Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 1

Temple Mount incident

Does anyone remember what was said at first, when Sharon visited Temple Mount?

• Was there a claim from any advocate that Sharon was "violating" a holy place sacred to Islam?
  • As in, Jews aren't supposed to enter Muslim holy places?
• Was there a claim that a political leader like Sharon should not make political statements in a holy place (whether it's sacred to Muslims or Jews)?

Note: I am not advocating a point of view here, but trying to sort out who said what, okay? Ed Poor

Ariel Sharon had the legal right to enter the Temple Mountain (any Israeli citizen can do it). He didn't enter the Muslim structures. He also didn't make political (or any other) statements on the Temple Mountain. As far as I remember, the complaints to him centered on these facts:

• (implicit) Sharon is a Jew, and Jews are considered inferior and tame all over the Arab world (sad truth here). An open visit by a Jew is akin to an insult to the famous Arab pride.
• (explicit) Sharon was accompanied by a crowd of body-guards. Although they did not harm anyone (the riots began later), and bearing arms there is not forbidden (Israeli policemen are stationed there regularly), they were criticized rather harshly. My pet theory is that what upset Arabs most was Sharon's having signs of respect around him in a Muslim holy place. --Uri

Thank you for your insights, Uri. Okay, any advocates with another POV want to answer the same questions? I'd like to get some "balance" (possibly for inclusion in the Temple Mount article. ==Ed Poor

---

Yes, the subject on why Sharons visit on temple Mount angered so many Palestines need further explanation. This is what I think is the Arabic view:

1. Sharon is (obviously) seen as a war criminal, reasons for that can (easily) be found in the article about him. He is seen as a proponent to all Arabs. 2. Therefore Sharon visiting temple Mount would be the same as a KKK member visiting a black neighbourhood. 3. WHY did Sharon have to visit temple Mount? Wouldn't it have been very easy for him to foretell what would happen? And he knew that the visit would anger the Palestinians so it seems like the visit was done to provoke violence from the Palestinian side. 4. Sharon claimed that he did it as a message of peace, which might have added gasoline to the fire because it might have been interpreted by Palestines as "peace means that we control temple Mount"

And for a NPOV I think we should be careful when adding attributes to a whole ethnicity... ==BL

---

I forgot last night one more reason

• "The Jews want to take over the world" motive. The fact that Sharon visited the Temple Mountain somehow made Muslims believe this is the next location of "Jewish takeovers" which would result in their holy sites destructed, and perhaps the building of another Temple.

As to NPOV, would you deny the average Arab hates Jews guts? --Uri

---

Just to stick my oar in: To say that "Sharon visiting temple Mount would be the same as a KKK member visiting a black neighbourhood." is grossly unfair. Sharon's visit was primarily to visit the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism. I agree that he didn't have visit the Temple Mount, and he probably knew it wouldn't help. But the idea of attributing to the visit the status of igniting the intifada is rather overblown. I have read a statement by Marwan Barghouti (which unfortunately I cannot find the link to) which seemed to imply that he and others were preparing for an uprising anyway, and used the crowd protesting Sharon's visit in order to cause a bit of trouble.

Yes; Palestinian sources have publicly confirmed that this second intifada was pre-planned, and that Sharon's visit was only used as a pretext. Sadly, however, the Western press failed to report this information. RK

Uri - I'm guessing you're Israeli, and I do understang where your view comes from, as your contact with Arabs is presumably Palestinians, and especially seeing terrorist on television etc. but you really shouldn't expect it to be an accurate portrayal of a vast race. Your comments only make you appear rather narrow, and add fuel to the old Zionism=Racism arguement.

---

Hi, just a question. I believe the (first) intifada was nicknamed "war of stones" or something similar (some even claim intifada means "war of stones", but that is not true). I recall that name was also often used, maybe it's worth mentioning somewhere? Jeronimo

---

Q, please note that the term "occupied territories" is not NPOV, while West Bank and Gaza Strip are neutral. A neutral sentence is one that both sides of a controversy can agree is correct.

You might say, quite accurately, that an event

took place in the West Bank, which is regarded as an occupied territory by most Arabs.

Wikipedia does not seek to suppress any point of view (POV), but merely to label each POV clearly, so readers know who advocates it. --Ed Poor

---

A perfectly understandable and reasonable point. However, who gets to define which terms are POV and which aren't? It's perfectly fair to call the Palestinian territories the occupied territories because that's what they are - occupied ("a region under the control of a different nation") territories ("not an established nation"). Writing "The West Bank and the Gaza Strip" is every time is far longer. "Palestine" is inaccurate, as it is more likely to refer to historic Palestine, which includes present day Israel. To declare that it is too POV, one should additionally propose a non-POV term that's not as unwieldy.

Furthermore, those who support the Palestinian cause could raise equivalent objections about terms prefered by Israel - i.e, it's not "curfew", it's lockdown. They're not "settlements", they're colonies. They're not "targetted killings", they're assasinations. Etc. If one opposes the use of the term "occupied territories" but supports the other terms, then the rule that you're basically using is "If the Israeli government uses the term, it's non-POV; if Palestinians do, it's POV". That logic is in itself POV. --Rei

---

I'm not sure "occupied territories" is that objectionable, even though it is a politically-defined term. The US news media use it pretty regularly. Also, in articles that are specifically about the Arab view of things, it's certainly not out of place. In more general contexts I'd prefer to avoid it by just naming the places explicitly--Gaza, West Bank, etc. --LDC

Concerning Uriber's comment about a POV link

Half of the links referenced in the text are from POV sources (Palestine Monitor, IDF website, etc). Normally this is to be discouraged, but on such a contentious topic, I think it's necessary - *when presented in the context of what each side is claiming, to show what they're claiming*.

What do other people think? --Rei

Depends. If the link is to bring a statement of an official body (IDF, the PA, Israel or other) than it is okey to bring POV link as long as you say so. For example: "the PA claims that <link>" or "Figures provided by the..." etc. But when you want to give a report on curtain event - put an NPOV link (news report from the press).

---

I think it's dangerous to regard press reports as necessarily NPOV...

---

BBC as a pro-Israeli source? You must to be kidding. MathKnight 23:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. You know a news source is doing something right when each side accuses it of being biassed to the other Neonchameleon 01:02 5 Nov 2004 (GMT)

---

I have protected this page until you can sort out the edit conflict. Bmills 11:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is still protected after six days. I'd like to change one of the links to Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (notice the word accusations there) to make it a little more NPOV. Accept or reject? --Modemac 10:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

no problem. -- Viajero 11:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added the link, and I support your change. I changed the title of the article itself to make it more NPOV, and any links out there should be changed as well. Rei

---

Rafah

The Rafah paragraph, here for disscussion:

In response to a constant shelling of Israeli settlements on Gaza Strip with Qassam rockets and mortars shells, the IDF operated mainly in Rafah - to search and destroy smuggling tunnels which used by militants to gain illegal weapons from Egypt. Recent raids in Rafah left many families homeless. Israel's official stance is that their houses were captured by militant and were destroyed during battles with IDF forces. Palestinians deny it and claim that many houses were destroyed to create a large buffer zone in the city, displacing several hundred people. They claimed that the entire southern side of the city was completely destroyed, making it very unlikely that an entire portion of a city had been siezed by "terrorists" [1]. However, a group of Rafah's residents blamed the destruction on the militant tunnel operators who uses the civilian structures as cover for illegal smuggling. Rafah resident, Abdallah Abu Mohsen, told Al-Hayat al-Jadidah:

“the tunnels do not benefit anyone except for a few residents, while it is us who have to pay the price. This is why we are not going to sit by and watch. If the Palestinian Authority does not help us shut down the tunnels, we will do it ourselves” ( Al-Hayat al-Jadidah, October 16, 2003). [2]

MathKnight 19:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The only site on the entire net (as far as google knows) that claims that quote is a private website. "Intelligence.org.il" may sound impressive, but it's a private website. It's run by a guy named Yehuda Friedman, on the NetVision ISP. If you want to get in touch with him to ask him to back it up, you can call him at +972-3-549-7019 or write him at P.O. Box 3555, Ramat Hasharon, Israel. Until it can be backed up, though, I'm not going to accept it. It's from a site which has about as much authority as a geocities page. That's really not acceptable - heck, if an impressive sounding DNS name was what mattered, I could go register intelligence.to right now, and start making stuff up. If you can back it up, I'd gladly no longer dispute it with you, although I might want to qualify it. --Rei

I don't why you start mess yourself with conciperacy theories, but if you check this page you'll see this site in run by the Center for Intelligence Heritage, which is an associtation of ex-intelligence officers in Israel. One of the heads of the assicitation, Shlomo Gazit, is also a publicist in Maariv newspaper. MathKnight 00:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The term is "think tank", and they can claim whatever they want. I could start citing from Iraqwar.ru, since they claim to have a bunch of ex Russian intelligence analysts - but would it be trustworthy information? Heck, I could quote from PNAC, which is a fairly legit think tank, but it'd hardly be a good source of information. By the way: the "Center for Intelligence Heritage" gets a whopping *two hits* on google. How on earth is that a "conspiracy theory"? If this is true, *BACK IT UP*. Get a *NEWS ARTICLE* that you can actually link to, from a *NEWSPAPER*'s website. Or a report from a humanitarian association. Or NGO. Or anything - just get something that has *Credibility*. Rei

MathKnight 10:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I expect that the quotation is genuine, but without context it is misleading. It is well established that some tunnels existed and some of the local residents were not happy about it. The problem comes in the interpretation. We are being urged to believe that the tunnels are the primary cause of the house demolitions along the border but this does not follow from the quotation and it does not follow from the evidence. The evidence is that an explicit policy was established to clear a corridor along the border and this policy was carried out regardless of who lived in each house and regardless of any evidence that each house was used for anything except living in. I believe that the evidence collected by NGOs and the UN establish this without doubt. --Zero 12:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, this is already a matter of interpatation (unless you can bring a signed order that proves there is such a deliberate policy). Therefore, I support in presenting both POVs. The Israeli POV that the house demolitions is due smuggling tunnels, and the Palestinian POV that the house demolition is due the "buffer zone" policy and let the reader judge for himself. For that reason, I didn't removed Rei's reliefweb link with an aerial photo of the demolished area. MathKnight 12:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1) The World Bank defines NGO as "private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development" (Operational Directive 14.70). Think tanks are not NGOs.

2) You are taking a one step-distanced approach from newspapers by quoting a think tank. Newspapers quote from PNAC, too, but that's hardly a reason to trust PNAC as a valid source.

3) Searching for "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S)", you get 228 hits. The Project for a New American Century gets 30,800 hits. Your point? It's still a think tank.

4) What reason on earth would a person have to remove a satellite picture that shows the scale of the destruction of the camp, apart from obvious bias? Are you claiming that the satellite is an unreliable source or something?

In short, Think Tanks Are Not Valid References. If this is true, then there should be more than just a reference on a think tank's website. You have yet to address: If a measurable percentage of the people whose houses were destroyed considered the few who made tunnels as the source of the blame, why is the only reference on a think tank's website? --Rei

Answer:

1. I treated NGO as simply "non governmental organization". I don't see why only social workers count for you as a reliable source of information.
2. Right now, you are the only one doubting the source - without no good reason.
3. Hits doesn't counts.
4. The same reason you want to remove the quotation. I have no problem with the sattelite picture.
5. 1. "In short, Think Tanks Are Not Valid References" - I don't brought comentary, I brought a quotation from Arab newspaper which isn't accesible on the web.
   2. "You have yet to address: If a measurable percentage of the people whose houses were destroyed considered the few who made tunnels as the source of the blame, why is the only reference on a think tank's website?"
      • Don't forget we don't have access to the majority of the Arab press. Most of the newspapers there don't upload daily editions in English (if any).
      • The Palestinian Authority isn't a democracy, and the people there are scared from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the street lynching of Arafat's resisters and suspected collaberators.

MathKnight 23:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response:

1. Oh, please. You know very well that I listed NGOs and newspapers. Heck, I'll even take something from a government website - but think tanks are not good references. You do admit that this group is little more than a think tank, don't you?
2. Without Good Reason??? You pick some website off the net and claim that they're authoritative because they say so? How on earth is that a good reason?
3. I assume that you mean "hits don't count". I was pointing out that not only is it a think tank, it's a rarely-referenced think tank. Little known. I.e., even less trustworthy a source than your average think tank.
4. No, I want to remove your quotation because you refuse to back it up with an authoritative source. Because you can't find a single other thing to back it up. If you wanted to remove the satellite picture by the same logic, you'd have to claim that the satellite was lying, or that the UN doctored the picture. I don't think you're dumb enough to claim anything like that.
5. 1. No, you didn't bring a quotation from an arab newspaper. You brought a quotation from a think tank's website which claims that it is from an arab newspaper, and then you tried to portray this as being some sort of general concensus from the area. Here, I'll give you a *video interview* which has some people from the buffer zone in Rafah in it [3]. Do *they* seem to be putting the blame on the people with the tunnels? Um, no. Your portrayed view that a significant portion of Gazans blame the few people with the tunnels is false, and there's a reason that you can only seem to support it with an article from a think tank instead of any sort of reputable source.
   2. "The Palestinian Authority isn't a democracy, and the people there are scared from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the street lynching of Arafat's resisters and suspected collaberators." - you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Almost all of the journalists - *westerners, even* - who have been killed in Palestine have been killed by the IDF. All of the international volunteers who have been killed in Palestine - both NGOs and solidarity groups like the ISM - have been killed by the IDF.
   3. I'll ask again: Why is the only case that you can present to show this viewpoint from a think tank's site? Why hasn't any sort of newspaper elsewhere found such a viewpoint to exist - and in fact, instead, found quite the opposite? Hell, I used to know a person who stayed in Gaza (ISM), staying in houses on the border to discourage the IDF from bulldozing them. Everyone was furious with the Israelis for destroying everything they owned without compensation - they viewed the tunnels as a cheap excuse to build a big buffer zone and drive them from their homes. I'm sure if you searched, you could find some people who blamed the people with the tunnels more than the IDF, but you'd have to really search.
   4. There's a reason why Rachel Corrie has been treated like a shahida for defending houses, and it's not because people were angry at tunnel owners.  ;)
   5. Lastly, I think I'll add that Israel brags that no suicide bomber has come from Gaza since the intifada began, thanks to the walls surrounding it. So, while any weapons being smuggled through the tunnels might be used to attack the IDF or to attack the illegal Israeli colonies in Gaza, they're not being used for terrorism in Israel. Rei

Response:

1. This group is a private research institute, and bring quotations from Arab press as well as commentary.
2. You have no proof that the quotation from Al-Hayat al-Jadidah wasn't said and you make blame me and this website in some "consiperacy" theory and forging without any proof what so ever. I even proved to you that this website is count as reliable by mainstream press. I begining to think that the only reason you object is racism.
3. Wake up. There are life outside the web, a specially in foreign languages.
4. But you are oviously do. If you claim that the quotation is a forgery, I expect you to prove your point. Otherwise, stop throwing false accusations.
5. 1. The interview only prooves that there Rafah resident who think differently, that's all.
   2. I suggest you stop with this ill incitement immidietly.
   3. I answered on this before.
   4. How Rachel Corrie got to do with it? The only reason you rise her is to encourage hatred. I can also bring the hundreds of atrocities commited by the Palestinian.
   5. First, Anti-Air missile can be smuggled through the Karni crossing and can be directed against airliners flying over the Gaza Strip. Secondly, Attacking Israeli civilian in the settlement is not legitimate and not moral what so ever. The IDF has every right to defend the settlers from being murdered by Palestinian terrorists. I strongly condamn you for advocating the mass murder of innocent civilians. MathKnight 22:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response (by a hitherto disinterested party):

1. That's what a think-tank is. A private research institute.

1. If I recall correctly, you were the one who first used the term "conspiracy". In addition, unless you can provide the actual source (meaning the original source, that copy of الحيات الجديدة or, if it existed, a link to that article on the الحيات الجديدة website, the actual existance of the newspaper article is questionable, since you quoted somebody who quoted it. In fact, that's 3 layers deep: you quoted that website, which quoted الحيات الجديدة, which (if it really printed such an article) quoted whomever originally said it. Just in the same way that I wouldn't quote something Britney Spears said People magazine quoted Justin Timberlake as saying, I would never in my right mind quote a quote of a quote, especially if any point in the line of quoters and quotees one quoter displayed an obvious bias against their (or, if they are not the same, the original) quotee.

1. Well, yes, there definitely is. The problem I have is, afaik, not the same as User:Rei's: hu doesn't approve of your quoting that specific website which in turn quoted a newspaper whose very existance is suspect. I, on the other hand, only have a problem with the fact that you are quoting a quote of a quote. To demonstrate problems with quote depth, especially when across 3 different languages (first Arabic, then through Hebrew, then through English): I might tell a Japanese friend you said "無罪の民間人の大量殺人を薦めてから咎められます。", and then he in turn could tell his Australian friend that you said "I reproach you for your recommendation to slaughter a civilian." That is clearly quite different than what you originally said, and in this case there is no bias involved, and also I made all 3 up and it only travels to Japanese and then back to English instead of from one language to another to another.

1. If you are so sure that this newspaper article is real, why can't you prove it? I think that the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one who claimed the existance of the article, and not on him, because he only challenged it, not said it was for-sure-not-real.

1. I would go into the little sub-sub-argument you kids are having, but really it seems to lack substance.--Node ue 23:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple - I don't have access to Arab press, a specially to a paper that don't have online addition. On the other hand, I do managed to brought an article of a mainstreem press which cites the source as reliable. MathKnight 12:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Response:

1. In short, THINK TANK.
2. You call it a conspiracy to question a random website on the net that has 288 hits referencing it. How naïve can a person get? "The Return of the Nephilim" [4], a end-of-times conspiracy magazine which believes that Christ's second coming involves the return of interdimensional aliens that disguise themselves as humans, gets over 1,500 hits. Apparently, I'm a racist and a conspiracy theorist for not believing a 288 hit website. I must be horribly racist and conspiratorial not to believe in the second coming of the Nephilim, then! I should start believing in Cold Fusion, Lifters being based on antigravity, holocaust denial, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, shouldn't I?
   • I think you already believing in the last two things. I showed you already thaat is not just annonymous source but a rather a well-known organization, which even is cited by mainstreem press. You keep ignoring it without any good reason.
3. Yes. And if it's true, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A SECOND REFERENCE. Why can't you?
   • I answered before. Read, for a change.
4. Oh, come on! I could start a website today that cites a made-up article from WAFA, and ask you to disprove it. Would you be able to?
   • I showed you already thaat is not just annonymous source but a rather a well-known organization, which even is cited by mainstreem press. You keep ignoring it without any good reason. If this is helping you, there is a link to it from the IDF website.
5. 1. No, the "interview" shows that a little known think tank website claims that their translation of an article which isn't backed up anywhere else claims that there are people who think otherwise.
      • I guess floralism and multi-opinions is strange to your political culture. Can't you accept the fact that different people have different opinion?
   2. Ah. It's ill-incitement to point out facts. Got it. Is that why you refuse to do it?
      • Palestinian terrorists murdered more than 1000 innocent people during the last 4 years - both Israeli and Palestinian. The Al-Aqsa Brigades ravaged Nablus and what the Iraqis did to American in Fallujah is a common practice withib Palestinian society - burning people alive, stabbing them, mutilate their bodies and hang them on poles in the streets. In that situtation, no wonder why people affraid to speak against Arafat. Intead of relating to that point, you start to accuse the IDF in order to encourage hatred and fury.
   3. No, you have not answered why you can't find it anywhere else. I'll ask again: WHY can you not find anything else that backs this up?
   4. I brought her up to show that she has been highly *honored* by the people of Rafah for working to stop the demolitions; you are trying to claim that there's a relevant percentage of people who were having their homes destroyed who blamed the people with the tunnels more than the IDF. If you had *read* what I wrote instead of stopping after seing her name, you would have realized that.
   5. 1. LAF. Ok, please - enlighten me. When was the last time that the Palestinians - whose most advanced weapon is the Qassam Rocket, a welded-shut tube with a couple of fins stuck on the side - shot down an aircraft? Why don't you just start scare-mongering that they're going to develop nuclear weapons, or a Death Star while you're at it, and then use it as an excuse to just gas them all?
      • There were some attempts, all of them were foild before they reached the executing level.
      1. As for the Israeli colonists in Gaza, lets not forget that they're committing ethnic cleansing ("The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide" - American Heritage Dictionary). That they're violating several dozen parts of the Geneva Conventions just by being there alone. And lastly, not to excuse either side, but the let's not forget fact that the violence has been tit-for-tat between the colonies and the Palestinians.
      • That's a false accusation, even to your dictionary definition such a thing do not happen in Gaza. Do you see a major decrease in Gaza population? Have you gone so ill that you are now turning into ridicilous blood libels? Have you no shame?
      1. "The IDF has every right to defend the settlers from being murdered by Palestinian terrorists." - I assume the settlers have the right to murder Palestinians?
         • The settlers in the Gaza Strip never murdered Palestinians. In fact, according to Btzelem - only 19 Palestinian were killed by West Bank settlers (the total number is 32, but that's include Palestnian terrorists killed during attack on Israeli civilians) [5]
      2. Or do you look at the conflict through a one-way mirror, and simply not notice the fact that the colonists have killed just as many (with a lower average age of victims, at that)? Finally, I'll add, if the IDF was doing its job under international law, it would be uprooting and moving every last colonist to the pre-1967 borders, not continually confiscating more land for them without recompense.
         • You look at the conflict through a one-way broken mirror.
      3. I strongly condemn you for advocating policies that have resulting in the death of 3 times as many civilians, an even worse ratio concerning children, over 10 times worse a ratio for the wounded, the destruction of several billion dollars of property, the making of tens of thousands of homeless, policies of lockdown (such as forcing, under threat of death, the entire population of Nablus under house arrest for over 100 days), the widescale destruction of cultural property, and the continual theft of land which, in the case of Gaza, has made it one of the most population dense areas on earth and little more than a prison camp. How can a person justify that in their mind without viewing the Palestinians as little more than animals? I really can't picture that sort of view that land is yours for the taking, even though millions of people already live in an area - and that it's ok to kick them off, and that any attempts by the people to strike back are terrorism and deserve further brutality. --Rei
         • If you would have care bit for the Palestinians, you wouldn't encourage them to continue their senseless terrorism against Jews. But your hatred towards Israel is stronger. By supporting Palestinians crime against humanity and the massacring of innocent civilian by Palestinian terrorists and the abuse of Palestinian children into a walking bombs you only helping bring more death and destruction to the area. The hatred toward Israel has wiped out every moral sense in you. DISCUSSION CLOSED (my comments are marked with dot before them) MathKnight 12:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually, after reading the last poster's comments, I realize that we've *really* drifted from the topic at hand. The key issue is: Why can't you find anything else to back up your quote? --Rei

I write for the third time: I showed you already thaat is not just annonymous source but a rather a well-known organization, which even is cited by mainstreem press. You keep ignoring it without any good reason. If this is helping you, there is a link to it from the IDF website.

Where? I searched google's cache of the IDF website, and couldn't find it. You need to be more specific. Rei

Enter this [6] adress, look at the symbol bar on the right. It is the link to "Intelligence Information Center", just below LIC2004 link. MathKnight 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a citation on the orginal source, the Al-Hayat al-Jadidah newspaper from October 16, 2003. Since the paper is written in Arabic, I can't find it on the internet. The site I given to you is not some geocities and I already told you that one of its editors are writer in Maariv.

And one of PNAC's members is now the vice president of the United States. That still doesn't make PNAC a reliable source to quote from. Rei

The site in NGO (the associtation is not governmental). 

I already showed you the definition of NGO. By your (inaccurate) definition, a Book of the Month Club is an NGO. Rei

As far as I concern, social workers aren't more reliable sources than research institute. MathKnight 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the homepage, there you can find all the details you need.

And you can find all the details about the upcoming return of the Nephilim at their homepage [7]. Rei

It is good band, but what it got to do with the topic? You say it is a small annonymous organization - well, I proved you that it is not. MathKnight 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One of the heads of the assicitation, Shlomo Gazit, is also a publicist in Maariv newspaper. The source given is good enough. Check this article in Maariv newspaper and I quete part of it:

במאמר (שקטעים ממנו מביא המזרחן יהונתן דחוח-הלוי, יועץ שר החוץ, באתר המרכז למורשת המודיעין) קובע קרדאווי: "האיסלאם יחזור לאירופה ככובש וכמנצח, לאחר שגורש ממנה פעמיים. הפעם, הכיבוש לא יהיה באמצעות החרב, אלא באמצעות ההטפה והפצת האידיאולוגיה".

and my translation:

In the article (whose parts of it are brought by Middle-east researcher Johanathan Dahuah-HaLevi, the counciler of the Foreign Minister in the website of the "Center of Intelligence Heritage" {my translation to המרכז למורשת המודיעין} ) Karadawi states...

and it refering to this article. Therefore, I have proven it reliability, since it is even use as a reliable source for the press. Most Arab press do not have online editions, and since I know only very little Arabic, the best thing I can bring online is translation.

p.s. I see the discussion above as closed. This time, please try to remain to the topic.

MathKnight 12:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh of course, MK. Most of the Arab press doesn't have online editions. Yep. Of course. I'll just pretend you were kidding and not show you how wrong that is unless you explicitly request otherwise.

If there are, please give me a links to Arab newspapers in English. Of course some press have - but it is only in Arabic. Many do not have at all. MathKnight 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You don't know anything about this! You're just feeding us a load of crap. Here are your Arab newspapers. For English ones, go to any of the Arab countries listedhere.

Of course, those dirty lying arabs are all so stupid, how on earth could they know how to use technology?!? Of course us Israelis are the only ones in the Middle East who have even heard the word "internet" before. Oh please. Give it a rest, MK.--Node 20:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think that both of you need to tune this down a bit. I would say that MK is trying to keep the fight going while Rei is trying to simply elicit proof from MK, but I'm afraid that is most likely biased so I will say that neither of you are doing any good anymore. The quote should be removed until this argument can be resolved by a neutral party or when you two can eventually come to an agreement.--Node ue 18:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I wrote someone who was over in Rafah recently, and mentioned what you were trying to claim. His response:

Hello. Here is my brief reply: Northern apologists for slavery often said that blacks liked being enslaved. This myth is as rediculous as your friend's notion that the people of Rafah blame anybody other than the military for their miserable situation. The actions of the Israeli military in Rafah have nothing to do with tunnels. The majority of the house demoltions (over 1100 since 2001) is for the massive wall construction. They're systematically demolishing homes along the Egyptian border to create a buffer for the massive wall. You think there were tunnels in 1100 homes? In fact, the IDF says they've found over 50 tunnels. Yes 50, but they've destroyed 1100 homes, and killed over 300 people. There have been some tunnels throuout Rafah's history that were used for smuggling goods from Egypt, but now they're largly accepted as too dangerous. Any arms that did come in through them could only be used for internal resistance within the Gaza Strip, as Israel has tightly seeled off the greenline between Gaza and Israel proper. This internal resistance in hugely popular with the Palestinians, because it is almost exclusively against military targets (though some settlments, which are debatably a military target) and they feel this provides them some meager protection from they hyper aggressive, super violent, murderous Israeli occupying army. I'll happily respond to other questions if you need any other quotes or information. thanks -joe

I was hoping he could get me a direct quote from some residents, but oh well. He lived with some of the people on the border when he was over there, and (needless to say) talked with a wide variety of Palestinians the whole time he was over there. This is not meant to be some sort of all-inclusive proof - just more evidence that your presentation of this sort of "blame those with the tunnels more than the IDF" view is either incredibly rare if even extant at all. By the way, I suggest you actually watch some video from Palestine for once (the audio quality is good, although the video quality is bad, mainly in the night-shots in the beginning) (it's by Sandra Jordan, an international news reporter for the The Observer (a London newspaper) - have you ever watched more than a 30 second clip from people living in Palestine made by someone other than an Israeli (esp. IDF) journalist?), instead of just reading think tanks web sites' inaccurate portrayals of the situation over there. --Rei

Well, quoting from Joe

"but now they're largly accepted as too dangerous."

Which implies that some residents (largly accepted even imply that many residents) think that the tunnel is the cause (or execuse, in a pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli formulation) to the intensive IDF operation there, which include destruction of houses used for terror, hiding tunnels and attacking soldiers. Report on the last tunnel found counts as many as 80 tunnels already been found and destroyed by IDF forces. Many of the houses didn't destroyed directly because of tunnels, but rather because they hosted terrorist who shot sniper-fire and anti-tank missile over the IDF forces. Since terrorists commit frequent attack on IDF forces on the border with Egypt and use the house as sniping posts - the result is many houses destroyed. The far side of Rafah is relatively intact, since the war between IDF and terrorists of Rafah in waging mainly near the border above the tunnels. [8] Pictures: tunnel found in a house , diagram of a smuggling tunnel, Gaza's terrorists use children as human shield , another tunnel inside a house. Finally, a coprehensive review over the smuggling tunnels (pictures included): "The Terror Tunnels: an Underground City of Weaponry". Have a nice reading. MathKnight 11:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break! He directly stated, "This myth is as rediculous as your friend's notion that the people of Rafah blame anybody other than the military for their miserable situation.". Are you completely blind??? How on earth could you have missed that line? Operating a tunnel is widely viewed as being too dangerous. The blame, however, by residents, is almost soley on the Israeli military; resistance activities actually have a lot of public support. I can't believe you can do selective-reading to that extreme of a level.

The funny thing about your "human shields picture"? Your Picture Isn't People Using Human Shields. It's kids gathering around to watch people fight. Human shields? How about instead of quoting from a lobbying group, you actually check a human rights group's website (notice how my references are from relief organizations and newspapers, and yours are from sources that are about as partisan as physically possible? Take a clue from that). Let's see what Amnesty International, for example, has to say. [9]. Why, virtually all of their references to using human shields are in reference to the IDF using Palestinians as human shields. There's a reason for that: it hapens many, many, many, many, many, many times - it is standard procedure when resistance is encountered during house searches for the IDF to take human shields. Virtually every time they occupy a home to use as a sniper's nest, they use the residents as human shields instead of letting them go. These are *REAL* human shields - not people who came to watch others fight, but people who have guns to their heads making them defend the IDF with their bodies. It's standard practice - and it's horribly, horribly wrong.

Have you no shame? You know very well that children should not lie near gunmen. What do you see in this picture? Even AP photographer figured out that terrorist using the children here as human shield. Of course you'll again blame me in Zionist consiperacy as you always do. The rest of your allegation are irrelevant to the matter and are twisted in a Bolshevik kind of a way. There was a use in Palestinian in order to burst into house, but after the Israeli court ruled it is disallowed, it ceased almost completly. Have I mention how the Palestinian systematicly murder children in buses and cafes? How they slaughter 30 innocent people who sat to celebrate Passover. How on earth can you justify those atrocities? I call you to stop changing the topic by making inciting and irrelevant accusation toward Israel. You have an ill custom to resolve any conflict - eveb rergarding to a technical aspect of a source - to boneheaded chant in the style of furious Arab mob. MathKnight 19:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The far side of Rafah is relatively intact, since the war between IDF and terrorists of Rafah in waging mainly near the border above the tunnels." What sort of logic is this? These are *people's homes*. Did the people on the south side just happen to all be terrorists, and the people on the north happen to be ordinary civilians? Do you honestly believe that? Please, answer that. Do you not care about all of the innocent people who are having their houses down without recompensation, or do you honestly believe that there was some sort of strange real-estate marketting scheme ("Oh, you're a Terrorist(TM)? I've got the perfect neighborhood for you!")? --Rei

""The far side of Rafah is relatively intact, since the war between IDF and terrorists of Rafah in waging mainly near the border above the tunnels." What sort of logic is this?" The logic is simple. In the far side of Rafah, homes aren't used to hide tunnels and attack IDF forces. That' so simple. Why on the far side the houses don't conceal tunnels? Because it is too far from the border.

"or do you honestly believe that there was some sort of strange real-estate marketting scheme". I can't believe what I'm hearing. What stupid question is that? When terrorists want a house they don't buy it, they take it by force and gun-threats. What is so bizzare in the fact the terrorists are taking over building near the border, and when one building is demolished they tru to take over another building? MathKnight 19:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. - I just noticed that you've been inlining responses in the middle of my posts. Please don't do that, it's annoying, hard to follow, and hard to tell when you've responded to something. --Rei

Fourth time already, A proof that the source is well known and not annoymous as you claimed: Check this article in Maariv newspaper and I quete part of it:

במאמר (שקטעים ממנו מביא המזרחן יהונתן דחוח-הלוי, יועץ שר החוץ, באתר המרכז למורשת המודיעין) קובע קרדאווי: "האיסלאם יחזור לאירופה ככובש וכמנצח, לאחר שגורש ממנה פעמיים. הפעם, הכיבוש לא יהיה באמצעות החרב, אלא באמצעות ההטפה והפצת האידיאולוגיה".

and my translation:

In the article (whose parts of it are brought by Middle-east researcher Johanathan Dahuah-HaLevi, the counciler of the Foreign Minister in the website of the "Center of Intelligence Heritage" {my translation to המרכז למורשת המודיעין} ) Karadawi states...

and it refering to this article. Therefore, I have proven it reliability, since it is even use as a reliable source for the press. Most Arab press do not have online editions in English, and since I know only very little Arabic, the best thing I can bring online is translation.

p.s. I see the discussion above as closed. This time, please try to remain to the topic and not diverge (again).

MathKnight 12:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, *I* diverged? You're the one who split the topic into 5 separate main points and even more subpoints. And for the fourth time, people quote PNAC, but that doesn't make PNAC authoritative. Think Tanks Are Bad References. Lastly, AGAIN, a quote of a quote of a quote is a horrible, horrible reference. I don't care how many times you translate a part of an article in Maaretz which mentions the website), it is still a translation of a quote of a translation of a quote of a translation of a quote, in which one stage is a little known think tank."' You're not contesting that, and you're not addressing the issues.

1) Think Tanks Are Not Reliable Sources. A) They don't do their own reporting, B) they're unaccountable, C) and they're as politically motivated as physically possible. You must bee able to contest points A, B, 'and C.

• A) Do you suggest they are fabricating quotes? This is a serious accusation and I expect you to prove it. Otherwise, it is a libel (and according to the law, you can be prosecuted for such an offense).
• B) Unaccountable? They have contact details and you can contact with them.
• C) Like anybody else on this plant.

2) This is triple-translated, triple-quoted. You must explain why this is not a problem in terms of reliability.

• So far it is the only reasonable thing you said, but it was said earlier and I answered on it. It is only translated once - from Arabic to English. This is a problem with all affairs not involving American, Brits, Australians and Canadians.

3) Authentic viewpoints can almost always be backed up by other sources. You must be able to present this viewpoint being encountered by other reports.

• almost. It is very hard to do when there is a language gap.

You have not done any of this. Consequently, your quote is unreliable. You have to be able to do all of this, and you haven't done any. --Rei

• Usually, a quotition from one reliable source is enough. The source I brought to you was given credit as reliable by mainstreem press and was even linked from [IDF website]. You are keeping ignoring this deliberatly. MathKnight 11:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To your earlier (INTERLEAVED - don't do that) statements. "Have you no shame? You know very well that children should not lie near gunmen. ". The fighters did not put them there!!! The kids came there - tell the KIDS not to be there. It's NOT a human shield if you aren't making someone be there. Putting a gun to someone's head - AS THE IDF DOES - is a human shield. Are you immune to dictionaries? What do you want the resistance fighters to do - shoot at the kids? If they did that, they'd be taking the IDF's job. I love how you said "even AP", as if the AP was some sort of anti-Israel organization.

"Of course you'll again blame me in Zionist consiperacy as you always do". As has been pointed out to you several times, you're the only one here mentioning conspiracies. I haven't accused you of a damn thing, and you know that very well. Don't try and shove yourself into the middle of this. I do blame some zionists (and for those of you who think zionist is some sort of an insult, look the term up) for siezing property (and advocating the siezure of property) that isn't their own. But I don't care about you, and there's no conspiracy, no matter how much you'd like people you disagree with you to believe in one. You had a classic dodge, by the way, with your statement "The rest of your allegation are irrelevant to the matter and are twisted in a Bolshevik kind of a way." It's really cute.

• I didn't know you hate Palestinians that much that you want keep sending children to their death by Hamas, Jihad and Fatah terrorists. You know damn good that no normal parent would let his kid hang around a gunmen in a middle of gunplay.

"There was a use in Palestinian in order to burst into house, but after the Israeli court ruled it is disallowed, it ceased almost completly.". WRONG. The Israeli supreme court refused to intervene on most of the recent cases of taking human shields, and cases of keeping families prisoner in their own homes when the homes are siezed to be snipers nests hasn't even made it to the court yet. Israeli soldiers testified in April of 2002 in the former case about how it was normal practice and was typical for it to be ordered by their commanding officers. The army said it would "clarify" its policy. Then, in August 2002, it emerged that the army had simply renamed the strategy to the "neighbor policy" after a Palestinian human shield was killed. A temporary injunction was issued against the policy; the court later postponed action on the case, and in Jan of 2003, while human shields continued to be used in the meantime, approved the renamed-again practice of "prior warning". They kept being brought back to court, as new pictures continued being taken of Palestinians held at gunpoint as human shields by the IDF, including the case of one person being strapped to a jeep's windshield to stop stones from being thrown at them as they fired at the stone throwers. Amnesty International continued to document the use of human shields the whole time, through 2003 and into 2004. [10].

"Have I mention how the Palestinian systematicly murder children in buses and cafes?". You, and every single newspaper on page one and TV station in the United States. Brutal palestinian deaths, every so often, make the ticker or newpapers on page 53. Did you read the article from the Observer that I linked about media coverage?

• So it is about time you start reading them.

"I call you to stop changing the topic by making inciting and irrelevant accusation toward Israel". I'm just responding to your false claims. You haven't bothered to refute what I've stated, interestingly enough.

• You started with allegations, so I was only responding. Instead of talking over the quote and source you start blaming Israel policity in the WB and GS. I only replied and showed you that what the Palestinians do is far worse.

"How they slaughter 30 innocent people who sat to celebrate". Oh come on, don't get me started on the pilgrims who used to flock to the shrine for Baruch Goldstein. Don't give me this holier-than-thou attitude.

• You will get what you deserve. The Palestinian atrocities are unjustifiable. They have no right to slaughter innocent people. Israel has every right to prevent event such as the Passover massacre to happen again.

"How on earth can you justify those atrocities?" I don't support suicide bombings. They're illegal and counterproductive. You, on the other hand, DO support what the IDF is doing, and seem to support the colonization of Palestinian land. Get the picture of the difference here?

• I support self-defence. Israel have the right to prevent terrorist attacks against its inhabitants.

"to boneheaded chant in the style of furious Arab mob." Apparently, things like referencing the history of Israeli court rulings on human shields, citing statistics on casualties, and informing you of the correct definition of terms is a "boneheaded chant".

"The logic is simple. In the far side of Rafah, homes aren't used to hide tunnels and attack IDF forces. That' so simple." Ah, but wait! There are, what, 80 tunnels? There were over 1,000 homes destroyed. So, you have to accept one of the following: The IDF is destroying the homes of innocent people, or that all of the "Terrorists" decided to live on the same side of town. Which is it? Come on - pick.

• If you was bothering to read, I stated that most houses were destroyed becaused they used as sniping post and hideout for terrorists.

"When terrorists want a house they don't buy it, they take it by force and gun-threats. " Go to Palestine some time, since you obviously don't believe what almost everyone not with the IDF - reporters, aid workers, and ISMers alike - has said. And to think you, who deny all outside testimony, call *me* a conspiracy theorist. It's amusing, really. --Rei

• ISM and those "aid" worked are biased and have not even a single ounce of credibility. Terrorist do take houses by gun-threats, as was happened in Qawasameh's case [11]. MathKnight 11:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The paper in question does have a web site: [12]. It does not, however, have an archive beyond the start of this month. What it does have is an email address, if you two want to actually resolve the original question of the quote's reliability: [info1@alhayat-j.com]. Or, you know, you could step away from the computer and try to find a library :) . I certainly wouldn't take an Israeli intelligence officer's word for it just on the basis that some random Israeli newspaper thinks he's reliable; I've heard of serious mistranslations of Arabic in sources as respectable as the New York Times. Mustafaa 21:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's Arabic->Hebrew->English, the translations are done by a think tank, and he won't present another source backing this viewpoint up. And even if the quotes were completely 100% correct and backed up, it would be a barely extant minority's viewpoint hardly worth mentioning, from talking with people who've actually lived in Rafah. --Rei

Oh no Mustafaa that isn't possible, those dirty arabs aren't smart enough to make websites!!!!! They're evil cockroaches and are too stupid to use the internet! Oh wait. One of my best online friends is an Arab programmer LIVING IN A REFUGEE CAMP IN THE FUCKING GAZA. He has actually had his phoneline cut off, and sometimes when I talk to him over msnim he is using a secret phoneline to dial in. Sometimes he tells me about how his parents friends just got killed by the IDF, or about how he's afraid for his little brothers and little sisters but he's trying hard to keep from crying because he doesn't want them to think all hope is lost. His whole giant family lives in a tiny two-story apartment in a refugee camp. He attends university (when he can) because contrary to what you may think, MK, Arabs are not all mentally retarded. He has made it clear to me many many times that he doesn't have a problem with Jewish people, just Zionists. When I told him my mother is Jewish, he had no problem with that and he doesn't think any less of me or her. When I told him that I observe some Jewish holidays, he had no problem. He is very smart and a normal person. He has never blown himself up, which he should have already since according to you Palestinians all like to blow themselves up on busses. Nobody in his immediate family has done so either. He has never gunned down settlers or IDF soldiers. He has, however, as a child thrown rocks at Israeli soldiers. If the Israeli guards for his refugee camp were to catch him carrying a Palestinian flag, he would be taken into custody and quite possibly killed on the spot because anybody who is ever in posession of their country's flag is obviously an evil terrorist. You seriously need to shut the fuck up, MK.

Sorry everybody for the outburst and the expletives I used once or twice, but it really had gotten to be too much for me.--Node 20:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I deeply sorry you are a skinhead racists. Stop making things up. If I claimed that 'all Palestinian are terrorsists, how can I claim that there are few Palestinian who demand the PA to stop the tunnels terrorist activity in Rafah? There are moderate Palestinian, unfortunately, their voice is little heard, if any at all. As for Node - stop let hate lead you. MathKnight 11:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• hugs, Node...*.... I know how you're feeling... I just wish these people would visit or talk to people from the west bank and gaza... I really do. I wish the best for your friend... tell him to keep up hope, and make sure he knows that there are many people in America who know what life is like over there and are trying to do what we can over here. Your comments about the flag really struck home, as I knew someone who, on his first day over there, watched soldiers shooting down kids kites for fun (the kites were made to look like Palestinian flags, so therefore they were illegal). Things just went downhill from there. --Rei

---

To whoever locked this thread: Note that MathKnight has denigrated to referring to his opponents as "skinhead racists". This is a person who responded to me, "Of course you'll again blame me in Zionist consiperacy as you always do. The rest of your allegation are irrelevant to the matter and are twisted in a Bolshevik kind of a way". He's had, now, four different people tell him that his quote shouldn't be used as it stands. His method to defend his point is almost exclusively Proof by Vehement Assertion. I suggest that the forum consider the issue closed and the thread be unlocked; the quote-of-a-quote-of-a-quote translated two ways by a heavily biased unaccountable organization (a pro-Israel think tank), flatly contradicted by essentially every other source and at best an extreme-minority's opinion, should not be there. Can I have a second and a third?

Additionally, MathKnight: Since I have now asked you twice (with no effect) not to use interspersed comments (which make the conversation very hard to follow), and since you seem to now be relying more on insults than debate, I suggest that you not expect replies until you can learn to be polite in your discussions with others. --Rei

Update: People who have opposed the use of the quote as it currently stands: Rei, Zero, Mustafaa (right?), and Node_ue. People who have supported the use of the quote in its current form: MathKnight. Ratio: 4 to 1. --Rei

See comments from your message on my talk page. And this time PLEASE TRY TO KEEP TO THE SUBJECT and not diverge to the general argument of WHO IS TO BLAME IN THE ISR-PAL CONFLICT. If we start it over, we will be again caught in a deadlock. So far, only Mustafa's argument were productive. MathKnight 10:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

To Mustafa, it will be nice if you can please check about:

Rafah resident, Abdallah Abu Mohsen, told Al-Hayat al-Jadidah:

“the tunnels do not benefit anyone except for a few residents, while it is us who have to pay the price. This is why we are not going to sit by and watch. If the Palestinian Authority does not help us shut down the tunnels, we will do it ourselves” ( Al-Hayat al-Jadidah, October 16, 2003).

with the editorial and post their reply here. I think it will be the best way to decide. MathKnight 10:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've emailed them. I imagine they're pretty busy, so I don't expect a rapid response - but we'll see... - Mustafaa 04:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

I finally managed to find another source with very similiar claim. Maariv issue of April 23, 2004 in an article by journalist Ben Kaspit states:

האוכלוסייה הפלשתינית סביב פילדלפי מאסה במה שעובר עליה. אחת המנהרות נחשפה באחרונה בעקבות הלשנה של תושבים מקומיים, שניגשו לחיילי צה"ל והצביעו על מיקומה. מנהרה נוספת, שנהרסה לאחר פעולה של צה"ל, המיטה על "בעליה" את קצו. לאחר שהחיילים והבולדוזרים נעלמו, מותירים אחריהם הרס, ניגשו כמה מקומיים לבעל המנהרה וירו בו למוות.

and a free translation:

"The Palestinian population around the 'Philadelphie' route had enough of what it is going through. Lately, one of the tunnels was exposed following information tip from local residents who approched IDF soldiers and pointed its location. Another tunnel, destroyed by IDF operation, brought an end to its owner. After the soldiers and the bulldozers left - leaving destruction in the area - some locals approached the tunnel's owner and shot him dead." [13].

And here is the English version of the article:

"The Palestinian population around Philadelphi is fed up by the going-on. Recently, one tunnel was revealed, when local residents approached IDF soldiers and told them were it is. In another case, after the IDF soldiers and bulldozers destroyed a tunnel, leaving ruins behind them, some local residents shot the tunnel’s owner to death."

[14]

I think that's concluded our source problem. MathKnight 08:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Typo

Al-Haram As-Sharif -- should be Al-Haram Al-Sharif

No - both spellings are correct. Mustafaa 05:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Effects on Oslo accords

Please explain why you removed the following segment:

>>>>>

Since the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and its emphasis on suicide bombers deliberately targeting civilians riding public transportation (buses), the Oslo Accords are viewed with increasing disfavor by the Israeli public. In May 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords and five months before the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a survey by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv found that: 39% of all Israelis support the Accords and that 32% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years. [15]. By constrast, the May 2004 survey found that 26% of all Israelis support the Accords and 18% believe that the Accords will result on peace in the next few years; decreases of 13% and 16% respectively. Furthermore, the May 2004 survey found that 80% of all Israelis hold that the Israel Defense Forces have succeeded in dealing with the Al-Aqsa Intifada militarily. [16]

<<<

No one can deny that the terror attacks against civilian, fataly damaged the Israeli peace camp, which many of its supporters lost faith in peace with Palestinians. The downfall of the left pro-Oslo wing is not only manifests iteself in surveys, but also in election: the left has only 28+10 mandates in the Knesset, compared to 45+8 before the intifada. MathKnight 15:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These polls need to have a date associated with them. They are only accurate at a single point in time. (Hopefully Wikipedia will last for generations.) - Tεxτurε 19:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's discuss this addition rather than have the page protected to prevent a revert war. - Tεxτurε 19:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So far I don't see any reason to delete the last addition. MathKnight 20:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picky comment about short dates

moved from article by —No-One Jones

Please don't use short dates such as 2/1/04 (for example in Human and Economic Costs). They are abiguous: 2/1/04 means 2 Jan to a Brit or Feb 1 to an American. Please either write the date out or use the international yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2004-01-02 for 2 Feb 2004. Kingal86 21:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorist organisations

It not NPOV to refer to Palestian militant groups as "terrorist organisations", even if groups have been known to target civilians. The IDF (and Jewish settler paramilitaries) is not described as a terrorist organisation in this article, even though they have killed more civilians than Palestinian militants have. Under international law armed resistance to foreign occupation, includig guerria warfare, is legal. Also, to be NPOV only attacks on civilians should be described as terrorist attacks.

The U.S. and other governments refer to them as "terrorist organizations" precisely because the deliberately target civilians, which the IDF does not do, even though the IDF has killed about 30% more civilians than the Palestinian groups have. And it is not clear that there are any "Jewish settler paramilitaries" currently active in the territories, because the only known one had its members arrested and jailed by the Israeli government. Regarding armed resistance, because the territories are disputed, and Israel has a legitimate claim, the actions of the terrorist organizations are not covered under "resistance to foreign occupation"; in any event, international law does not sanction deliberate targetting of civilians under any circumstances. That said, I've left in your changes of "terrorist" to "militant". Also, please sign your comments. Jayjg 17:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US aid to Israel

It seemed fair to me to note that much of the aid from the US to Israel is as a result of the Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Israel and Egypt recieve (approximately) the same amount of aid annually (look at the funding bills each year). It's sort of a bribe, I suppose. It is in any case one hell of an inducement not to scrap the peace treaty. --Penta 22:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Egypt's population is more than 10 times Israel's so the per capita take for Israelis is more than $1000 while Egyptians get less than $100. And the figure does not include military aid to Israel and other freebies available only to Israel out of all the countries in the world, like the sale of tax free government bonds in the US. --Alberuni 23:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved "Engineering Civilian Casaulties"

I'm somewhat pro-Israeli, but any article with a title of "Engineering Civilian Casaulties" is sort of impossible to not characterize. Indeed, the characterization seems obvious. So, I moved it to Pro-Israeli. --Penta 22:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV on the killing\lynching of Israeli soldiers

If you examine the way the article about Iman al-Hams describes her murder by Israeli soldiers, you will notice that Wikipedia editors take great pains to avoid and delete POV terms and links such as "murdered", "slaughtered", "riddled with bullets" and "Israeli terrorism." This is the same treatment that Wikipedia editors apply to the murders of Muhammad al-Durrah, Ghadeer Mkheemar, Iman Darweesh Al Hams, Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail, Rania Iyad Aram and all the other children massacred by Israeli terrorists. The Israeli pont of view is presented on all these murders. Similarly, the murder of captured Israeli soldiers at the hands of Palestinians must use the same NPOV tone and terms. That's fair and balanced. --Alberuni 23:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you set up the facts before applying Newspeak here. Mudrder is a deliberate killing, in non of the cases above you can prove that there was an intention to kill an innocent people (Iman Hams was mistakenly thought to be a bomb-layer after traveling in a restricted area and Durrah was shot by Palestinians).

As for the lynching of the soldier in Ramallah, their muderder is described as lynched by almost every civilizied source who reported on that, including the BBC (a pretty pro-Palestinian source) who writes:

In video footage that will remain etched on memories for a long time to come, Israeli TV broadcast the lynching of Israeli soldiers by a furious Palestinian mob in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

and you can find a detailed account inside [17], of how Palestinian mob stabbed them to death and mutilated their bodies. It was not just a killing - a bullet in the head or a bomb - but a lynch where a brutal mob slaughtered and mutilated a person by daggers, stone and their bare hands. Therefore, "lynching" is the NPOV term.

Since you come from a society where such acts are considered as an all-family entertainment (I have pictures of Palestinian children taking part in a lynch of another Palestinian) you don't understand why it is considered by Western as a brutal, gruesome, cruel and inhuman act which sparks anger and harsh condamnation. MathKnight 06:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I do come from a brutal and violent culture that views murder as entertainment. I come from the United States. --Alberuni 16:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"(Iman Hams was mistakenly thought to be a bomb-layer after traveling in a restricted area and Durrah was shot by Palestinians)." - and you actually believe that propaganda? - Mustafaa 10:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any dispute that the two reservists went there by mistake, or that they were lynched, or that they were murdered? In what sources are these points of contention? Jayjg 16:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[18] [19] [20] --Alberuni 16:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. The first article claims that they were "disguised as Palestinians and reportedly carrying explosives, sub-machine-guns and guns with silencers", yet the third (CNN) says that Palestinians state they were "in civilian clothes and driving a civilian car". The sources disagree, and obviously, as with everything involving Israel, there is a conspiracy theory involved here. Very well, there is a dispute about why they entered Ramallah. But is there any dispute that they were lynched and murdered? Jayjg

There is nothing inconsistent about assassins being dressed as civilians and driving a civilian car. There is no dispute that they were killed. Lynched and murdered are loaded terms. You are very very careful not to use loaded terms in Wikipedia articles about children murdered by Israeli soldiers, such as Muhammad al-Durrah, Ghadeer Mkheemar, Iman Darweesh Al Hams, Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail, and Rania Iyad Aram. I am only asking that similar neutral language be used in articles about Israelis killed in the conflict in the interests of fairness and an NPOV encyclopedia. --Alberuni 18:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lynch is the NPOV word - how would you call an act in which furious mob throw someone out of a window, stab him to death and mutilating his body? If BBC chose that word (and there is no other word for such an act), also Wikipedia can. MathKnight 19:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"killed". --Alberuni 19:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"brutal mob violence", but unless the perpetrators considered it an execution (if so, for what crime?), "lynching" is not strictly accurate. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I repeat, the dictionary definition of "lynch" is "To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob"; in what way is it not accurate? Jayjg 19:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency about people being "disguised as Palestinians" and "dressed as civilians". As for "lynched" and "murdered", I'd like to first understand if you dispute the accuracy of those terms, before we move on to whether or not they should be used in the article. The definition of "lynch" is " To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob" and of "murder" is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice"; is there any dispute this happened? Jayjg 18:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Being dressed as civilians is not inconsistent with being dressed as Palestinians. How do you suppose Palestinians dress? There is no dispute that the reservists were killed. The use of loaded terms is not acceptable. If you insist on editing this article with loaded terms then do not object if the pages of children murdered by israeli soldiers are edited with the same loaded terms. --Alberuni 18:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Being dressed as civilians is not the same as being "disguised as Palestinians". 2. You haven't answered the question; do you dispute that the terms "lynching" or "murder" are inaccurate? 3. I haven't "insisted" on editing this article in any way; you seem to continually mistake the edits of others for edits of mine. 4. Tit-for-tat editing goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. 5. The term "murder" is indeed disputed in the cases of the children in question, since some contend that they were killed accidentally in a case of mistaken identity. Jayjg 18:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. You haven't answered the question, "How do you suppose Palestinians dress?" Israeli soldiers dressed as civilians in the closed (by Israel) military zone of Ramallah are disguised as Palestinians. 2. Yes, murder and lynching are inaccurate terms to use for the killing of these Israeli soldiers. 3. You insist on protecting articles with pro-Israeli POV while editing a pro-Israeli POV into other articles. In every case, you always insist the article should carry your pro-Israeli POV. 4. Consistency in NPOV language used in every article is not tit-for-tat. See for instance, the description of the "lynching" of Blackwater USA mercenaries in Fallujah. In Wikipedia NPOV style, the words "lynched" and murdered have been replaced with "killed". 5. Who, aside from the Israeli government and its hasbara promoters like you, disputes that the Palestinian children were murdered by the Israeli military? --Alberuni 19:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Israeli soldiers called up for reserve duty dress as civilians; this is not the same as disguising themselves as Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians do not necessarily dress identically, there are unique forms of dress for both of them. 2. Why are lynching and murder inaccurate? 3. I haven't protected this article. 4. Consistency is often good, tit-for-tat is not. 5. The fact that it is contested is enough; oh, and "who aside from Palestinians and their hasbara promoters suggest that the lost reservists were attempting to infiltrate Ramallah?" Jayjg 19:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians dress as "civilians". Israeli soldiers in civilian clothes in Palestinian cities under israeli military occupation are disguised as civilian Palestinians. Perhaps Israel's history of sending assassins dressed in civilian clothes into palestinian areas to kill Palestinians has something to do with this perception. But really, tell us more about your primitive ideas of ethnic dress. Jews wear Levis, Palestinians wear burnooses? 2. Lynching and murder are POV terms. The soldiers/assassins were killed. Why do you dispute that Palestinian children are murdered by Israeli soldiers but accept that Israeli soldiers are murdered by Palestinians? Because of your pro-Israeli POV. 3. You defend POV edits. Your troll-like tactic of Slothful induction is noted yet again. 4. Consisttency is good. Why don't you practice it? 5. Palestinians generally do not engage in hasbara, pro-Israeli propaganda. You do. Who else is supposed to perceive Israeli attempts at assassination of Palestinians but Palestinians? The Chinese? It is the Israeli government's assertion that the reservists were lost. At first, the Israeli government admitted that they were assassins. The world will never know considering that Israelis regularly lie and manipulate every event. Hence the need for hasbara. I'm done with this "dialogue", troll. --Alberuni 19:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(1) You claim they were uncover assissins disguised as civilians, if this is the case - how can you explain they were not armed? If they were armed they could defend themselves against the mob and the PA. (2) Lynching is not a POV term, it is well defined. MathKnight 21:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Mossad trains its zionist assassins in lethal hand to hand combat, MathKnight. Come'on, cease your ZioPOV worldview!!! ;-) Terrapin 21:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Overall, the term is lynching and not a mere killing. When just writing "two reservists killed" one might think that they were killed during a gunfight, which is clearly not the case. The term lynch is used even by BBC to describe the act of a mob beating them to death and mutilating the bodies (an act of lynch by all definition). MathKnight 06:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Killed is the term used in all other articles describing Palestinians murdered by Israelis. It is imbalanced and POV to describe Israelis as murdered but Palestinians as killed. --Alberuni 13:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You could answer in the already existing discussion. Lynching is a POV term, since what the mob have done is perfectly matches the definition of a lynch, a specially when they also mutilated the bodies. There is no other name to that and just writing "Two Israeli reservists were killed" is actually covering the truth about what happened there. Now, tell me honestly, if you would in a middle of an article a line saying "Two Israeli reservists were killed" - wouldn't you claim that this event has no encyclopedic importance? The special thing about the Ramallah lynch, and what made it well known is the fact it documented a "Lynch mob's brutal attack" (BBC description, [21]) and not just a mere gunfight killing. MathKnight 21:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about the shooting of little Palestinian girls and boys on their way to school or in their classrooms or in their homes? Why don't Wikipedia's Zionists describe that as a murder, war crimes, or atrocities? Because when the victims are Arab, your attitude is different than when the victims are Jewish. NPOV demands that these killings be described in a neutral way. See Muhammad al Durrah and Ghadeer Mkheemer to see how Zionists have NPOVed the descriptions of those atrocities. The killing of the Israeli soldiers should be described in similar neutral terms with full discussion of the conspiracy theories that they were captured assassins. --Alberuni 00:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tu qoque arguments fall flat in the face of the fact that the reservists were intentionally lynched by a mob. There's nothing POV or unfactual about that description, and it is amazing that people wish to censor simple facts from articles for propaganda reasons. Jayjg 03:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are Israelis depicted as "lynched" and "murdered" but Palestinian children shot in the head by Israeli soldiers are simply "killed"? Zionist Bias. --Alberuni 04:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tu qoque. Jayjg 04:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not just accuse me of anti-semitism? Why can't you answer the question? The disparate descriptions reflect pro-Israeli bias. It is not NPOV to claim that Israelis are subjected to lynchings but when Palestinians are murdered, it is always disputed as "justified" or "accidental" or "maybe the Palestinians faked their own deaths!" This isn't a neutral description. It uses loaded terms to elicit an emotional response and is purely a Zionist POV. --Alberuni 04:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Were the reservists lynched or not? That's a simple enough question, why don't you answer that first. Jayjg 04:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have answered it in earlier discussion above. "Yes, murder and lynching are inaccurate terms to use for the killing of these Israeli soldiers." Mirv also weighed in with his opinion that the term used in this case is not technically accurate. --Alberuni 05:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unless they considered it an execution, which they did. And your opinion was not backed by any reasoning or logic. Jayjg 05:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I answered your question. The Israeli soldiers were captured and executed by members of an angry crowd who suspected them of being assassins. Their deaths were the inevitable result of Israeli policies of targetted assassination. This is the way people act when they have been oppressed and subjected to inhuman measures, similar to the brutality exhibited by Israelis reacting to the trauma of the Holocaust. --Alberuni 05:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still waiting for Jayjg's answer to the question: Why are Israelis depicted as "lynched" and "murdered" but Palestinian children shot in the head by Israeli soldiers are simply "killed"? --Alberuni 17:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. "The Israeli soldiers were captured and executed by members of an angry crowd who suspected them of being assassins." This percisely the definition of a lynch. Thry can't claim it was self-defence either since the two unarmed were held by Palestinian police.
2. "This is the way people act when they have been oppressed and subjected to inhuman measures, similar to the brutality exhibited by Israelis reacting to the trauma of the Holocaust." You've gone too far. What the Palestinian are going though is nothing like the Holocaust - not in scale, not in essence, not in anything. This compering is illegitimate and shameful. MathKnight 09:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that "soome people" think the Jews have suffered more than anyone else and that's why they have a license to do whatever they want to other people, like invade trheir homeland and turn it into a Jewish state for instance. You think that the Jews suffering in the Holocaust makes the Palestinians feel like they should endure another 50 years of oppression under the Israeli military occupation because Israelis feel that the Palestinians haven't suffered as much under Shamir, Begin, and Sharon (yet) as Jews suffered under Hitler? What twisted logic.--Alberuni 17:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are the information sources for the Jenin section?

"Reports later estimated that 30 Palestinian militants, 20 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the violence, and many homes and buildings were reduced to rubble. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of the carnage swirled through Palestinian communities. Palestinian officials and others accused the Israel Defense Forces of massacring hundreds or even thousands of Palestinians, an allegation that echoed in world press for several weeks, further damaging Israel's reputation in the court of world public opinion." --Alberuni 16:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Type "Jenin massacre" or "jenin massacre + 3000" at Google and you will have planty of sources.

• Report that mention an accusation of 3000 death by PA officials: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20052002-032952-3644r
• Comparing the battle of Jenin to Nazi atrocities by prp-Palestinian groups: http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_5386.shtml .

As for death tolls see for example: Time Magazine report on Jenin.

MathKnight 19:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try this [22] and this [23]. Jayjg 19:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni's section which was not accepted

Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp; 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the violence, and many homes and buildings were reduced to rubble. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of the carnage swirled through Palestinian communities (1). Allegations of widespread massacres echoed in the world press for several weeks (2), further damaging Israel's reputation in the court of world public opinion. However, these allegations were later found to be exaggerated. Many Israelis believe the "Jenin massacre" allegation was the first blood libel of the so-called New antisemitism. Many Palestinians believe that the IDF committed atrocities in their assault on the refugee camp. The battle of Jenin is still a sensitive issue for both sides.

The reason for removal of Alberuni's paragraph of Jenin are as follow:

• The old paragraph is good enough and NPOVed.
• Alberuni's version is factual disaccurate.
  1. Need rewording.
  2. Echoed in word press? But who raised them? It is well documented that Palestinian official were those who raised the massacre allegations and claimed number of 500-3000.
  3. A misleading term suggesting that a massacre did occure, but in small number - which is FALSE. AS both HRW, Amnesty and UN commission found: "NO MASSACRE TOO PLACE in Jenin".

MathKnight 09:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need to learn English and NPOV before questioning edits. "It is well documented" please provide the well documented evidence. Arutz Sheva doesn't count. Killing dozens of civilians is a massacre. I'm sorry that i have to explain it to anyone. It may not have been as large of a massacre as people feared but it was still a massacre. Please show the quotes from HRW, Amnesty and UN that say "No massacre took place". I believe it's your interpretation. --Alberuni 17:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For instance: HRW reports that "There is strong prima facie evidence that in some of the cases documented grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes, were committed. Such cases warrant specific criminal justice investigations with a view to identifying and prosecuting those responsible." [24]. Nowhere do they say that "a massacre did not occur" as you are trying to insert in the article. If you can substantiate any of your clainms, i will be happy to accept them. Otherwise, you should make an effort to NPOV your Israeli POV out of Wikipedia. If you cannot do that, then expect to be reverted. --Alberuni 19:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The proofs are just above you, if you had bothered to read them.

• HRW: "Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp." [25]
• UN report: "56. Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."
• Time Magazin: "A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp." [26]

I rest my case. Now stop inserting Palestinian lies into the article. So far I was only reverted by you, while you was reverted by almost everybody - do the math yourseld. MathKnight 19:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MathKnight, your POV is not validated just because a gang of Zionist POV pushers revert the page on your behalf. NPOV demands that this article's bias be corrected. You are a horrendously biased Israeli partisan and you sincerely believe that your extreme POV should be laced into Wikipedia. Your English is also extremely poor. There is not much that can be done to rehabilitate you or educate you but I will show you the evidence as if you are a good faith editor and will be reasonable when faced with facts (even though I know better).

You are correct that the HRW report found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres" but that is not the same as saying that "no massacre occurred" as you are inserting in the article. "Human Rights Watch’s research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes. Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF. Many others could have been avoided if the IDF had taken proper precautions to protect civilian life during its military operation, as required by international humanitarian law. ... Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime, such as the shooting of Jamal al-Sabbagh on April 6."

The subsequent UN report is more explicit: "Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed in the camp and about the presence of prima facie evidence of war crimes. In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp - a probability that was enhanced by the statements made at some point by the occupying forces about hundreds of Palestinians being killed in the camp and their reported attempts to move bodies from the camp to what they referred to as the graveyards of the enemy." [27].

Amnesty International also documented Israel's many war crimes in Jenin, among them: "In several cases the IDF caused the deaths of Palestinians by demolishing homes while residents were still inside. IDF soldiers frequently failed to give adequate warnings before demolishing houses, refused to allow family and neighbours to warn residents, failed to offer help themselves or to call rescue units or ambulances and sometimes shot at those who tried to help. The failure to properly investigate killings in disputed circumstances and those clearly unlawful have created a climate where members of the IDF believe that they may carry out such violations of the right to life with impunity. Unlawful killings violate the "right to life" laid down in Article 6 of the ICCPR. Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "wilful killings" and "wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health" within the meaning of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with grave breaches of the Convention; "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. [28]

You falsely claim that "a Palestinian official" said 500 people were massacred in Jenin. In fact, Saeb Erekat was on CNN on April 10 and what he said was that there were 500 Palestinian casualties throughout the West Bank caused by Operation Defensive Shield. This was later confirmed by the UN and Amnesty International: "In the four months between 27 February and the end of June 2002 – the period of the two major IDF offensives and the reoccupation of the West Bank - the IDF killed nearly 500 Palestinians. Although many Palestinians died during armed confrontations many of these IDF killings appeared to be unlawful and at least 16% of the victims, more than 70, were children." [29]. "A total of 497 Palestinians were killed in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian area A from 1 March to 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath; " [30]

The IDF prevented anyone from entering the refugee camp so there would be no witnesses to their atrocities and war crimes. Without independent verification of th numbers killed, it is no one's fault but Israel's if rumors of their massacres take on a life of their own. Even the Israeli military overestimated the killing. Amnesty described all of this too: "During the fighting Palestinian residents and Palestinian and foreign journalists and others outside the camp saw hundreds of missiles being fired into the houses of the camp from Apache helicopters flying sortie after sortie. The sight of the firepower being thrown at Jenin refugee camp led those who witnessed the air raids, including military experts and the media, to believe that scores, at least, of Palestinians had been killed. The tight cordon round the refugee camp and the main hospital from 4-17 April meant that the outside world had no means of knowing what was going on inside the refugee camp; a few journalists were able to slip into the area at risk to their lives after 13 April, but only saw a small portion of the camp, including some dead bodies before leaving. Those within the camp reachable by telephone were confined to their homes and could not tell what was happening. It was in these circumstances that stories of a "massacre" spread. Even the IDF leadership appeared unclear as to how many Palestinians had died: General Ron Kitrey said on 12 April that hundreds had died in Jenin before correcting himself a few hours later saying that hundreds had died or been wounded."

From massacre: "In general use, an atrocity or massacre designates a politically or ethnically motivated mass-killing of civilians. In international law, more precise terms are war crime and crime against humanity.

• The September 5, 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre by Black September killed 11 Israelis.
• The 1974 April 11 Kiryat Shmona Massacre at an apartment building by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorists, killing 18 people, 9 were children
• The 1974 Maalot massacre at the Maalot High School in Northern Israel by Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed 26 Israelis.
• The March 31, 2002: 15 people killed in a suicide bombing in Haifa, in the Matza restaurant massacre.
• The March 28, 2002 Passover massacre killed 30 in Netanya.
• The November 21, 2002 Jerusalem bus 20 massacre killed 11 Israelis.
• The August 19, 2003 Jerusalem bus 2 massacre killed 23 Israelis.
• The October 4, 2003 Maxim restaurant massacre killed 21 Israelis in Haifa.

So you see MathKnight, when one or two dozen Israelis are killed, it is clearly described as a massacre in Wikipedia. When 22 Palestinian civilians are killed by the IDF in Jenin or 42 Palestinian civilians are killed by the IDF in Jabalia, you and others struggle to dismiss and discount the deaths and feel compelled to dispute that these are also massacres of innocent civilians. Why? I certainly hope it is not because you are some kind of bigot who believes that the lives of Jews/Israelis are worth more than the lives of Palestinians. Your version of reality leaves out many salient facts and manipulates the facts that you do include in order to paint the picture you would like to see rather than anything approaching the truth. My edits are NPOV. I do not include unconfirmed reports and I describe and attribute all allegations accurately. I do not try to insert my POV as if it is fact. You seem incapable of editing neutrally or accepting a neutral version because a neutral version does not absolve Israel. You yourself admitted in your last edit summary that your edits are POV, you just believe that your POV represents the truth. You should not be editing these subjects of you are unable to maintain NPOV. Also, you need to use Spellcheck. --Alberuni 04:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain you something: a massacre is intentional mass killing of civilians. Since in Jabalia and Jenin there was no wanton deliberate killing of civilians (more than 50% of the deads were armed terrorists), but only civilians who were killed during battle in populated area. HRW claim that some of these deaths could be prevented and some might be "unlawful killing" but in the bottom line it rules out the Palestinian accusation about massacre. So in Jabalia, no credible newspaper called the fighting there a "massacre". I cited my sources pretty well, and as Time Magazine concluded: "A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp." [31]

MathKnight 08:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I provided a definition of massacre for you already. It is the mass killing of civilians. Israelis can't kill civilians repeatedly and then hope to erase the war crime and crime against humanity by claiming it was an "accident". The UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are objective sources, neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and their exact words have been cited, including the quote that says there was no evidence of a massacre. --Alberuni 18:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You provided a wrong definition of massacre. If an airliner pilot accidentlty flying his jet into a strom which makes the plane crash and kill its 400 passangers - would you said he commited a massacre? A massacre need an intention. No source other than Palestians claim that Israel arrenged a deliberate mass killing of civilians. MathKnight 19:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, but quoting Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General, pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 of 7 May 2002, on the recent events in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities own lies as NPOV is very dishonest and ill-mannered. Your cheating attempt in unacceptable and therefore it will be removed. MathKnight 19:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"UN says no massacre in Jenin"(BBC, ret. Aug 1, 2002)

A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. In a report released on Thursday the UN said the overall number of Palestinians killed was 52 - around half of whom may have been civilians - while Israel lost 23 soldiers there.

Of particular concern is the use, by combatants on both sides, of violence that placed civilians in harm's way.

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators.

A Palestinian official has rejected the UN's conclusions, insisting that a massacre took place.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has welcomed the findings, saying the report "clears up misconceptions" about events in Jenin.

Israeli troops attacked Jenin on 3 April, days after launching a wide-scale offensive on the West Bank following a wave of suicide bombings in Israel, which it alleges were planned in the camp.

The BBC's Greg Barrow at the UN says the report offers few conclusions and merely reports allegations that have already been made.

This is BBC report on UN findinging, it also clearly rules out that a massacre have occured. MathKnight 11:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni's version - draft 2

Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp; 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the violence, and many homes and buildings were reduced to rubble. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of the carnage swirled through Palestinian communities. [32] Allegations of widespread massacres echoed in the world press for several weeks, further damaging Israel's reputation in the court of world public opinion. Allegations of wanton massacres were later found to be incorrect although the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found prima facie evidence of atrocities and war crimes in the Jenin violence:

• Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed in the camp and about the presence of prima facie evidence of war crimes. In addition, it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp - [33].

• Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes. Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF. Many others could have been avoided if the IDF had taken proper precautions to protect civilian life during its military operation, as required by international humanitarian law. ... Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime. - [34].

• Unlawful killings violate the "right to life" laid down in Article 6 of the ICCPR. Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "willful killings" and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health" within the meaning of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with grave breaches of the Convention; "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. -[35].

Many Israelis believe the "Jenin massacre" allegation was the first blood libel of the so-called New antisemitism. Many Palestinians continue to believe that the IDF committed atrocities in their assault on the refugee camp.

Current version

Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp. 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, while many buildings were reduced to rubble and hundreds of Palestinian explosives were detonated. [36] Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of a massacre swirled through Palestinian communities. Palestian offical accused that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in Jenin by the IDF, citing figures of 500 up to 3,000. [37] The allegation echoed in world press for several weeks, further damaging Israel's reputation in the court of world public opinion. However, these allegations were later found to be false, as inquiry by both Human rights group and UN commission found that no massacre took place in Jenin. Later, a UAV photage of Palestinians staging a mock funeral was released.

Human Rights Watch wrote that Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes. Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF. Many others could have been avoided if the IDF had taken proper precautions to protect civilian life during its military operation, as required by international humanitarian law. ... Some of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to summary executions, a clear war crime. ... But Palestinian gunmen did endanger Palestinian civilians in the camp by using it as a base for planning and launching attacks, using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive devices within the camp, and intermingling with the civilian population during armed conflict, and, in some cases, to avoid apprehension by Israeli forces. [38].
Time Magazine ruled out Palestinian allegations of massacre, writing that "A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp." [39]

Many Israelis cite the "Jenin massacre" allegation as the first blood libel of the so-called New antisemitism. The battle of Jenin is still a sensitive issue for both sides. [40]

The descriptor "Brutal" is a POV description that is unattributed

Describing the killing of Israelis as "brutal" is POV. Is the killing of Palestinians ever described as "butal"? It seems not to be despite the fact that 1000s more palestinians are killed than Israelis. Who claims that the killing of Israeli soldiers were brutal? Some people might claim that the killings were appropriately harsh or not brutal enough. Attribution of source is necessary. --Alberuni 19:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed brutal already in my last edit, so your edit summary and comment makes no sense. Jayjg 00:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4 reverts on this article too Alberuni

Will you go for 5? Jayjg 06:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of MathKnight's edits are fair and NPOV, from where I sit. I hope that you don't revert any more, Alberuni. It isn't helping your cause. I do think, though, the massive US subsidy of the IDF should be mentioned somewhere in there. Any objections to me adding that? Five 18:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oslo agreement failure; its all the Palestinians' fault according to Israeli POV here

"At the same time, Netanyahu continued the policy of settlement construction which Palestinians viewed as a violation of the Oslo agreement, though this was nowhere outlined in the agreement itself" The point is not whether this was in the Oslo agreement, it was intentionally deferred because Rabin refused to agree to limit Jewish settlement construction. The point is that Palestinians viewed continued settlement construction as a violation of the Oslo agreement. The Palestinians agreed to allow Israeli military protection to all existing settlements and to settlers and Israelis traveling in PA territory. Palestinians felt violated when Netanyahu and Sharon stepped up settlement construction to "create facts on the ground" ahead of a final agreement on the issue. The way MathKnight and the other Wikipedia Israelis/Zionists write this line, they try to push their POV, argue the case for Israel, and make it seem that objectively, the Palestinian concerns were illegitimate. "though this was nowhere outlined in the agreement!" as if "How dare those unreasonable Palestinians expect good faith restraint after signing an agreement with Israelis who don't care if the cancer of settlement construction in Palestinian territory subverts the peace process? We're Israelis! Did they forget who were they negotiating with? What were they expecting?" --Alberuni 19:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jenin; the Israeli POV inserted as objective fact, illiterate edits preferred over neutral facts, the future of Ziopedia

"Especially fierce battles took place at the Jenin refugee camp. 32 Palestinian militants, 22 Palestinian civilians, and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, while many buildings were reduced to rubble and hundreds of Palestinian explosives were detonated."

Why is the Israeli detonation of Palestinian explosives mixed in with the casualties to make the casualties look less important? This would be like writing, "Palestinian militants killed 22 Israelis and the bus and several cars nearby were severely damaged"

The report on explosives appear right after "many buildings were reduced to rubble". MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for several days as rumors of a massacre swirled through Palestinian communities. "

Israeli authorities prevented the press from entering for 2 weeks.

Palestian offical accused that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in Jenin by the IDF, citing figures of 500 up to 3,000. [41]" Palestian? Illiteracy. Misquote of article trying to blame the "Palestians". The article actually states: "Israel's own actions led credence to the myth. The Israeli army barred the international media from Jenin as its forces drove into the city. The only sources that the media then had for what was going on there were from the Palestinians themselves. And in the inevitable confusion of battle, what the great 19th century military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz called "the fog of war" applied. At the time, both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities appeared unclear what was actually happening on the ground."

"However, these allegations were later found to be false, as inquiry by both 'Human rights group and UN commission found that no massacre took place in Jenin." Illiteracy. The allegations were not false. Israel massacred 56 people inculding two dozen civilians. Human rights groups cited Israeli war crimes.

If you calling the killing of gunmen during combat a massacre, then you realy doesn't understand what that word means. You are the ONLY one insisting on a massacre in Jenin. Even the BBC report that "UN says no massacre in Jenin". Therefore, the allegations were false. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Later, a UAV photage of Palestinians staging a mock funeral was released. "

What is the relevance? Israel claims it was a mock funeral. Palestinians claim it was a reenactment. photage? illiteracy.

The relevance? Let's say is related to inflating of numbers by PA officials.

These illiterate and factually incorrect edits were reverted dozens of times by Zionist editors who would rather promote their fellow hasbara propagandists' pro-Israel POV than bother to read and edit accurately. The future of Ziopedia is at hand; Israel first, facts last.

This whole section should be deleted and referred to Jenin and that article should be NPOVed. --Alberuni 19:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are poisoning the well. Don't think I don't see your insults ans swearing, entangled in your flamming attacks on me. I will let other explain to you about Wikipedia etiquette. MathKnight 21:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haaretz is NOT independent

"According to independent count by Haaretz, 87 combatants and 42 non-combatants were killed. Palestinian refugee camps were heavily damaged by the Israeli assault. The IDF announched that at least 12 Qassam launchings had been thwarted and many terrorists hit during the operation. Three Israelis also were killed (1 civilian)."

Haaretz gets its info from the IDF. Don't claim that it is independent. Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense. --Alberuni 19:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Haaretz clearly stated that the count was made by its own reporters, and was reported side by side with IDF-given numbers (which were a little bit different from Haaretz count). MathKnight 21:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact

"On the Israeli side, the advantages of a strong economy and arms trade relations, in addition to a centralized command authority, have led to opposite tactics. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and IEDs, and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established the policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber. "

"advantages of a strong economy," what a POV pro-Israeli crock. Israel is a US taxpayer-funded welfare state having siphoned $100 billion from the US over the past 30 years.

This is the NPOV version: "On the Israeli side, the advantages of a highly organized military force armed with U.S.-supplied weaponry is capable of massive destruction against Palestinian civilians, Palestinian Authority infrastructure and the lightly armed Palestinian militants. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established a policy of destroying the family home of suicide bombers. " --Alberuni 19:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israelis think they should have the right to kill anyone they want

POV "no-guilt" version of Israel's assassination policy: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of prominent militant leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from doing the same. This tactic has been condemned by some as unlawful summary execution, while others (such as the United States) see them as a legitimate measure of self defense against "terrorism". Many criticize the "target killing"s for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, the practice of militant leaders to hide among civilians in densly populated areas, and the usage of helicopter gunships' missiles, is sometimes leading to civilian casualties. Unconfirmed reports claim Israel developed a new missile, designed to reduce civilian casualties and focus the impact only on the target."

The USA does not see Israeli assassination as legitimate. The USA condemns the policy while saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.

NPOV version: "Israel also pursues a policy of "targeted killings", i.e. the assassination of militants and especially prominent leaders, to single out as a target those involved in perpetrating attacks against Israelis, and to intimidate others from following suit. This tactic has been condemned as unlawful summary execution and for placing civilians at risk, though its supporters believe it reduces civilian casualties on both sides. However, if militant leaders live in densely populated areas, and the Israel uses helicopter gunship missiles to assassinate them, civilian casualties can be expected." --Alberuni 19:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni

6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni, you're on a hot streak today. Jayjg 04:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you and your team should read the article for a change. --Alberuni 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if you were willing to use the Talk: pages for their purpose, rather than as a soapbox and a vehicle for abusing other editors, you would find it easier to achieve compromise. Jayjg 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If only that were true. I have tried to assume good faith with you but you just use the Talk pages to engage in your usual duplicitous sophistry to block edits that offend your pro-Israeli perspective. You are rarely reasonable and respectful with me so why should you be treated any differently? By the way, just look up a few paragraphs and you will see I did use the Talk page for its intended purpose but you ignored my efforts to make positive headway. You just revert, revert, revert. --Alberuni 04:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect when a constant torrent of abuse and soapboxing issues from your fingertips with practically every Talk: comment. Even comments that might have some valid content are also liberally larded with the same abuse and nonsense; look at the titles of the sections you created. People are simply getting sick of it, and of you, as many Talk: page comments from many editors show. If you want to achieve consensus and influence people, you're using the wrong tactics. Jayjg 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its always my fault, of course, from your perspective. I'm well sick of you too, believe me. There's never been any hope of consensus with you and your POV buddies. Froim Day One you've been trying to harass me out of Wikipedia, as your User page said. "Block them until they move on to some other channel". You were referring to me. I don't appreciate that. --Alberuni 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should at least quote me accurately. My user page says "One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV." Since all the things I am fighting for are exactly what Wikipedia demands of its editors, there is nothing objectionable in my stating it. Jayjg 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a firefight, might I suggest you two step away from this for a day or so? This fight fundamentally isn't worth the energies you two seem to be putting into it. These words will not fundamentally change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As it is, and as a newcomer, the article seems as close to NPOV as it will ever get. So, I'm suggesting you guys just back away, let it go, catch up on reading, whatever. Let tempers calm and energies focus on other things. Or not, and duke out your own private Thermopylae as you will. Five 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party here is my take: factually, the killing of the 2 Isreali reservists could be described as a "lynching". The use of this term by itself would not necessarily demonstrate a POV-bias in my opinion, as the actions of the Palestinian mob pretty well fit the definition of a lynching. However, the entire paragraph describing the "lynching" almost certainly does exhibit a POV-bias, as it describes in greusome detail the brutality of the killing. Sure, the description may be factually accurate, but it comes accross as gratuitous in the context of the larger article. To then call it a lynching on top of that is simply redundant. Here is my proposed compromise: Either remove the explicit description of the killing and simply say they were lynched by the mob, or keep the description and remove the clause describing it as a lynching. I think that would at least reduce the percieved POV-bias as well as the redundancy. Kaldari 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise suggestions

I believe that there is an element of truth to both arguments in this debate. 1) There does seem to be some POV bias in the way the killing of the 2 Israelis is described. 2) The term "lynching", however, is not innaccurate in this instance (although perhaps redundant). In an effort to reach a compromise between the 2 entrenched parties, I offer 2 alternate versions of the sentences in question. The first version uses the term lynching but removes the gratuitous description of the killing. The second version retains the description of the killing (edited down a bit for brevity) and removes the redundant lynching description. Either of these versions should be sufficiently NPOV to resolve this dispute, IMO. It will require a willingness to compromise by both parties however. As to the POV-bias in articles describing the killing of Palestinians, I would suggest bringing those concerns up in those articles rather than here. Since there is no unified editorial voice in Wikipedia, you'll have to challenge them one at a time. Complaining of a systematic policy of bias won't accomplish anything here. Anyway, here are my two compromise proposals. Feel free to comment...

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station and lynched the two soldiers. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

These versions explain the events without either whitewashing the brutality of the killings or being unnecessarily gratuitous or belaboring. Whether the word "lynch" is used specifically seems irrelevent to me.

Here is the current version of the passage for reference:

An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, threw them out the window, stabbed them, dragged them on the road and mutilated their bodies. The killings, described as a lynching by international press, were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.

Kaldari 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amnesty International and the BBC (among others) described the killings as "lynchings" Amnesty BBC. Jayjg 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think his point is that calling them a lynching and then describing the act is redundant. Judge 'em as a lynching, which is abhorrent in and of itself, or describe the act. That's all I think he's saying, and not that calling the actions a lynching is unwarranted. (Side note: Jayjg, I tried to fixed your links. They weren't turning into links properly. The Amnesty one still doesn't. As a newb, if I've overstepped my bounds, I am sorry). Five 06:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, in an attempt to provide a compromise, my version left out the contested word "lynching" altogether, and instead simply described the actions, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was lynching, or a justified and reasonable killing (as Alberuni has posited). Jayjg 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed wades in

The term "lynching" is a loaded term. It is used to label a particular killing as unjustified. It thus takes a moral position.

Wikipedia articles do not take moral positions, for one very important reason: that is, none of us contributors can agree on moral issues; and the battles over WHICH MORAL POSITION any given article should take would be endless.

It's so much easier, therefore, to say something like:

• two reservists were killed by Arabs in the wake of blah, blah, blah.

If we want to add commentary to this, I suggest we QUOTE SOMEBODY OTHER THEN OUR OWN SELVES. Like,

• the Jerusalem post called the killings "the worst lynching since the 1930s in the US";
• the Palestine News-Free Press praised the killings as "the right lynching at the right time".

Don't get all hung up on whet TERMS to use, when describing a killing. Was it murder? Was it "extra-judicial"? Forget interpretations, because you are not writing an editorial for your hometown newspaper; you are writing an encyclopedia article which transcends time and place.

Stick to the undisputed facts. The men entered the area. They died there. (We all agree on this) Somebody killed them (i.e., it wasn't an accident). The killers were "Palestinian Arabs. (If we agree on the identity of the killers, fine. If not, we describe the dispute as "X says the killers were Arabs, while Y says the killers were Israelis or Chechnyans or Little Green Men from Mars").

Try to focus FIRST on the parts we can all agree on, would you, please? As a favor to me? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:49, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the article doesn't use the word lynching, it hasn't since I took it out a week or two ago. Have you read the current version? Jayjg 20:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)