinian return to Israel, considering the vast majority of palestinians have never lived in Israel (or pre-israel mandatory palestine) and have no place to return to. In comparison the ancestors of most Jews did live in Israel, so it is their ancestral homeland, but they are only metaphorically returning to it.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "Jewish homeland" is itself a product of revolutionary westphalianism. It's a reassertion of the right to sovereignty over land long controlled by foreign empires. "Israelite" was once synonymous with "Jew", and "Palestinian" was even used to mean "Jew" at times. Only recently has this become controversial.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

[break] 2016 discussion

[66], [67]. Not only do we have more results for "establishing" but "re-establishing" is almost exclusively used by Jewish related sources. 1780 vs 32, thats an overwhelming majority. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

WarKosign please do not edit war. WP:ONUS is very clear "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Unless you can support its inclusion with high quality reliable sources, the "re-" cannot remain in this article.

Anyway, you say that "re-established refers to national home", but "national home" has no meaning in ancient times. Wikipedia does not state national myths in its neutral voice.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. WP:ONUS is clearly about adding new information, here we are talking about removing content that had long-standing consensus. The appropriate policies are WP:TALKDONTREVERT and for now WP:NOCONSENSUS.“WarKosign” 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

All the policies which you are linking to should be followed by all of us here, including you.

ONUS is applicable here because this part of the original edit [68] made 19 months ago was never discussed. The first part of the edit (re irridentism) was discussed at /Archive_15#Irredentism.2C_nation_state.2C_objectivity..., but the reestablishment addition was forgotten in the chaos and never discussed. No consensus was ever gained for its conclusion. You may argue that silent consensus was there, but that is the weakest form of consensus. Now that a discussion has been opened, it is clear that such consensus does not currently exist.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless actual scholarly support can be shown for its inclusion, the "re-" will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's one eminent official source, 'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States - (1) recognises the historic significance of the 50th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel.'[69]. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rodney Frelinghuysen is not an expert on this subject. He is a politician. The Senate and House are full of politicians. The US Senate and House have been considered to be pro-Israeli for many years, and therefore are non-neutral from an academic perspective. The Senate doesn't accept human cause of climate change [70] but Wikipedia doesn't follow their lead there either. Politicians are not scientists and are not historians. They are non-expert and partisan in almost every field.

This is an academic question, so we need high quality academic sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if high quality academic sources are found, sources mentioning "establishment" probably outnumber them. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think that kind of proves the point. The US Congress at present time is a decidedly pro-Zionist body, and the language it uses reflects that. Wikipedia, unless Im mistaken, is neither pro or anti Zionist, and our language shouldnt be indicative of one of those stances. nableezy - 05:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The aim of Zionism was to establish something. A statement that the "establishment" was actually a "re-establishment" is not a neutral statement but part of the Zionist argument that they were morally entitled to it. The article should mention this argument, but using it in Wikipedia's voice would be a travesty of NPOV. It would be like using "redeem" instead of "purchase" for land acquisition, which has similar Zionist credentials. Zero 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let me point out to how the Balfour Declaration states "establishment". Makeandtoss (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Zero. nableezy - 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The section is about aims of the Zionist movement, not about the Balfour declaration. Returning to the Jewish homeland is common parlance and re-establish is used in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The sentence "Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel" is factually correct. Drsmoo (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, its about the aims of the Zionist movement, but its the encyclopedias voice discussing those aims, and using "re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory" uses a Zionist POV in the encyclopedia's voice. Much like saying "appropriating Arab territory for a Jewish homeland" would be an anti-Zionist POV. Language such as return or re-establish, or conversely colonize or appropriate, are not simply "factually correct", they are POVs of the parties involved. And frankly, I dont even see why this is being argued over if it isnt POV. Establish would include "re-establish" in its definition, whereas re-establish would not necessarily include the set of things covered by "established". So why even argue against using "establish" instead or "re-establish" if it isnt endorsing some POV? nableezy - 05:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning and line-of-thinking but personally disagree. I think the inverse of colonize/appropriate btw would be something Bush-like, like "liberate". I don't perceive any positive/negative connotations to either establish or re-establish. If the sentence instead used "the modern establishment" I think it would work, but with the current sentence structure, not having re-establish would seem to imply that there wasn't a Jewish homeland there in the past, which, although some believe that, is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Another prominent witness for 'reestablishment', though if Congress is seen here as a profoundly partisan body, perhaps other editors will choose to disregard its library too. Reestablishment is a simple statement of fact, it is POV to censor the historic existence of a Jewish state in the same territory, and that this had a prominent role in motivating early Zionists.

"Reestablishment" is a statement of romantic nonsense. There are many disconnects between the ancient history of the region and modern Jews / Judaism / Israel. There isn't a single similarily one could choose that holds up to any serious scrutiny. Which is why no serious scholar would ever use the term. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"No serious scholar" sounds like it's setting up for a No true Scotsman fallacy. It's a strange statement to make as well, given that essentially every history book written about the Jewish people includes their origins in Israel/Judea. Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are avoiding the point. A vague sense of origins is very different to claiming that a state or homeland in the modern world is somehow the same as the political arrangements of ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is talking about a "vague sense of origins". It is a very concrete, tangible, and well-established origin. Drsmoo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Prove it then. I suspect you have no idea how nationalism has warped the history of every people. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Check the sources in the article on Jews: "The Jews ... also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.". Anything else you need citation for ? “WarKosign” 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not surprising to see that, despite initial claims to the contrary, the intentions of recent edits are in fact to deny history. Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Friend, throwing around accusations gets us nowhere; I could equally well sit here and accuse you of "denying history". Shlomo Sand has been mentioned; are you familiar with Israel Finkelstein? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You claimed that a historical fact wasn't a historical fact, that is a textbook version of denying history. Israel Finkelstein is an archaeologist and biblical minimalist who believes that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were either very small or didn't exist, and instead believes that Omri was the more prominent Jewish king. That has nothing to do with the expulsion from Rome, the Roman-Jewish wars, or Jewish history in the region, all of which are extremely well documented. That somehow these thousands of years of history were claimed to be a Zionist Mythology is baffling. Perhaps Josephus was a Zionist Mythologist in 75 CE. Drsmoo (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider Old Testament biblical history to be hard facts. When Jospehus wrote of that period, hundreds of years before his own, he used the Bible as a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're referring to Antiquities of the Jews. I'm talking about The Jewish War Drsmoo (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right ok, your "three thousand" years statement was confusing. The classical (Greco-Roman) part of Jewish history is relatively concrete. On that we are agreed. As has been acknowledged above, the "homeland" of the Hasmonean state was the region of Judea. Temporary territorial conquests do not make a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: if you still support "re-" established, please could you be clear exactly what you think was reestablished? The Hasmonean state? The Davidic Kingdom of Israel? The exiled Jeconian Kingdom of Judah? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that Establishment of Israel has 340k results and Reestablishment of Israel and Re-establishment of Israel combined have 93k results. So it all really depends on what you put in quotes. Anyway, "re-established" is objectively true. Was "Israel" reestablished? No, that's arguably a nationalist concept dependent on the idea that the modern israel is a continuation of the ancient one. But a "Jewish state" was objectively reestablished.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically which historical state was objectively re-established? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at the hits you get in googlebooks for the links you posted. "re-" or "re" gets you theological works. Just "establishment" gets you secular works. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a secular encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia. You are just trying to exclude Jewish theology from Wikipedia by your claim. If something is part of a religion for thousands of years, of course it's going to be in theological works. Are you seriously claiming that the Jewish homeland is a modern invention? Sir Joseph 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is simply that the question of whether something was "re" established is a question for historians, not for theologians.

And yes, modern scholarship does indeed suggest that the homeland concept is a modern invention. To understand why, you need to understand what a "homeland" really means. It is a deeply charged political concept which appeals to the most basic instincts of the human mind, which at its worst can be used as a tool to justify making people do terrible things to other people in its name. We are all human beings, and very much alike, and only fight due to the burden of history as we have been taught to perceive it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, then let me be one more voice in the chorus telling you that you know nothing about Judaism then. Do you also go and tell the Pope he's not Catholic enough? It is extremely ludicrous and insulting to say that the homeland is a new concept. It is not something that you should be publicly agreeing with. Sir Joseph 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove it? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've heard Catholic monks exclaim, on the election of Francesco:'Finally a Catholic Pope!' In any case, Judaism, like any great religion, is a very complex culture. I've yet to see an editor in here showing much awareness of its vast diversity. Most editors think it is interchangeable with modern Israel or Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said that, but what was said was that Israel as a homeland is not a modern invention and it's insulting for someone to come around and tell Jews that it is. Sir Joseph 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One can keep using this as a forum to give one's opinions about one's own ethnic group, but no one should presume to be a spokesman for others of the group. If rabbi Isidore Loeb wrote:'nothing proves that the present-day Jews who reside in most of the European states are the descendants of the ancient Jews of Palestine and strictly of the Semitic race', and it was published in a Jewish journal, and aroused absolutely no controversy, it was because in France, Austria and Germany in his time, before Zionism took off, it was a normal view to entertain. I've read it very frequently in history books concerning that period. So, how can you state it is insulting for the homeland concept to be denied, when it was entertained widely by Jews before 1948? (Of course I know it is grounded in Jewish liturgy, which a community for millennia recited: but when given the choice of a new homeland in the 20th century, the overwhelming choice in eastern Europe was, rationally in my view, the United States, or, as it was called then 'the New Zion'. When black slaves sang for centuries O Canaan, sweet Canaan, I am bound for the land of Canaan they didn't think this meant they'd jump the next boat for Palestine.)Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you found one rabbi, one whom I never heard of and is not part of mainstream Jewish thought. As for going to the US over the Holy Land, I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be. One very major reason why people went to the US was because it was safer and more established. There were people who tried or went to Israel but the community was poorer, the country was poorer and it was not a feasible solution to migrate to. Even so, that never took away aspirations for the homeland, just that it's not feasible at this time. So again, to say that the homeland is a new invention is wrong and starts to approach a point that should not be approached, to delegitimze the Jewish homeland. No matter when and no matter where, Jews pray to return to their homeland. Sir Joseph 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you don't know anything of the history of Judaism's relationship to Zionism. I've updated for you some details at Timeline of anti-Zionism. You think I've found one example. I said Isidore Loeb's view was a commonplace, and instead of taking the hint, you just assumed it was a one-offer. Well, yawn, here's another.

Adolf Jellinek emphasized that ‘Jews did not have any national characteristics, as such but “thanks to their universalism they adapt and absorb qualities from the nations in whose midst they are born and educated.’ ‘We are at home in Europe and regard ourselves as children of the lands in which we were born and raised, whose languages we speak, and whose cultures make up our intellectual substance. We are Germans, Frenchmen, Magyars, Italians, and so forth, with every fiber of our being. We have long ceased to be true, thoroughbred Semites, and we have long ago lost sense of Hebrew nationality. Robert Wistrich ‘Zionism and Its Religious Critics in Fin–De-Siècle Vienna,‘ in S, Almog et al. Zionism and Religion, Brandeis/UPNE 1998 pp.140-158 pp.142)

In other words, please focus on sourcing, and drop the guesswork.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what homeland means.

Can you point me to any pre-Zionism usage of an equivalent phrase to "Jewish homeland" in Jewish writings or prayer?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) This has already been done, fyi. Drsmoo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You tried but failed. It is the original text that matters, from mainstream sources. In all of the Sefaria Project you found nothing to support modern usage of Jewish Homeland. If it is so easy and so obvious, surely you can prove me wrong. At the moment this feels like avoidance tactics because you don't want to admit failure. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So aggressive and uncivil, and so wrong. I love the excuses though, I'm not really interesting in "convincing you" even though I already have most likely, as I have enough experience to know when someone will make up any excuse in order to have the last word. Ie ""oh that one doesn't count because, hes a mystic, mystics dont count now, new rules. Oh, they said it's so important that one should live there even if there are more non-jews? Well then it can't be a homeland, those are the new rules." After that I stopped caring because it was clear you'd been answered and would just say anything in order to continue arguing. Drsmoo (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You are overinterpreting disagreement with you in personal terms. The problem is not convincing yourself, but seeing if others disagree with you and how to resolve the points of contention. I can see no aggression in Oncenawhile's remarks, as opposed to careful evaluation of sources. I happen to agree with him. You have no consensus here.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an assessment of content, not personal. Drsmoo (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: below is a summary of our discussion on this topic as I see it:

• Drsmoo: ""The Jewish Homeland in Israel" concept is core to the Jewish religion. It is not a modern invention"
• Oncenawhile: "OK, please provide proof"
• Drsmoo: "I have searched through thousands of works of Judaism on the Sefaria Project and have found these three relevant quotes"
• Oncenawhile: "In the original Hebrew, the first two quotes do not support this at all. And the third quote is not from a source representing mainstream Judaism"
• Drsmoo: "How dare you question me, I don't wish to continue this discussion. I also intend to stop you having this discussion with other editors such as WarKosign and Sir Joseph."

It doesn't matter to me or anyone that your initial attempt to provide proof for your position did not hold water. But giving up the discussion so quickly it just looks like you are running away. Why not show us all the proof if it is so obvious.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• , no, it's just that it's not worth it to discuss with someone so clearly biased. Sir Joseph 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your inaccurate assessment aside, if we as Wikipedia editors chose not to discuss things with other editors every time we perceived them to be biased, these Talk pages would be empty. In our limited interactions I have come to perceive you (Sir Joseph) to be one of the I-P arena's most exteme POV pushers, yet I believe there is value in us discussing to benefit the encyclopedia. It is precisely our diverse viewpoints that can make Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 discussion

Does anyone else feel like the article has pro-Zionist bias, or is it just me?? Shiningroad (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shiningroad: Is there any specific section you would like to point out as possibly biased ? “WarKosign” 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is definitely biased toward Zionism. Every legitimate criticism of Zionism is basically dismissed by referring to various proponents of Zionism who explain away and rationalize the obvious self-contradictions and faults of Zionist ideology, such as its racist underpinnings, it's inherently undemocratic and colonialist nature. There is no real reference to what Zionism has brought about in the real world: the effects of Zionism on the indigenous Palestinian population, the apartheid conditions under which they are living, the brutal confinement and periodic bombardment of Gaza. There should be a whole section devoted to ethno-nationalism in general, of which Zionism is one exemplar, comparing it to other forms of ethno-nationalism. There could also be discussion about how Zionism has come to be accepted while other forms of ethno-nationalism (South African apartheid, Nazism, etc.) are condemned. This article could be improved and made more neutral by adding more perspectives and commentary critical of Zionism. I would suggest including statements about Zionism from Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad, from journalist Ali Abunimah, and from Professor Steven Salaita. All of these writers clearly distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, as do many Jewish writers. Mention should also be given to contemporary Jewish groups like A Jewish Voice for Peace which are actively working to raise American Jewish awareness about the effects of Zionism that run contrary to values of democracy and mutual respect amongst peoples and religions. [User: jasper good] 19:38, 1 Jan 2016 (UTC)

Note that according to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 you as a new editor are not allowed to edit this talk page, so your post above should be reverted or at least ignored. “WarKosign” 21:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is bias as it supports a poisition that Zionism is alien to Judiasm. How about this section? This section is wrong OUTRIGHT and the title doesn't match the content:

QUOTE: Religious anti-Zionism amongst the Jewish Talmudic

Many other Hasidic groups in Jerusalem, most famously the Satmar Hasidim, as well as the larger movement they are part of, the Edah HaChareidis, are strongly anti-Zionist. One of the best known Hasidic opponents of all forms of modern political Zionism was Hungarian rebbe and Talmudic scholar Joel Teitelbaum. In his view, the current State of Israel is contrariwise to Judaism, because it was founded by people who included some anti-religious personalities, and were in apparent violation of the traditional notion that Jews should wait for the Jewish Messiah.

04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)~

Please define "Jewish Talmudic".... This whole thing is like a page out of the Elders of Zion. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It does feel like that, yet on the other hand it is a page about Zionism. I assume you mean it shouldn't be biased toward anything, but Zionism has slightly accomplished it goal, so it only seems to be biased because it does describes the complete actions of Zionism, which are more on the winning side of the coin flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.252.209 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Another less common meaning is the political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews."

Could we get a source for this. I feel like it's a endorsing misuse of the word. Supporting Israeli citizens and as a whole the country of Israel does not equal being a Zionist. It's a classification extremists use so as to call people anti-Zionist if they criticize Israeli politics. Should not be on the Wikipedia page if it's such a weak connection with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxford: "A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."

Webster: "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel"

reference.com: "a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel".

Nowhere it says whether the support comes from Jews or non-Jews, so perhaps we can drop the "by non-Jews" part. Anyone can be a Zionist. “WarKosign” 07:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement

"Opposition to Zionism in principle has also been charged as racist and as fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." I hope this is some kind of joke..Makeandtoss (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is the view of authors of the references, in widely cited sources. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: by saying " that should seek peaceful coexistence", you are presenting this as fact, needs to be rephrased. Anyway " fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." sounds a bit of a spinoff of the source used. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Cpsoper, you say thise sources are "widely cited"? I highly doubt that. Please prove your statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Terminology: 'anti-Semitism' vs 'racism'

I'm curious about something. When we describe the events in Europe that motivated Zionism, they are labelled anti-Semitic, but not racist. Is there a reason for choosing one over the other? BabyJonas (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancestral Homeland in wikipedia's neutral voice

Please could the various editors who are pushing this please read this chapter:

• Kaiser, Robert J. (2004). "Homeland Making and the Territorialization of National Identity". Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. Psychology Press. pp. 229–. ISBN 978-0-415-33273-6.

Such a concept is non-neutral for every nationalism. Zionism is no different.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The jewish people originated in Israel- their language, religion, culture, identity, was born there. It's all explained and sourced very well in the article Jews. This article isn't saying "jews were there first and zionism liberated them from the oppressive yoke of the arab and british colonialist squatters". That would be non-nuetral. The article is simply acknowledging a fact. Saying "their self-declared homeland" is weasel. "Homeland" is probably better than ancestral homeland for nuetral voice though, less frills.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Hey, Monitor. Well, I would say that the problems begin with your first words: "The jewish people". The notion of people is completely modern. This Jewish nation you speak did not exist – could not exist – until modern times, and even then only in the minds of Jewish nationalists.

There is a reason that nationalism is regarded as such an impoverished political concept. Einstein, for example, famously regarded it as "an infantile disease". As always it seems, I find myself unable to disagree with the great man! --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's patently false. You obviously know nothing about Jewish history and nothing about Albert Einstein (on the contrary I know quite a bit about both, including general and special relativity).

Friend, it is you who remains doggedly ignorant of just what utter garbage is nationalism, not to mention Einstein. Here is the Einstein quote on nationalism (and others). Have you even read Hobsbawn's slim overview of the topic? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel [to serve as President], and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world."--Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 13 June 2016 :::@BowlAndSpoon: If you want to know anything about the ancient origins of the modern Jewish (UTC) people you can begin by reading about Israelites. “WarKosign” 06:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WarKoSign. You should know by now that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean you are saying that "re-" established and "ancestral homeland" relate to the Israelite state(s)? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to BowlAndSpoon's false claim that the notion of Jewish people is modern. However, you are right: the historical record that tracks the origin of the Jewish people all the way back to Israelites and clearly shows that Canaan/Land of Israel/Palestine (region) is indeed "ancestral homeland" of the modern Jewish people, so re-establishment is the correct term to use. “WarKosign” 08:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced in an argument. We reflect what the best available book sources say (which are rarely used in these articles).Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I think that is where most who use "reestablished" are coming from as well. There is a problem though. Whilst "Israelites" are considered to have existed, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. The most important part of this is that there is no archaeological evidence for the Israelite states described in the Bible. So in Wikipedia's neutral voice we cannot talk about reestablishing a state whose only evidence is Biblical. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you missed these well-supported bit from the lead of Israelites: "The Israelites ... inhabited part of Canaan" and "The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites ... evolved into the modern Jews". Again, re-established refers to a rather vague "national home", not to a specific state or an exact territory. Note that I'm talking about history, not religious narrative. “WarKosign” 09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again do you realize that this argument is fideistic? Why persist in this strategy? Every editor on Wikipedia knows it is not a Reliable Source? Don't believe me. Look at the evidence.

The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE.[7][8][9][10].

(7) Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14 Please note that there is no indication in the bibliography on that page as to what book is being referred to. It happens to be Jonathan Tubb, The Canaanites, University of Oklahoma Press 1998 pp.13-14. On those pages, Tubbs states that Canaanite identity is not Israelites alone: it has been subsumed under many names, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, etc., and that a speaker of classical Hebrew, but not of modern Hebrew, would have no problem in making himself understood there. There is no mention of the transition to modern Jews (WP:OR)

(8) McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p.47 (failed verification. Fraudulent use of sources. There is no mention of the link to modern Jews: WP:OR)

(9) K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p.164:‘It would seems that in the eyes of Merneptah’s artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups.’ ‘It is likely that Merneptah’s Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley.’ (failed verification. There is no remark here that the Canaanites became Israelites became modern Jews. To the contrary Noll argued (he doesn't say 'the academic consensus is') that Israelites were one of several Canaanite groups. Ther is no mention of the link to modern Jews. WP:OR.

(10) Stefan Paas Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets, BRILL, 2003 pp.110-121, esp.144 (failed verification. There is no mention of modern Jews in this study of creation tales in the prophets. WP:OR

So kindly drop this bad habit of using Wikipedia articles, esp. on this region, as sources for your 'information'. Most of them are bullshit, so far, unfortunately, full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and POV fantasies mainly edited by people with a political mission and zero knowledge of the topics.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You now wrote "vague national home", yet when I wrote "vague sense of origins" above, you and Drsmoo disagreed.... Vague is right, and is precisely the problem.

As to Israelites, I agree with that - but the question you are missing is "who does academic consensus think Israelites were?" As I wrote above, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. So concluding that Israelites inhabited Canaan is a circular conclusion - archaeological Israelites are defined as the ancient inhabitants of certain regions of Canaan. And that some Israelites evolved into Jews doesn't mean that Jews inherit rights to the whole Israelite region. These Israelites also evolved into Samaritans, Galileans, Ituraeans, Edomites, etc. Some Israelites became Jews, but Israelites and Jews are not the same thing.

Either way, the key point is that Israelite states are (a) unknown outside the Bible, and (b) not the same as a Jewish state. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm not discussion religion, only historic facts. People historian call Israelites lived in Canaan. Their descendants continuously inhabiting the area for centuries. Their modern descendants, the Jews consider the general area of historical Canaan their ancestral homeland, and I don't see how anyone can dispute it - it's a historical fact that the land was homeland of their ancestors.

There is nothing vague about sense of origin. The origin is an accepted historical fact. The vagueness comes from incomplete knowledge of the historical borders of the homeland, and of course it changed over time. You are insisting on territory of the southern kingdom - why not the area ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty ? “WarKosign” 10:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Their modern descendents" should be "Some of their modern descendents", specifically the ones that lived in Judea. Your logic is like saying that the Garden of Eden is my homeland because my earliest ancestors were said in the Bible to have come from there. Jacob is considered by secular scholarship to be no less fictional than Adam and Eve. This is the connection you are missing.

As to the Hasmonean state, that's exactly my point. The homeland of the Hasmoneans was the small principality of Judea. They expanded for a short period of 50 years. Territorial expansion does not make a "homeland". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know Garden of Eden was a historic location. Was anything interesting found during excavations ? Any fossils of fruit trees, or perhaps of talking snakes ?

Who said Jacob was a historical figure ? Historical Israelites were named after Biblical Jacob by modern historians, but there is no reason to assume this is how they called themselves.

Whatever was the exact extent of the ancestral homeland, it's well established that it (mostly) corresponds to (a part of) modern Palestine (region), and this is why Zionist chose to concentrate their efforts to re-established their homeland in roughly ("vaguely") the same place. If this is the problem, we can think of a way to clarify that ancestral homeland borders were likely very different from modern Israel. “WarKosign” 11:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, appreciate this. If we are to use "re-establish" we need to be clearer on what we have in mind as the historical precedent. Wikipedia can't accurately refer to the Israelite states as being either "Jewish" or historical. Which leaves us with the Hasmonean state. It would be helpful if we could find some scholarly sources which tackle this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And Jews have considered themselves to be a nation longer than the Greeks. Jewish nationalism is an ancient concept. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The assertion is an ideologeme. For one the concept of 'nationalism' over the last century, has been considered to be a peculiarly modern, post Enlightenment concept not to be anachronistically retrodated to antiquity. (b) Modern nationalists the world over have tried to underwrite the antiquity of their 'nationalism' by citing material from Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Indian classical sources etc.etc., but they are referring to different realities, and in discussing this scholars typically put 'nationalism' in inverted commas, flagging its disputed nature for early polities. (d) There is ample trace of Greek 'cultural nationalism' from the defeat of Persia 479BCE era onwards but whatever it was was different in being 'cultural' not 'ethnic' or 'territorial'. Alexander 'Hellenized' the peoples he subjected. (e) so-called Jewish 'nationalism' was a religious, not a pan-ethnic concept in its 5th century roots: it consisted of a religious definition, excluding 2 categories (I) Samaritans, who dominated in Samaria (ii) the am ha-eretz, the majority of farmers, who failed to follow the strict regimen of religious regulations set down by Ezra and Nehemiah: that too fails the 'nationalist criteria' because it is not-inclusive, but exclusive of the same ethnos; (f) Judaism's theological thinking about identity arose out of memories of an early Israelitic state in parts of Canaan, not all of Canaan. The religious definition of that territory is not all of Canaan. One could cite dozens of other points, but Jews are descended from a Middle Eastern population, which, by OCE, did not appear to consider 'Judea' (for that was where the idea was fixed, not Samaria, or Galilee, or Philistia) as its 'homeland' as we now take that. The branch populations have a meme that insists on that origin. It does not correspond to an historic reality, but is a belief cultivated for millennia in the cradle of rabbinical thinking which forged this sense of collective identity. In other words, this is a religious belief, not an historical fact.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The simple solution is to write 'for Jews', or 'in Judaism ... is considered', etc... Anything else is just doctrinal. The encyclopedia cites used from the Jews, refer to conversion. Converted people by definition don't hail from the ancestral homeland.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We all know "palestine" used to mean something different than it does today and that the term was appropriated towards a specific political end. It's anachronistic by today's usage.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything in this field is 'anachronistic' beginning with the fantasies of the Bible.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel" and homeland

An attempt to summarize the long winded discussions above:

• "Re-establishment" doesn't refer to any specific historical state, but to a general sense that Jews came from the region. The fact that Jews and Judaism are defined in their name by the region of Judea, a region which was not included in 1948 Israel, is deemed irrelevant.
• When searching google books for re-established vs established, the latter outnumbers the former many times over. And not just by quantity but by quality. Most of the books using "established" are history books, whereas "re-established" is found mostly in theological works.
• Whilst the concept of "homeland" has been shown to be considered by academics as a deeply partisan nationalistic concept, it is proposed that Jewish nationalism is different and more ancient than other nationalisms and the concept of a homeland in Judaism has existed forever. No evidence has been provided for this, but it is deemed to be correct because it feels like common sense.

Is my summary missing anything? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Re-establishment" refers not to a "general sense", but to a concrete fact that ancestors of the Jews lived in the region. The name of the Jews indeed comes from the region of Judea, but the area inhabited by ancestors of modern Jews changed over time and at certain periods covered much larger area.
• I had no chance to check thousands of books using the terms "established" or "re-established" to assess the kind of works they represent. I wonder how you managed to read them all so quickly. Even if you did, it would be original research and therefore useless. My guess is that many of the books that avoid the term "re-established" are partisan works opposed to Zionism.
• Opinions that some researchers share with you is not "shown to be considered by academics". Drsmoo provided multiple quotes from primary or secondary sources showing how Jews considered themselves to be a nationality, and Judaism's connection to its homeland, but apparently it's "no evidence" for you.

Your summary lacks correctness, otherwise it's nice. “WarKosign” 11:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign:I personally wouldn't waste my time with people not interested in learning, especially after consensus has been established in favor of re-established. As you can see there was no actual rebuttal to the quotes I posted, of which there are infinitely more. The current discussion obviously has nothing to do with Zionism which is why I proposed it be moved to the wikiproject Judaism talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that consensus has been established in favor of re-established? nableezy - 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• "the area inhabited ... over time" is not the same as a "homeland". German people inhabited much of Eastern Europe for centuries but it isn't considered part of the Germanic homeland
• As Makeandtoss says, google's statistics are very powerful. If you look at the links provided by Monochrome above, you just have to look at the top 10 or 20 books of each to see a very significant difference
• I know the thread is hard to follow but Drsmoo's quotes have been thoroughly discredited. Two by looking at the original Hebrew, and one by confirming that the quote did not reflect mainstream thought. So there really is no evidence.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Google does the reading for you. [71], [72] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is strong prima facie evidence for the fact that 're-establishing' is rare, pointed usage, whereas 'establishing' is the default term. The state Israel established in any case in 1948 was, as Steven Runciman once remarked ironically, not in the classic territory of Israel (Judea, and perhaps Samaria) but in Philistia. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WarKoSign. I hate these arguments, firstly because they are never resolved through the standard precedures of evidence (2) give some editors a sense that there is a ganging up attitude against Israel or Jews, that must be resisted (3) experience shows that the definitions given (Jews) are irremovable - enough editors can block any attempt to suggest an intelligent modification of what is a standard article of secular faith these days. therefore remonstrating that it is unencyclopedic is futile.

The idea of Judaism as a 'nationality' came late, and predominantly by reacting to the European wave of nationalisms.Zionism drove the change from the religious definition of Judaism current down to the 19th century, to the ethnonationalist concept, in perfect mimesis of Western ethno-nationalist ideology:'Zionists defined the Jews as a nation in order to destroy the exclusive authority of the rabbinate to say what a good Jew was.'; It is an absolutely typical remark for a 19th century rabbi likeIsidore Loeb to remark at the time that:'nothing proves that the present-day Jews who reside in most of the European states are the descendants of the ancient Jews of Palestine and strictly of the Semitic race'(‘Reflections on the Jews,’ in Mitchell Bryan Hart (ed.) Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940, UPNE, 2011 pp.12-20 p.17.); British Jewry opposed the Balfour Declaration by asserting the standard view of 19th century orthodox rabbinical thought in Western Europe: Judaism was a religion not a nationality, they agreed; the conflict between the orthodox religious definition and the secular Zionist nationalist definition was endemic before 1948: Joseph Neusner puts it nicely, the Jews in israel are a nation (after 1948), the Jews in diaspora are a religious community.

So, anyone who asserts Jews have always been a nation/nationality is (a)ignorant of the history of the concept or (b) repeating what one was told as a child in school.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The conception of Jews as a nation is rooted in actual nationhood and the hebrew bible. Zionism is just one form of jewish nationalist thought. Since early medieval times when european nations were born Jews were considered a "nation among nations", resident aliens, and they identified as part of the jewish nation. The conception of jews as merely a religious community is a modern haskalic idea, Jews only began to identify more with their state than the jewish nation after their emancipation. Zionism did not create jewish nationhood, it reawakened it. The quotes you cite are part of a late 19th-early 20th century debate on the nature of jewish collectivity. They do not reflect jewish identity pre-1800.[73]--Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Case in point. Anyone who asserts otherwise is (a) ignorant of the history of the concept or (b) reading shlomo sand.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"reading shlomo sand"

This is just an ad hominem, ergo worthless. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I think a good compromise between re-establish and establish, one that recognizes jewish history in the land while not claiming direct lineal connection to that history, is "establishment of a modern jewish homeland" or something akin to that. The wording isn't perfect.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. As to your argument, further up, citing Witherby (that is a philosemitic attack on Napoleon's ambition to naturalize the Jews as French and assure them some reconnection to Palestine.No! That's a mission Providence assigns to our Protestant England - it's a fanciful dialogue, by an Anglican, not testimony to what 'Jews' thought), or making large-scale generalizations ('jewish identity pre-1800') is pointless, such phrasing is as meaningless as 'catholic identity pre-1800'/'French identity pre-1800'/Buddhist identity pre-1800 etc,.etc. People in the pre-modern period followed their particular local traditions, and did not conceive of a generic identity of this kind embracing all under one ethnic or sectarian banner. Pre-1800 means what religious texts say that can be taken as referring to a 'Jewish identity', not whatever 'Mountain Jews', 'Berber Jews', 'Yemeni Jews', 'French Jews', etc. actually thought. One doesn't use Catholic clerical texts down to the period of, say,Maria Edgeworth to imagine what the 'Irish' thought. The result would be utter nonsense for what the various Irish communities, riven as they were, might have thought from one period to another. Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• How about we end this lengthy discussion and focus on one important thing. Whether the article will use "establishment" or "re-establishment" will only depend on its usage by reliable sources, discussing history and quoting random Jews won't help. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Different regions of france make different wines, that doesn't mean the wine isn't french. Jews had their own minhags but they were all Israelites and their literature shows they identified with one another as such. Anyway I used an english source to show how jews were perceived as foreigners in the countries they lived- and jewish sources at the time are mostly yiddish, which I'm not particularly well versed in. But translations are available for many medieval jewish texts if you bother to look.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really find Jewish history interesting, so I won't bother to indulge in its details. In the meantime, we have Zionism; a modern political movement. You might say that this movement is also formed by Jewish history, but who exactly are we to dig up history and form our own conclusions? Since we are on Wikipedia, the definition of Zionism should be given by reliable sources. All we have to do is search for what the sources say, we are literally discussing 2 letters. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Encylopedia britanica's definition:

"Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel)."--Monochrome_Monitor 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

[74], [75] Makeandtoss (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Unless you want to base Wikipedia upon Britannica Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel"
Again, the nationalist fantasy begins right in the outset. Sovereignty? "It too is a modern invention. … [T]he concept of sovereignty was beyond [medieval jurists …] [T]he appearance of this abstract concept, which relegates the 'sovereign' to the status of a mere servant of the state, signals the emergence of modern political understanding." This is taken from a review in the current edition of the London Review of Books.

Again: the very concept of sovereignty did not even exist until the sixteenth century – so how the hell can it have existed thousands of years ago? And so how can this Jewish sovereignty have been reestablished in the 20th century? Just completely absurd. The typical nationalistic fantasies and ignorance on display here are both absolutely stunning and completely tedious. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) You're talking about the westphalian conception of the right to sovereignty. That it not the same thing as nationhood in the sense of an ethnos. The latter is ancient. Anyway, I don't particularly care what you have to say considering your hateful bona fides.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews

Unhistorical and ideological meme repetition. The primary aim of Zionism was for Jews to have a homeland, an autonomous nation anywhere -Uganda, Argentina, you name it. It quickly pushed for Palestine, but the purpose was to get a life free of anti-Semitic harassment. Palestine was not the ancient homeland of the Jews. It was the religious heartland of Judaism. Jews, like Phoenicians, their cousins, have always moved around, and you are confusing the religious ideology that has become a cultural property of a Jewish tradition, with the complexities of history. In 4,000 years (Netanyahu's frame of reference) Israelites/proto Jews exercised unchallenged sovereignty over part of that land arguably for a few hundred years. Geographically this was inevitable, because like all crossroads in history, it cannot avoid being the zone of conflict of empires north, south, east and west. A compromise was suggested, and you are complicating it by insisting the usual religious clichés form part of the language.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask what exactly the disagreement here is about, pertinent to the article? Is it merely disputing whether the result of Zionism constituted an establishment or a re-establishment? BabyJonas (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@BabyJonas: Yes, but goals as well as results. “WarKosign” 07:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is, can one state in wikipedia's neutral voice the words used in a specific political movement's programme, describing its project as the 're-establishment' rather than (as many editors think better sources, and neutral) the establishment of the Jews in Palestine. It is contested also 're-establishment of Jews in their ancestral homeland' is contrafactual, because, though Judaism has intense religious, cultural and also ethnic ties to the Middle East/Near East, to specify an unknown as a truth (excluding conversion and the vagaries of history) the ultra-fideistic view that all Jews have a direct or indirect line of biological descent from the Jews who once dwelt in ancient Israel's various kingdoms is unproven, and unprovable. In the Babylonian Talmud, for example, you can find the view that Babylonia is the homeland of the Jews, and that the Shekinah is there, among them, and no longer in Jerusalem. The ideological construction ignores historical dissonanced with its premise. Hence to be on the safe side, we go for the most neutral formulation, not the ideological formulation (in the view of editors like myself).Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking about a homeland, I think the Zionists might have a case for calling it a re-establishment, because the notion of whether a region constitutes a homeland depending on the Zionists themselves. But if we're talking about a modern state, it's unequivocally an establishment, because there was no prior modern state to justify reestablishment. So why not refer to the modern state as an establishment, while later in the article, we refer to the homeland as a reestablishment, in line with the Zionist perspective this article purports to describe? BabyJonas (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that State of Israel was not re-established, since Israel never was a modern democratic state before. The word "re-established" is used in the article 2 times (and once again in a direct quote) to describe Zionists' intention to have a homeland for the Jewish people in the roughly the same place that once was the homeland of the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites.“WarKosign” 21:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Roughly" indeed. Jordan could have been considered "roughly" the place that once was the homeland of the Jews, for example, the Tribe of Gad. Now lets assume Emir Abdullah I of Jordan established the Emirate of Palestine, while Jordan was left for Jewish settlement. Could we really consider Zionist goals then, to "re-establish" their national homeland in "Jordanea"? I know the land west of the river is more historically connected to the Jews than the eastern side, but the comparison strikes an understanding that this argument is not logical at all. As far as I am reading, the users who are against "re-establishment" are providing several historical and scholarly evidence while the pro-"re-establishment" term users are just busy restating the same argument, which is "roughly" correct. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, I don't think geography is relevant to the isolated question of establishment or re-establishment. Focusing entirely on the terminological dispute, one can re-establish a state for a people, regardless of where the state is located. But regardless, if we have a way of incorporating both, why not do both? BabyJonas (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It is relevant. Prior to the establishment of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1920, there were no defined borders of "Palestine". So in the Belfour declaration of 1917, which "Palestine" exactly were they talking about? The dashed blue line is the 1919 Zionist Organization proposal at the Paris Peace Conference, including almost all populated Jordanian cities. [76]. "Roughly" doesn't work here. Not to mention the Philistines. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You can re-establish a state in a different location, but the context here implies that modern state of Israel is just the modern version of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, including its population. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

)

The Elephant in the Room The definition of Zionism should per policy come from Zionism's original declared aim. The aim set forth in the foundational document of Zionism, the Basel programme:

Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.

It remodulates the Balfour Declaration in the same way. The latter stated the aim was for

the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

So how on earth do we get the odd version on this page, with its 'Land of Israel' and 're-establilshment' jargon? I.e. We have

Zionism . .a political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land

Where in the official documentation of the Zionist founders does this 're-establishment' phrasing and 'Land of Israel' wording emerge? Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere, I believe enough evidence was provided against the usage of "re-establishment". Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

From what little I've seen, the typical language is not re-establishment, but of "restoration" or "return," which is broadly synonymous with the idea of a re-establishment. If we want to portray the truth about Zionism, this seems to be necessary. You can quibble over the term "re-establishment," but I don't know if there is any basis to deny the concept represented by terms like return and restoration. BabyJonas (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

[77], [78] Basis to deny this is that they are ignored by most reliable sources, even primary sources like the ones Nishdani showed!! Makeandtoss (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "re-establishing". I'm arguing for the broader concept engendered by language like "return" and "restoration" which might be captured in the term "re-establishing". Has Nishidani provided sufficient evidence refuting that there is no broader concept that is captured by language like "return" and "restoration"? BabyJonas (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nishdani doesn't have to. WP:BURDEN Makeandtoss (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Then why did you bring up his sources? Nevermind. Let's leave aside the burden-of-proof hot-potato and take seriously the question of whether this broader concept has a role in Zionism or not. Here's one source: Edward Said's Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims (Social Text No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 7-58):

The three ideas that depend on each other in Hess and Eliot-and later in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist-are (a) the non-existent Arab inhabitants, (b) the complementary Western-Jewish attitude to an "empty" territory, and (c) the restorative Zionist project, which would repeat by rebuilding a vanished Jewish State and combine it with modern elements like disciplined, separate colonies, a special agency for land acquisition, etc.

Note the strength of Said's claim: the restorative Zionist project are present not only in the work of Hess and Eliot, but later in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist.

Elsewhere in the paper he cites Hess' Rome and Jerusalem (1862):

What we have to do at present for the regeneration of the Jewish nation is, first, to keep alive the hope of the political rebirth of our people, and, next, to reawaken that hope where it slumbers. When political conditions in the Orient shape themselves so as to permit the organization of a beginning of the restoration of the Jewish state, this beginning will express itself in the founding of Jewish colonies in the land of their ancestors, to which enterprise France will undoubtedly lend a hand. France, beloved friend, is the savior who will restore our people to its place in universal history. Just as we once searched in the West for a road to India, and incidentally discovered a new world, so will our lost fatherland be rediscovered on the road to India and China that is now being built in the Orient.

Note the language: rebirth, restoration. Another quote, from the paper, this is Said himself:

One needs to repeat that what in Zionism served the no doubt fully justified ends of Jewish tradition, saving the Jews as a people from homelessness and anti-Semitism, and restoring them to nationhood, also collaborated with those aspects of the dominant Western culture (in which Zionism exclusively and institutionally lived) making it possible for Europeans to view non-Europeans as inferior, marginal, and irrelevant.

Said's analysis here tells us, in no uncertain terms, that at least one of the ends of Zionism was restoring them to nationhood.

What should we make of all this? We should acknowledge two things:

1. that we've been too focused on the word usage "re-establishment" and forgotten to take a broader, nuanced picture of the concept behind the word, and

2. once we look at the broader concept, rather than the word, we see its fingerprints all over Zionism, under the language of rebirth and restoration.

BabyJonas (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note the words "in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist" in your quotation, as they fatally undermine your case. The fact that this idea is an essential part of the Zionist position is exactly why we must not write it in Wikipedia's voice. That conclusion doesn't even depend on whether it is true or not. The rules require us to describe ideological positions as the opinions of those holding them, and we are forbidden from taking sides. Zero 04:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My comment was to engage with one specific line of discussion: The claim that no sources support the idea that Zionism is characterized by re-establishment. Here we have a critical source (Edward Said) who emphatically describes Zionism in these terms.

Your point is something else: That we must not write it in Wikipedia's voice. I personally have a similar, but more nuanced view:

• (1)If we are talking about the modern nation-state, it's establish, not re-establish.
• (2)If we are talking about homeland, it's re-establish, not establish.
• (3) If we are describing the Zionist perspective, it's re-establish, not establish.
• (4) If we are describing the Wikipedia perspective, given NPOV, it's establish.

BabyJonas (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Edward Said cited Moses Hess, who wrote over 3 decades before the doctrine known as Zionism was formulated. Said is describing an ideology, not a reality. The foundational documents in German and English speak of Palestine, not Land of Israel. Essentially you agree with the points made above regarding Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, which requires us to ascribe to Zionism the aim formally outlined by its founders, namely:

"Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means serviceable: (1) the promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine; (2) the federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries; (3) the strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness; (4) preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.

Herzl commented in his diary:

“Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word - which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly - it would be this: At Basle I founded the Jewish State.”

The Second Congress explicitly spoke of the colonization of Palestine

The Homeland concept only starts much later, when the endorsement of the British Government is achieved, and intense lobbying then takes place to insert 'ancestral homeland' and 're-establishment' in language drafted on the issue by the Great Powers and the League of Nations around 1922. Even then, 'Palestine' the default term, being neutral and not religious, emerges in Zionist thinking as not 'the Jewish homeland' of Judea, but by 1923 it encompasses in the Carlsbad conference, a claim to all of Transjordan, and Palestine, just as Chaim Weizmann admitted in 1919 that the northern border of this 'home' would be set not by criteria of establishing Jews in the area they once dwelt in(ancestral homeland), but by economic calculations, and hence would extend into Lebanon (Litani river) and Syria (Yarmuk river), etc.etc. In short, Zionism's later public language is all rosily religious and ethnic rights ideology for international consumption, speaking of 'reclaiming' a specific lost area', but its real aims were, and this accounts for its success, were meticulously grounded on an extremely secular pragmatic analysis of resources and demographics to carry a projected large part of world Jewry, completely indifferent to the actual historical realities of ancient Israel.

So we go for the original classical language of Zionism, and should not tinker with later educational indoctrination which speaks of a 'Land of Israel' or 'reestablishing' an ancestral state. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you summarize exactly what it is you are arguing for? Is it just the wording in the lede? Or are you making a more sweeping claim that no mention of re-establishment should be mentioned whatsoever in the article? BabyJonas (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am noting, as do others, that the definition in the lead is a piece of political rhetoric that does not reflect the declared purpose of Zionism in its classic formulation from 1897 to 1917, when the project found official endorsement. Classical Zionism did not speak of 're-establishment' or the 'Land of Israel'. It might help you to reflect on this statement, as it is subsequently outlined on the same page:In 1948, the State of Israel regained its independence and sovereignty. The following remarks aim at deleting the ‘re’ in ‘regained’. By no means does that make the present State of Israel less independent or sovereign. The scholar,Ernst Axel Knauf, starts out by making a statement which almost everybody would disattentively read and nod at, and then pulls its assumptions apart by showing home a-historical and slipshod the premises it contains are.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. And you believe all the official, stated literature on Zionism unequivocally repudiates the notion of "redefinition"? Does it render the language clearly incorrect, or is it just not the preferred language to use? BabyJonas (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Zionism has an immense literature of official and unofficial declarations. It's not a matter of Zionism repudiating this or that, but how Zionism defined its purpose, as stated in all historical books on the topic for the period indicated. The language we have is someone's POV spin, a widely circulated meme about the religious definition of Palestine as the 'Land of Israel', and the idea that somehow in all of Palestine there was once a Jewish homeland. It is true that Jews had a homeland in Palestine, so did a dozen other peoples, including Samaritans, Arabs (from at least the 4th century BCE), Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Idumeans, Edomites and the dozen tribes, Amorites, Hurrians, Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, etc.etc.etc., and the heartland of the Jewish Palestinian population after the 7th century BCE was in Judea and its hinterlands. If Zionism had been less given over to myth, and precise, it would have said it aspired to re-establish the ancestral home in Judea, and perhaps more boldly, Samaria,though the latter had an estimated population of 500,000 Samaritans, not Jews in Talmudic terms, through most of that period. In stating the homeland in Zionism is in the Land of Israel, it is also implied that the homeland of the Jews was not Palestine, but the territory from Lebo Hamath to the Brook of Egypt and east to the Euphrates river, which was not what Herzl and earlier Zionists said. Throughout nearly all of its history (excluding the David Solomon romantic fiction's spin of a Dual Monarchy, for which there is zero archaeological or epigraphic evidence) it was subject to foreign powers. This is known to all scholars of antiquity but not to Zionist or many editors here. So the language used is not factual but distorts in simplifying a very complex situation in the ancient world. None of this alters the fact that Jews have a profound cultural attachment to that land and its Jewish history. The simple thing is just to stick to the official Zionist definition of their aims, and not try to spin history one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but my question is this: Are you arguing that the official Zionist definition unequivocally rules out any notion of re-establishment or the like? I want to drill down into whether the official Zionist definition is in clear contradiction to the claim of re-establishment. BabyJonas (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole sentence we have is a concoction by editors. On Wikipedia we follow source language. The source language for Zionism is in its official deliberations on aims set forth down to 1917, duly set forth. Anyone can construct a definition that challenges this: i.e., Zionism is an neo-colonial movement which aims to expel the indigenous people of Palestine from their homeland and replace it with Jews from anywhere on the planet, on the basis of a Biblical fantasy and a rabbinical tradition. A lot of people would define it thus, and have solid evidence to interpret what it does that way. We don't use that, as we don't invent the concoction we have. We use reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're focused on Reuters' index of 'terrorism'. Imagine what it is like for a normal reader of events, doing a small, arcane little page on reports on violence in your area, and having scruples that disallow him from adding to 'acts of violence' incidents of a kind that have occurred several times every day and night for 49 years to a captive, disarmed population under military occupation. Technically, every time an Israeli unit enters a Palestinian home after midnight usually, the practice is to smash things, and 'teach them a lesson'. That is both violent, and fits the definition of damage. It is reported only in Arabic sources regularly, and merely hinted at in Ma'an. We don't use it, so your workload is less, as is mine, but the reality is radically underdescribed. It is a form of systematic state terrorism, as defined in the Geneva Conventions and the relevant literature. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'll transcribe just one page from Ben Ehrenreich's 448 page book which has just come out.

He has an interesting ancedote from an Israeli checkpoint duty soldier who tried to soften up the intrinsic harshness of these places for local Palestinian kids by handing out a snack called Bamba to them. One kid took it and then shared it with the kind soldier. Ehrenreich‘s account runs:

'He opened the bag, and offered some to Eran. They sat and ate the chips together. When the boy walked off, Eran felt ecstatic. He could finally be the man he wanted to be, a soldier who was loved for his kindness and who at the same time, as he put it, “was protecting my country from a second Holocaust.”

When he got back to the base that night, he was ordered to eat quickly and prepare for another shift, not at the checkpoint but on a “mapping” expedition into H1. He was still so high from his success with the Bamba that he didn’t mind the extra work. The routine was simple:’You go into houses in the middle of the night, get everybody outside, take a photo of the family, and start going around the house, destroying things.” The idea was to search for weapons, “but we also needed to send a message,” Eran said, to make sure the residents never lost “the feeling of being chased.” (It’s awkward in English, but it’s a single word in Hebrew. His officers used it a lot, Eran said.) His job was to draft maps of each house, charting the rooms, the doors, and the windows. “If at some point there was a terror attack from that specific house,” the army would be ready.

That night, they searched, trashed, and mapped two houses in Abu Sneineh. It was snowy and cold. When they were done, the sun had not yet risen, so their officer chose one more house, apparently at random. They forced the family outside and into the snow and went in and started searching. Eran opened the door to a child’s room – he remembered seeing a painting of Winnie-the-Pooh on one wall – and had begun sketching when he realized that there was someone in the bed. A young boy leaped out from under the covers. He was naked. Startled, Eran raised his gun, aiming at the child. It was the kid from the checkpoint that afternoon. “He started peeing himself,”Eran said,”and we were just shaking, both of us, we were just standing there shaking and we didn’t say a word.” The boy’s father, coming down the stairs with an officer, saw Eran pointing a rifle at his son and raced into the room. “But instead of pushing me back,” Eran said,” he starts slapping his kid on the floor. He’s slapping him in front of me and he’s looking at me saying,”Please, don’t take my child.. Whatever he did we’ll punish him.’”

In the end, the officer decided that the man’s behavior was suspicious, that “he was hiding something.” He order Eran to arrest him. “So we took the father, blindfolded him, cuffed his hands behind his back and put him in a military jeep.” They dumped him like that at the entrance to the base. ”He stayed there for three days in a very torn-up shirt and boxer shorts. He just sat there in the snow.” Eventually, Eran summoned the courage to ask his officer what would happen to the boy’s father. “He didn’t even known what I was talking about,” Eran said. “ “He was like, ‘Which father?” Eran reminded him. “You can release him,” the officer said. “He has learned his lesson.”

After cutting the plastic ties that bound the ma n’s wrists, untying the blindfold and watching him run off barefoot in his underwear through the streets, Eran realized that he had never given the maps he had drawn. He hurried back to the officer’s room. “I really fucked up,” he told him, apologizing for his negligence.

The officer wasn’t angry.”It’s okay,” he said. “You can throw them away”.

Eran was confused. He protested: wasn’t mapping a vital task that might save other soldiers’ lives?

The officer got annoyed. “He says, ‘Come on, Efrati. Stop bitching. Go away.” But Eran kept arguing. He didn’t understand.

When it became apparent that he wasn’t going anywhere, the officer told him:”We’ve being doing mappings every night, three or four houses a night, for forty years.” He personally had searched and mapped the house in question twice before with other units. (Ben Ehrenreich, The Way to Spring: Life and Death in Palestine, Penguin 2016 pp.202ff.)

I've read several of these kinds of reports every day for a decade, alluded to by even Ma'an as 'raid on a house' (with a person arrested), and none of the details books like Ehrenreich's have reported for several decades (and which anyone who knows the literature from 1933-1941 on the Jewish angst over of Gestapo house searches should recognize as being identical). If you take the officer's word for it, at a low estimate this practice works out to mean (3x365x49) something in the range of 53,655 incidents of violent storming of people's homes, on the pretext of 'terrorism' or 'to avoid a second Holocaust', in order to haunt Palestinians with a constant fear of being 'chased'. If you add that to Jeff Halpern's estimate (War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification, Pluto Press 2015) that 48,488 Palestinian homes have been razed by Israel's army of occupation since 1967, or that 87,305 Palestinians have been injured by military actions since September 2000, then the perspective on 'Terror' you get in your chosen source starts to look shaky. We report none of this.

• Abu Sneineh, where this incident took place, is in H1,that 18% of the West Bank, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority according to the Oslo Accords, where Israeli troops were never to set foot, and therefore was one island where a Palestinian might feel totally 'in his own land' free of the occupation. So if you're spaced out by my neglect of spacing in one or two edits, just think of the broader context, which is an empty space altogether and means both what you and I do captures almost nothing of the real world we are supposedly annotating there and on other pages.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

From the talk page of user: Bolter21

I'm wondering what you think about my recent edits to Jerusalem. I'm not trying to canvas you, I'm just trying to decide whether it's worth pursuing considering the fact that the article will never be sane and I'm probably getting into edit war territory. (consider "the selectivity required to summarize some 5,000 years of inhabited history is often influenced by ideological bias or background. The periods of Greek sovereignty in the city's history are important to Greek nationalists, who claim the right to the city based on descent from Ancient Greece, of which Athens was the capital. In contrast, Turkish nationalists claim the right to the city based on descent from the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the city until recent times.") That would never happen though since only the jews' capital is controversial. Crazy fucks.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything special with those edits to be honest.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Happy New Year!--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well do you see anything special about this edit? [79] (Nishidani will revert it for sentimental reasons) שנה טובה ומתוקה! --Monochrome_Monitor 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the edit and the principal, but is is obvious that a revert and a long discussion will follow.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol I was right! About who would revert it I mean.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sentimentalist. I'm a realist. I read Anthony D. Smith's The Ethnic Origin of Nations before either of you were born, and even discussed this issue with him. He classifies Palestinians as an ethnic group without a political nation. I don't have a conflict of interest here. I've pointed out at great length on the talk page the fundamental flaws in the opening definition of Jews, with its insistence of a direct ethnic tie of descent from Israelites, etc.etc.etc. but I have the courtesy of not touching that page. Many editors who blindly support that WP:SYNTH travesty are unusually focused on how Palestinians are to be defined (not as they define themselves) by refusing to allow any right to be defined in similar terms as Jews in Israel, the state that is their adversary, are defined, i.e. as an ethnonational group, and it doesn not look like an example of editorial neutrality. I commend Bolter on this. He argued with vigour on the talk page, but hasn't tried to push his view onto the article. That shows delicacy. I wish more editors had at least a tingling of discomfort about charging in to define them. And writing, as above, as if this were just a game, is distasteful. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

but I have the courtesy of not touching that page: [80]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct. I know you are the world's leading authority on diffs from my 49,000 contributions to Wikipedia,-and that you keep asserting there's evidence there I'm an antisemite - and I stand corrected. I have contributed frenetically over 8 and a half years precisely 0.21% of edits to that page, the serious ones all being mechanically reverted. I did so while using the talk page to the extent of contributing 3.36% of its content, to try and reason over why that specific definition breaks all wiki rules, otherwise rigorously applied to Palestinian definitions. Now could we drop these opportunities to disrupt a conversation and score points? Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

All you had to do is not pretend to be better than the people you disagree with. I know that's difficult for you, but try to resist the urge and then I won't have to prove you wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, I may be wrong, that you invariably use personal sneering in my regard because you know in principle I won't report it. In any case, please stop. It's boring.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, you've reported me more than once. What I would like is for you to stop criticizing others for things you do too, particularly in such a way that says you're better than them. I think I've made my point so I won't be responding to this further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"By refusing to allow any right to be defined in similar terms as Jews in Israel, the state that is their adversary, are defined," shows this is an emotionally loaded issue for you. The difference with Jews is that's a common definition of the term. Ideally it would say, or a convert to their religion, Judaism. This is different. The sources are all indirect and it's patently obvious palestinians are not an ethnic group- again, see the template "ethnic groups in palestine".--Monochrome_Monitor 21:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lemmie jump in amd say that while I personally believe the Palestinians are an ethnonational tool for the destruction of Israel (Zair Muhsain said it first), I don't think I can stand and have an argument about a complex topic about Anthropology since dispite the fact I do read about it, I dont understand it much like Nish and putting my views in articles is not my primary objective. My primary objective is to remove other people's views fron articles (as long as they violate NPOV or just wrong). The subject of Palestinian ethnicity is not fundemental like the State of Palestine subject, in which people used rational arguments to hide the fact the SoP is not a state (Been there several times, didn't feel like a state either).

Anyway feel free to continue this juicy argument here in my talkpage and maybe it'll be fruitfull. I am in a small wiki break but its nice to see some red notifications with spice (what am I even saying)-- (its bolter logged off)Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they began as an ethnonational tool for the destruction of Israel but now they've become a nation through a shared experience of suffering and israel-hatred. Your spelling is delightful as always bolter :) --Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism began 50 years before Israel was founded.

Becoming a nation "through shared experience of suffering" and dislike of "the other" is exactly how most nations were constructed.

The day you learn to consider other people's identities as having equal weight to your own, will be the day you can proudly say you are a full member of the human race. In the meantime, you should look into your own heart and consider how you lost the ability to see others as you see yourself.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

None of us are, Oncenawhile, 'full members of the human race', except in the sense that 'full' can, in some dialects of English, mean 'drunk'. I agree with your point philosophically, but being a 'full' member of the human race is a project not a realized reality, for anyone.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again (still?) not full members of the human race. I just delete Oncenawhile's posts to my talk page. He's a sad little dude with sad little habits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why think Oncenawhile was portraying Jews as Nazis, when he was saying what Bernard Levin (Now read On, Cape 1990 p.21), and numerous other writers and thinkers, have often said: 'Have we made ourselves wholly self-contained - - to the extent that we cannot recognize other people as human ('She was nothing'), because we have dehumanized ourselves?' Or compare this speech by Robert F. Kennedy, since it has the same language, about extending full humanity to people denied it. Your analogy comes straight after complaining of my use of analogies. In any case, can't Bolter and I and a few others have a chat to talk through differences without this kind of barb?Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really give a damn what the Palestinians do with their nationalism. They can establish 72 states for all I care. The main problem with their nationalism is things like this, or this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. And cosmopolitanism is a false idea that will probably bring total devastation if someone will actually try to implement it, like in for example, a scenario in which the EU will start dissolving European governments and become a single country. Cosmopolitanism is like trying to make lions act like sheep, humans simply do not work like that. Back to Falasting.. Regardless of the roots of Palestinian nationalism, if the Arabs knew how to fight a war and Israel would have been destroyed in 1948, today there were no "Palestinians". The Jews didn't become a nation until the Nazis made them one, and same is for the Palestinians and their Nakba. The only differences are that the Jews already have 3,500 years of history while the Palestinians created themselves based on fictional colonial borders and the Zionist ethos is about the future while the Palestinian ethos is about the past. I really don't see any good future for the Palestinian society, with or without a state. The fact Palestine is a fractured dictatorship for more than a decade proves this, and it is not a superficial notion, when you look at Syria, Iraq or Libya.

Yoav Gelber has a paragraph in one of his book, that sumerizes my point and it goes like this (translated by me):

The answer to the question who commands who and where was the key to understanding the structure of the Arab force. Months of speculation did not led the Haganah to clear conclusions in this matter. The ties between the Arab League Military Committee, the Arab Higher Committee, the emergency committee in Jerusalem, Qawuqji in Samaria, Shishakli in the Galilee, Jihad al-Muqaddas, the cities' commanders and units of the Arab Liberation Army in the cities, the units of the Transjordanian Legion and Frontier Force in the Arab cities, the national committees and the municipalities – all of these were a puzzle that the Arabs themselves couldn't solve, while the Jewish and the British couldn't even understand it in hindsight

--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the history of the Irgun and Lehi 1936-1947, groups that played a key role in securing a Jewish state by resort to the deplorable terrorism whose Palestinian reflexes you rightly abhor. But I'll drop this conversation, which I thought was supposed to just talk about the anthropology of defining ethnic groups, because of the new disturbance to the relative equanimity with which we occasionally talk things over. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Irgun later made peace with Egypt, but the Palestinians are still shooting people in restaurants--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Racial odium consists in regarding all people belonging to an ethnic group as culpable of some defect, crime, attitude, intrinsic to them by virtue of the nature of their identity i.e. refusing to treat them as individuals, one by one. What is anti-Semitism, but seeing a 'Jew' as not the person who he or she is or may be, but as already thoroughly known from the collective smearing streotypes about 'Jews' current in several quarters? When you say 'the Palestinians' in the above context, you are painting them as ineludibly branded as terrorists, culpable, responsible, for what some in their ranks have done. It's the same logic, of collective guilt by mere association, the fact of having the same ethnic background or nationality as thugs or murderers. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinians are not terrorists, they are a tool used by terrorists.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way are 6 million people in Israel/Palestine tools of terrorists?Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

When at first they are absorbed by Arab countries and denied civil rights in them and given a status of refugees for eternity. At first the PLO did not claim Gaza and the West Bank, they only claimed the "source of the refugees". While Egypt treated Gaza like a trash can, Jordan treated the West Bank as the other half of their kingdom. Suddenly when the Jews, sorry.. the Zionists, conquered Arab lands (WB, GS and Golan Heights), this is where the "Palestinians" come into place again, now not only refugees, but also under occupation. The Palestinian ethos is not about creating a strong, advanced nation with a high standart of living, the Palestinian dream is to put Israel in the dock and to make them suffer for their actions in 1948 and to alloy the Arab need for dignitiy, which was lost everytime they lost a war against Israel. It is already a religion. Now the Palestinian teenagers are born into bad circumstances, though not worse like in Syria, but far from sufficiant, and they are told by the people around them they have no future, and instead they are told to seek martydom, for their nation, for their religion, or for themselves. They see the Palestinian leaders praising the martyrs, they see the "heroic" death of their neighbors being celebrated by all of the village... They simply want to be "something" and the agenda is the Palestinian society advocates death over life so those teens go and stab soldiers, civilians, you name it. The IDF does the same, when they make propaganda videos of soldiers with gopro cameras, going in "exotic" regions like Nablus or Gaza, equiped with "awesome" gear and generally feal good with themselves and this is why so many teenagers in Israel still want to be combatants, but at least in Israel, death isn't praised by any large source but only the "pinch of radicals" as we like to call them. When a Jewish person burns a Palestinian family, you will have an endless debate, on hundreds of issues, including the right-wing in Israel, refusing the recognize the fact that a Jew murderes civilians. When a Palestinian teen stabs a 13 year old girl in her bed, there is no debate, he is a hero. If you disagree, you better keep it to yourself. Even if the person didn't even hit anyone, but only waved a knife, he is a "martyr", or a person whose death is holy. An Israeli soldier killed an injured terrorist and for 6 months he is in arrest and trial, with a debate that continues. In the Palestinian society you won't see such a debate, even for the most brutal killings, and not the extrajudicial killing of a criminal. This whole "popular resistance" is not just "desparate Palestinians stabbing people", this is a strategy, by the Palestinian leadership, to stay on mainstream media, and in the end of the day, recieve their luxury UN Security Council desicion to fuck Israel in some form, that will make them happy. I don't expect much from the people who murdered one Jordanian king, started a civil war while trying to murder another one and also tried to take over Lebanon. Some of those actions were made on behalf of the good will of the Soveit Union, which simply wanted to combat US' little friends. (By "the people" I mean the leaders and organizations of the Palestinian people, which are practicing two dictatorships in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, no point arguing then. Vague ideas and great historical overviews are fine. But the people who decide what's to be done usually combine hard analysis of the economics pros and cons. This doesn't quite apply here, because the Israeli occupation, as most analyses show, is deleterious for the Israeli short and medium term economy. As a Rand Corporation study indicated recently, were Israel to disengage from the West Bank it would benefit by $123 billion over a decade with a 5% rise in pro capita wealth, Palestine by $50 billion, with a 36% improvement in pro capita wealth. Why Israel remains has nothing to do with terrorism nor security, but (a) the whole occupation is sustained by an identitarian religious myth and (b)The obvious solution is not politically practicable, any more, for any person who wants to get elected to the Knesset.

The occupation has led to a $300 billion cost in obstructed development for Palestinians, at a cost of a mere $50 billion for Israel, amortizable as having a long-term benefit return over cost when Israel completes its integration of that land.

I'll just note that the West Bank and Gaza on the eve of the occupation in 1967 in your age group (15-17) had 44% of the youths in secondary school. Israel had 22.8% of the same age group.' Then Israel took over. What happened in the West Bank under occupation is too complex for a chat; things like the fact that immediately following the Oslo Accords, the West Bank began to deindustrialize, losing by 2010 88% of its predicted pre-1994 growth (IMT) increment; or things like not being a beneficiary of %150 billion in economic aid like Israel but having to face occupation losses equal to 84% of the local Palestinian GNP, or that as the authoritative World Bank (note a hive of Hamas/PLO executives and militants) estimates the cost of the Israeli occupation of the refusal of Israel to cede control over Area C, as it undertook to do in 1994, costs the Palestinian economy 3.5 billion annually, or that As for Gaza, how that was dedevelopped is the subject of Sara Roy's 'The Gaza Strip:A Case of Economic De-Development,' Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Autumn, 1987), pp. 56-88. I guess none of this matters. Terrorism makes headlines, and terror determines popular thinking, on both sides of the Green Land. The deeper issues are expendable.Still, you're young. Go out and enjoy yourself. None of our opinions will have the least impact of what will happen. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

When a society, condone and glorifies murder, murder will happen. No matter how bad the situation is. Though I don't have a source, I am most certain that there is more corolation between a social acceptence of terrorism and terrorism, rather than poverty and terrorism. The reason why terrorism is most common among Muslims in the 21st century is becuase in the 21st century, the majority of those who condone terrorism are radical Islamists. I do not think that the prize for blowing up busses is a sovereign state, but the Palestinians condone the violance anyway, believing the killings of Israelis are going to change anything, while in reality, it seems to only worsen their situation and has a deep connection to the radicalization among Israel's youth who later enlist to the army as fighters. The result is always the same: more dead Palestinians, which most Palestinian leaders use either as a tool against Israel in the UN or against Israel in Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism? In 6 years (2010-16) the village of Nabi Salih had nearly 60% of its members (350 people) shot or injured by IDF soldiers firing on them during their weekly protest marches to reclaim their land. I know, they were 'rioting'. Not one Israeli soldier, backed by the most powerful army in the region, was ever in danger from a disarmed population, on their own land. If you want to breed hatred, even a terrorist here or there, that is the perfect way to go about it.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This might sound very anachronistic and millitary minded but you don't surrender to "weekly protests", you don't award them. Radical settlers know that and they enjoy it with the Temple Mount and other areas. The solution to that will only be to kick Naftali Bennet and his friends from the coalition. He is starting to feel like our Hitler. Back to Nabi Salah. I"ve heard from first source about the Nabi Salah protests (my high school was as "lefitst" as you), and while it sounds like a "hamble village protesting the occupation of its spring by foreigners", in reality, it is a cinema show, that cynically uses the villagers in order to create headlines. People come from all over the world, who want to feel heroic and fight for justice, coming and making provocations on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, which seeks to put the "Palestinian problem in the headlines". Already in the past it was discovered that PA officials are present in the village and create an "army" of youth for the violent riots and there are already dozens of cameramen waiting to take the picture of their lives. The PA and foreign organizations fund this "army" and the so-called Israeli "anarchists" just love this place. This is the sort of the stuff the brings the EU to spend tax money for more provocations, leading to pressure on Israel leading to the UN security council desicion the Palestinians want so bad, so they won't have to sit and refuse to accept Israel's fair offer, and now conveniently for them there is a clown leading Israel.

By the way, funny thing, Aleppo is smaller than Gaza, yet has about the same amount of civilians. A section of it has 300,000 civilians completely trapped under siege and in the last 14 days close to 400 civilians were killed (and if you compare the death per residence, the Aleppo death rates are actually twice as harsh as Gaza, without considering the fact not all 500 Gazans who were killed in the first 14 days were civilians), but it seems the world didn't really care too much about. AJ+ which posted several videos during the operation in Gaza, only cared to publish one video, talking about the war crimes made by Shimon Peres. CNN didn't post anything special about Aleppo. Still nice to see the BBC and Reuters, posting around 5-6 vidoes in the last 14 days. Social Media? Nothing.

And no I havent shifted to the right.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do these 22.8% and 44% numbers come from? They seem pretty unlikely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I cited the source years ago, registering the details on 2 articles, from which they have often been removed, and I keep having to put them back. See Culture of Palestine and Education in the Palestinian territories. The divergence is probably explained by the impact of massive Mizrachi immigration from the mid late 50s. It comes from my own copy, so I can't link it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani would you mind typing out a short quote from the source? I looked online (see the google books version at Elias H. Tuma; Haim Darin-Drabkin (1978). The Economic Case for Palestine (RLE Economy of Middle East). Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-317-59856-5.) but I couldn't find it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's much there that is forgotten of what the state of Palestinian society was like before the occupation. In any case:'Almost universal education was characteristic of the 15-24 age group, while almost two-thirds of those going to school had over nine years of schooling. In comparison with both Israel and Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza seem to have a favourable educational basis. The age group 6-11 shows a high participation in Israel (84.4) than in the West Bank (80.5) but, in the group 15-17 years of age, the percentage in the West bank is considerably higher than in Israel, 44.6 compared with 22.8 in Israel.'p.48.

They add also that from 1956-1967, the student population in the (later) territories grew by 7.% per annum, way aboved the annual 3% increment in population growth. High school participation grew annually by 12.8%. Tertiary, college entry grew from 800 (1959) to 5,000 in 1966-7 (p.49). The occupation began of course and these pseudos all dropped their pretenses to be really enjoying the benefits and prospects of universal free compulsory 12 years of education provided by Jordan, and reverted to type by becoming Muslim-Arab-Islamic-terrorist/stone-throwing 'donkeys', driven by millennia of anti-Semitism. 50,000 home demolitions, 600,000 gaoled, 30,000 wounded in the first intifada, 91,000 thousand since the second, these are all irrelevant trivia that had no impact on the way Palestinians think or behave, etc.etc..Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds even less likely. While I have no problem believing the Palestinians had higher education levels than their host countries because of UNRWA run schools, I have serious doubts they were higher than in Israel, both for practical (ei infrastructure) and cultural reasons. Israel already had a couple of world class universities and was forced to and very cognizant of its need to rely on its human capital. Also a drop from 80% in primary school to 20% in secondary doesn't sound likely at all. Here are some relevant statistics about edutation in the Middle East at the time, although it doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians. Notice that it says that in 1969 the enrollment in both primary and secondary in Israel was 81%. The source Oncenawhile posted doesn't seem to support 44% in secondary school either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

'1969 the enrolment in both primary and secondary in Israel'. I cited the secondary school statistics for 15-17 year olds, very specific. The source was a book written by 2 Israeli economists, Elias H. Tuma, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of California, and Haim Darin-Drabkin, a UN consultant on land policy. Their bibliography indicates they rely on Israeli official statistics. 29& of Israeli high schoolers went into vocational education in 1960, and that rose to 44% by the end of the decade, and large nos of those were Mizrachi. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the point was, Palestinians in 1967, in econometrics, had an excellent educational basis for economic take-off and high growth (that is their conclusion) - much better placed that Arabs in surrounding countries. Bolter appears to think that a military occupation and total control of the land resources has no relevance. These things, if read, are ignored.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering that reviews (and the title) say this book is polemic, and that it contradicts other sources (not to mention common sense), I am fairly sure those numbers are incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well. I've read the book. There is no polemical content. It is a technical analysis, written by men who were authorities in their fields. I read one or two reviews which were devoid of intelligent content. There is nothing in the title that is polemical. You've not shown where it contradicts other sources: Tuma has written extensively on that field. 'Commonsense' is an empty term, subjective. Your commonsense may suggest it is impossible that Palestinian youths at that age had statistically a better level of education than the average Israeli. The source says otherwise. It may be wrong, but the writers are highly qualified experts precisely on this area. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, your comments are interesting to read, and you are clearly a thoughtful and balanced individual. I'll add just two further comments to this:

Robert Pape has studied every suicide attack in the world since 1980, evaluating over 4,600 in all. He concludes: "What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else."[81]

You have also enquired before why do so many neutral people with no skin in the game support the Palestinian cause, despite the inhuman methods of those who commit terrorist attacks, and why is Israel singled out for criticism when so many other countries do bad things.

These all tie back to the same point - military occupation. As Pape says, military occupation is the single biggest factor in motivating terrorism. And Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land is by far the longest military occupation in modern global history.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It is one of the "beautifull notions" out there that "only if we stop occupation, there would be no terrorism". Funny enough, while 95% of sucide bombings according to Pape are made against occupations, 99% of the suicide bombings are made by Muslims. What do you assert from that? That suicide bombing is the result of Islam? Anyway I checked his theory, and it most certainly the absolute opposite of the situation in 2015. If you look at the statistics you see that most of the suicide bombings were not really by occupied people. ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; Islamist rebels in Syria; Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan; al-Shabaab in Somalia, al-Qaida in Yemen.

Out of the 875 suicide bombings doccumented by the GTD, I saw no more than 5 that you might say are cuased by occupation. The attempted suicide bombing near Ma'ale Admumim, two suicide bombings by the PKK, one by Uyghur seperatists and two by Tuareg seperatists. So either Pape's argument is outdated, or he is drunk from his pacifism.

It is really fun to say "if the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, there wouldn't be terrorist attacks", but it seems that while the US left, the suicide culture of the Middle East stayed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism is a culture. You can have terrorism, only when you live in a society that endorses terrorism, publically or covertly. In Israel of 2015, you hardly have any terrorist attacks (one in 2014, three in 2015, apparently zero in 2016) and you hardly have any "honor killings" within families or between different ones. It is the Arabs and Muslims, who collectively still live in a regressive culture, in which murdering people is seem as legitimate by at least 1%, which is all it takes. And I am not an Ashkenazi Elitist, I can openly say that the oftenly called "Jewish-Arabs" (i.e. the regressive Mizrahis) are also sharing some of those cultural views on murder, as murder is generally more common among them. At the time of war, even the most cultured Ashkenazi people, lived in an environment, that endorsed things like this. You might say that in an occupied community, the chance of violance being endorsed by the people and leaders is higher, but I am not quite sure how this is fighting an occupation. In Israel, the only places where you see a long of racial violance is among the radicals who are able to justify and endorse it. Among the Ultra-Orthodox and Ultra-Nationalists.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Pape doesn't say "directly caused by", he says "in response to" occupation, and that the "vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops".[82]

Your second post is great. Your two observations: "1%, which is all it takes" and "in an occupied community, the chance of violence being endorsed by the people and leaders is higher" are very balanced.

Obviously it's not as simple as remove the occupation and suddenly hatred will turn into romance. All (!) that is needed is an acknowledgement within mainstream Israeli society that the root cause of the problem is occupation not anti-Semitism or other forms of fundamental hatred. What the solution is from there is clearly a highly complex question. The biggest barrier to peace is propaganda.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be preaching here, one way or another. It helps to have an exchange, analytical, data-based, at times just to get to know each other better. Bolter's argument is 'ontological' (Arabs,Muslims, terrorism) and arguments of an historical-economic-sociological order generally make no impact. They are two different modes of thinking.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly Oncenawhile, when you see the MKs in Israel saying things like "all terrorists must die", someone will shot a wounded terrorist. The propaganda in Israel is a bit more complicated, because all of Israel's mainstream media, Channel 2, Channel 10, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla! etc. are all condamning of such actions, while the only media in contrast is things like Arutz Sheva, Channel 20 (you probably never heard of it), 0404 News and Rotter news, which except for Arutz Sheva, is a compilation of facebook-page-like websites and television shows, hosted by people who don't really understand too much in the reality, and bring stories that are not really important but present them as news. (For example, channel 20 made sure everyone will know that the Hebrew Wikipedia voted to delete an article about a terror victim, and brought "professionals" to talk about it). Still the mainstream media in Israel is written by the Left (Channel 10, Haaretz, Walla!) or by the centre/centre-right (Ynet, Channel 2) and not by the pro-settlement, religious-nationalist bloc of the right, which represents a too big portion of the Israeli government. The only ways to condone violance in Israel is through small facebook pages, mostly viewed by youth and soldiers, like the one owned by Yoav Eliasi and yet he does not directly condone violance, but does what Israel's right does all the time: shame the left and deny that Jews are wrongdoing, which is very different from what the Palestinians are doing, who are not denying wrongdoing, but simply deny the "wrong" part. While right wing Israelis will say "A Jew didn't murder Muhammad Abu Khadeir, the is a libel by the Arabs and the Left, the kid was a suspected homosexual and was killed by one of his family members", in the Palestinian society, you will see the reporters in PA or Hamas owned media, always using the a spesific language for describing assailants, regardless of their actions, always calling them "martyrs". The amout of people in Israel who have the guts to publically call Baruch Goldstein a "martyr" on mainstream media and if he does, he is going to recieve shaming. Most of the Israelis will tell you they dispise Baruch Goldstein, saying "he is not Jewish", "He doesn't represent Israel", on the same weight as the Muslims saying "ISIS isn't Muslim", "They do not represent us", but with the Palestinians, the people who don't represent them are people like Mahmoud Abbas, which "dares" to come the funeral of a "Zionist war criminal". The anwer to the question "why do Palestinians support stabbing attacks" is the same answer to the question why did the Germans supported the Nazis. While not all Germans supported the Nazis, the majority did and the minority was either silenced or didn't dare to speak. The Palestinians are ruled by a dictatorship called "national dignity", and it is simmilar to the same dictatorship that starts to take over many Jewish minds in Israel, called "Complete Israel" (not "Greater Israel") and many of them are generally nice people, who don't hate Arabs, don't know much about the conflict.. don't really care to understand what is going on, but when you talk about "dividing the Land", they will answer "NO! Why will we give up lands? for what? This is our land!, Why are the Arabs needing lands? They can move to Jordan! Last time we gave them lands it ended in the death of 1,500 Jews! Are you crazy?", is if someone formatted their brains with a disc. The difference is that the Palestinians didn't have a Ben Gurion to supress the radicals, they simply are radicals. While my people are also radical, at least "it is not their problem", their radicalization is not really going to change anything, becuase they are not the ones under occupation. If the Palestinians made Satyagraha instead, today there was no State of Israel, simply becuase we were deep in the Mediterranean Sea. I don't remember who said it, but there is a quote, saying "The best way to defeat Israel, is to make peace with it".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The anwer to the question "why do Palestinians support stabbing attacks" is the same answer to the question why did the Germans supported the Nazis.

You didn't explain why the Germans supported the Nazis, but forget it.

"The best way to defeat Israel, is to make peace with it"

The logical form of this example is:-

An occupying power can only be defeated if the occupied people sue for peace.

I can think of no example in history where this applies. In fact it is pure fantasy. Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Admits Israel Is Building Permanent Apartheid Regime — Weeks After Giving It $38 Billion. --- Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're spoiling (I feel responsible) Bolter's youth and leisure. These arguments, posed in this way, are intrinsically inconclusive, like the peace process itself. All one is left with is an obligation to understand the mechanisms of why a resolution of that conflict is politically impossible. There's an abundance of obscure studies on that, any one of which deserves more attention than following the froth of news channels, newspapers, social gossip, facebook, etc. Bolter shouldn't feel obliged to keep up the conversation, which has in any case,served its poipose.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The following was originally written by user 'Monochrome Monitor,' but Nishidani added the links. Nishidan's edit summary was: "Annotating a toddler's version of a copyright violation from the Ministry for Hasbarah:

I didn't drop anything about entine. I have always defended him as a source. I have never defended yanover, I agree jewishpress is a crappy source except for info on america's modern orthodox. You think I have no individuality? Your responses are boilerplate anti-israel rhetoric. "Fizzle in the guy", "oppressors", "carpet bombing". It's ridiculous. Calling vietnam genocide is also ridiculous and appalling to people who have known real genocide. (Intent to destroy a people in whole or in part? I think not)

1. The "500 children killed" meme is a figure published by Hamas which includes adolescent fighters.

2.It's ballsy to compare Hamas to jewish rebels against the romans, I'll give you that.

3. Jews in the Bar Kochba revolt were fighting against foreign domination, hamas is fighting against a lawfully imposed blockade implemented because of their belligerence. Israel occupied the territories because they were used to wage war against it, occupied judea to weaken the persian empire. Israel isn't concerned that the rockets will kill massive numbers of people, they have the iron dome for that. They are concerned about the fact that most of their population is hiding in bomb shelters and daily life cannot continue until the barrage stops. Hamas uses unguided missiles that are cheap to produce, the iron dome uses guided missiles that are expensive to produce. As the missiles continue they are losing a lot of time and money, and their population is panicking. You also say that "more palestinians died than israelis". That's not how proportionality works. It's the proportion of civillians (sic) killed to legitimate military objectives accomplished, not one side's deaths to another's deaths. [Israel is defending its country], not expanding it. Gazans live in a modern society despite their lack of high-tech weaponry to kill Israelis. Gaza has luxury cars, iphones, fancy hotels. If you're rich of course, most people live in poverty, but that's class stratification for you. It's asymmetrical war fare. For asymmetrical warfare a 1:1 (israel's figure) or even 2:1 (hamas's figure) civilian:combatant ratio is actually pretty great. Compare it to the afghanistan war's 4:1. You focus on the 'suffering of Gazas (sic)- which I agree is immense, and the feeling that its a great injustice. But think about it. Why would Israel WANT to make gazans suffer? Even assuming they don't care about them at all (as the demonizers say) its a waste of money on expensive munitions and a source of international opprobrium. It is in their interest to minimize civilian casualties. My empathy for suffering is distinct from my conception of justice. Justice is not making sides suffer equally in warfare, or else Germany should have carpet-bombed los angelos like we did dresden.- .--Monochrome_Monitor 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI:

I've got it into my head to do from 300-500 of these articles [on Australian native people], overhauling the whole area. It's pretty scandalous that wiki has virtually zilch of the rich ethnographic harvest over the last century on that erased history. You look at numerous town articles, like one I read yesterday on Coen and find out that their history begins with a European, 1623, Jan Carstensz, and then jumps two and a half centuries till gold was discovered. Not a hint that the Kaantyu and Wik-Munkan tribes lived there and left extensive ceremonial sites of totemic stone lines, or ant-bed sacred sites used for complex increase rituals, and intricate papers exist sifting the last murmurs of those tribesmen speaking distinctive complex languages , papers that endeeavour to claw back some lineaments of their obliterated cosmologies. I don't care if the articles aren't read. I do care to see that those victims of genocide are memorialized encyclopedically. I'll probably never finish it, but it must be done, eventually. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And the Zionist me looked at the map of the peninsula and asked myself "why don't the Australians prop up a port city there?".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See Sahul Shelf. Don't want to despoil you of an illusion, but you're not a Zionist: you're an Israeli with a neo-liberal outlook someone confused with Reagan-Thatcherism, caught up as is natural in a doctrinal system that forms part of Israeli national life, but probably an historical impediment to 'normalization'. As to the 'port city there', that is exactly what was attempted, first at Albany Island, then Somerset, and by various entrepreneurs and multinationals, American, English, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The logic was - there's huge wealth there, let's develop it. I guess you are aware that the creation of a Jewish state in north Western Australia was an option on the boards back in the 30s. Australians tried to barge in with a cotton-industry and, predictably, turned part of the Kimberley wetlands into a dustbowl in 10 years. By the way, there's a fascinating chap Howard Goldenberg who's been interviewed about his experiences up north, here a list of the interviews here, or the quick one here. Well worth listening to. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how being a neo-liberal (which I wouldn't completely identify as) interferes with being a Zionist, which is more of a nationalist identity rather than an economic one. The fact I support liberal ideas and do not feel racist toward Arabs, doesn't mean I want to live in a binational state or worse. I support the most democratic option of a Jewish state. If the Arabs were smart, they would follow the Druze and be our "dogs" for 50 years, until they would be strong enoguh politically to hold the Jews in the balls, but instead they choose to sit in the opposition, doing nothing and receive only 50% of the votes from the Arabs. I am confident that this scenario will never happen, becuase the Arab parties are Islamist/Communist/Nationalistic and very corrupt.

And I always say, that the best way to save the Jews, was to bring them to Israel, because the US is not an option, because many Jews were marxist, while most of the Jews would not leave everything behind and move to Unganda, Austrialia, Alaska or Madagascar. If you could gather a couple thousand Jews, infused with nationalism to Israel, they would fastly establish a community that would appeal to the rest, and that's how it grew. Now we are seeing the American Jews being less Jews and more American and they do non-Jewish things, like voting for politically-correct-establishment-allies-corrupted-warmongers like Hillary Clinton.

In other words, I prefer to give the authority to people of my own kind, and not live as guests in a different country, so if we fuck up, at least we can take responsibility for it. Having no other choices is sometimes better than having multiple choices.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

(Plot spoiler: The following stinks of condescension.) Well, you're very young, and like vast generalizations, that by their nature cannot be debated. All ideologies, and Zionism is just one little ethnonationalistic variation, tragicomical in its anachronism, give those who grow up within them an infinite series of pat responses that are all utterly predictable. The one certain consequence is that a nationalist, qua nationalist, has nothing to say, because he must yield authority to a form of public discourse that takes precedence over experience, or imposes its interpretations prescriptively over how anything is to be experienced. I've had variations of this conversation with Soviet-or Chinese-area Communists, Hungarian or Ukrainian patriots, Japanese and Korean nationalists, Italian fascists, neocon economists, rednecks, American grand strategists, etc. The language looks different in each case, but if you boil any stretch of it down to a propositional content, it reveals the same closed structure, absolutely impermeable to reality- They're all very eloquent on the big picture: once the conversation is steered to details, personal experience, the intricate complexities of specific historical moments, they get uncomfortable. If I told you that

I prefer to give the authority to people of my own kind, and not live as guests in a different country

translates into

I defer to authority according to the ethnicity of the person wielding it. If the ethnicity is the same as mine, it has more traction on me than it would were it exercised in exactly the same manner by someone whose ethnicity differs from mine.

(in very practical wiki terms you give the lie to this because you do not assign automatically more intrinsic merit to a 'pro-Israeli' editor's POV than that of his or her adversary in an edit dispute, but try to evaluate the merits of various proposals rationally)

This is a tribal attitude. Of course, we're all free to embrace whatever set of values we prefer. But neoliberalism is diametrically opposed to tribalism: its fundamental premise is that the individual is a rational agent best positioned to determine his own choices, and that any collectivist interference in or hindrance to that individualist ethic disrupts the natural optimal allocation of resources in a way detrimental to both the individual's pursuit of happiness and his society's overall wellbeing. The whole project of liberalism is hostile to tribalism (communitarian values, redistributive justice, governmental intervention), which is regarded as a key drag on economic rationality. Like all ideologies, Zionism reckons it can reconcile both, and pragmatically, this works out as Matthew 6:3.'doing acts of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right does'.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As a citizen of the State of Tel Aviv, I am well aware of the tribalism and "anachronism" of my views. While I think "anachronistic" is a way of saying "I don't like your notion, but I will criticize it for being outdated", I do accept the idea of tribalism, just like I support the idea of eating - I am a human, and that's what human do. "People of my own kind" do not translated to "Jews", people of my own kind translates to "allies", i.e. most people who have lived in this country for the last 68 years. I won't oppose the notion of a Druze or even Muslim Prime Minister, as long as he is not an: Islamist, Communist or Nationalist (Arab nationalist). All of those three groups, which form the Arab parties in Israel, are hostile to all I believe and not only hostile but also foreign. "My own kind" are the "sane majority" which excludes: radical-left, radical-right, Halachic, islamist, anti-Zionist and ultra-nationalist, these are the people I deem foreign and/or hostile to my ideal state. Marxists, of any shape and form, whether they are "Democratic Socialist" or "Progressive(=Regressive) Left" are not welcome. People who put nationalism as first priority, or people who reject the non-Kosher democracy are not welcome. People who think that you should not defy Israel's construction rules, unless you build on Arab property should be removed from the government. People who get angry at the police for not stopping honor killings, but on the same time refuse to cooperate with the police are not welcome. People who sympathize with the Palestinian cause and/or want a binational state and/or Pales. right of return, are welcome to move to Gaza and live under Hamas. People who shut "the Arabs are cancer and we don't make peace with cancer...everyone who said [population transfer]..is not Jewish, is not Democratic - Jewish Blood on their hands!" should be tortured by the Shin Bet. All of these groups are welcome to be a minority in my country, but I will not submit to them, and those groups, who are a minority in Israel, tend to be the majority in many other countries.

My agenda is not the agenda found in Germany, France or the United States, and I do not want to be a minority in those countries. My agenda can only be found among most of the Israelis and some of the world's Jews. In other words, the Jewish state, which still has a majority of "my own kind" and is still democratic, has the best potential to care about my interests, becuase my interests are shared by most of the people here, with all the disagreements, wars and shitty politicians and I wish to conserve that and not submit my life to the Halacha or to a broken Cosmopolitan world, which is a ticking self-destruction bomb that refuses to look at reality in the eyes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

And as I said before, I do not think I am a neo-liberal.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to clear up a misperception. When I said anachronism, I was referring to Tony Judt's essay. Of course it upset the chattering classes, but it is an exemplary, if obvious, application of historical analysis and sociological reasoning, something regarded with distaste in Zionist discourse.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"A state for Jews" and "A state where Jews have privileges" are two versions of the same thing, but the writer decided to use the latter to define the concept of a "Jewish State".

The Arabs are not constitutionally second class citizens (I've read Adala's list of laws, total bullshit), they are de-facto second class citizens, because the tools of Israeli democracy stand in front of their face, but Arabs were never a democratic people. It seems hundreds of years separate us from Arab democracy, which is today synonymous with Authoritarian–Marxism or Theocratical–Islamism, which are usually the outcome of democratic projects in the Arab world.

The writer is ultra-biased: he completely mislead the reader by very good manipulative tactics. For example, he shows three options in a dilemma: To leave and dismantle the settlements; To annex the territories; To cleanse the country of Arabs. He explains the problem of the second option, saying it will create a clash between "Jewish" and "Democratic". He explains the problem with the third option, saying it is "fascist", but he does not explain the problem with the first option. The ignorant reader clearly understands from the lack of criticism of the first option, that it is the only option, and he would never guess the reason why Israeli withdrawal can't be done so simply, is because Israel doesn't want to create the world's largest terrorist base, while startig a civil war at home.

Speaking about fascists, the manipulative writer uses the revisionist past of the Herut movement, which he deems as fascist, to try and construct an thesis that explains the Likud party is actually fascist. As far as I know, the Herut movement was not fascist. It was nationalistic, but not fascist and its later ideological father was the first with with the balls to make peace, and with Israel's biggest enemy at the time, Egypt. The movement under Bibi also accepted democracy and continued to implement the Oslo Accords dispite them opposing it in the previous Knesset, which is more than what Marwan Bargouti or Hamas will ever offer with the death of the Dictator.

The next point the writer makes in order to convince us the Likud is fascist, is that Ehud Barak supports the assasination of "Paletsinian politicians". He asserts that assasinating Palestinians is "political assasination", but the Palestinians are not a state, and their politicians are actively involved in terrorism against Israel (or if you want, "resistance"), including Arafat, Abbas and the rest. Is assasinating Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "political assasination"? What about assasinating fascists? Look at the politicians the Palestinians assasinated: Abdullah I of Jordan, Wasfi al-Tal and Rehavam Ze'evi. The avarage Palestinian leader is worse than Meir Kahane in his terrorist, but if his assasination is a "fascist made-political assasination", then the assasination of Kahane as well as Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, Meir's son, was made by fascists. So can we please go on and talk about assasinating "fascists"?

The writer talks about Sharon and Olmert as "bad guys", but Sharon was the one who disengaged from Gaza, while Olmert created the Realignment plan and was the closest ever to reaching an agreement in the Annapolis Conference, which was the main cuase why he is now in jail. So this article is anachronistic. It doesn't matter who sits at Israel's cabinet, the condescending writers, looking at the Jews with double standard, will always find a way to delegimize them.

Another way of seeing this writer doesn't really represent reality is the way he says "There are indeed Arab radicals who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean, but they represent no strategic threat to Israel" yet Hamas was elected in 2006. Everyone who observed the Palestinian community with honesty since 1920 knows the reality did not change. Recently discovered Benny Morris agrees with that notion, which was surprising. The Second Intifada is all the proof needed.

Later the writer adopts the Benjamin Netanyahu Doctrine: Frighten them with Nukes. Yeah, Israel has nukes, and? What does that prove to you? That Israel is North Korea? They are the strong and the Falastinyyun are the weak, cause in the 50s Israel created nukes, long before Israel occupied the West Bank or Gaza. Give me one good reason for Israel to destroy its nuclear monopoly.

And the writer blames Israel's North Korea-like behavior to the world's loss of faith in the US which supports it, but the reason why the world is loosing faith in the US, especially in 2003 was because of this. Also, Russia and Qatar do a fairly good job at spreading anti-Western agenda worldwide. But NO, the Jews are to blame. We also killed the dinosaurs apparently.

Reaching only half of the aritcle, I really have no interest in continuing to read, it"ll probably be the same things I hear all day. Frankly, most of this article's ideas can be found in comments made by actual anti-semites all accross the internet, which shows exactly the only outcome of this article: to arm ignorants with "rational" arguments to justify their love for roasted Jews. It reminds me of the shameless arguments made by Adolf H... Sorry, by Ilan Pepe, which is amazingly worse than Gideon Levy. (And I really don't mind comparing Pepe to the Furher, he has done the same with me).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are very primitive. I've read 3 books and numerous essays by Tony Judt. You haven't, but have a huge set of opinions about what he studied in profound depth for several decades on the strength of an unfinished glimpse at one article he wrote. As to the bold off-the-cuff adolescent generalizations, like 'Arabs were never a democratic people,' well, a jejune reader of Israel Shahak's books might slip into the temptation of replacing Arabs with 'Jews' above, since Shahak's argument is that the whole emphasis of Jewish religious tradition is theocratic, ethnocentric and anti-democratic. But to do so would be to commit the same error you make, identifying a cultural essence from one thread of tradition and sticking it as a destiny on people ethnically related to it - which is typical of what dyed-in-the-bull nationalists always do. Like it or not, Islamic civilization for 1,300 years has adorned with magnificent architecture and splendid poetry, to speak of just a few things, everywhere from India to Morocco, Sicily and Spain, and any heir to that civilization can feel profoundly in debt to the way that tradition inflected the world, not to speak of the fact that it was the only place Jewish communities thrived for over a millennium free of the lethal hatred and anti-Semitism which the West inflicted on Jews (I know, dhimmitude: yawn). One of my most moving experiences was waking at dawn in Beit Sahour to a muezzin's call over Bethlehem. Israel is now suppressing this inimitable part of the historic landscape of its nook in the Middle East by banning that, too, as 'noise pollution'. I'll copy a passage I once wrote out based on a memoir by a NYT journalist:'A devoutly Christian ancestor of Anthony Shadid, to cite one unforgettable example, lived in a Greek Orthodox village, Marjayoun just north of Palestine, side by side with a small but devout Sunni minority, and on occasion the fellow would ascend the minaret and do the muezzin a favour by sharing the burden and singing out over the town the prayers of his Muslim neighbours. His voice was famous for its sweet, powerful euphony, and the gesture, lending his gift to the faith of a minority, secured a conviviality we can no longer imagine.' This is called tolerance, and it is what is fast disappearing from our collective landscape. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)