User talk:Zeq

Welcome!

Hi Zeq! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! John Z 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Son of Welcome!

Hi Zeq!:

Good to see a knowledgeable person writing about these issues - the barrier. But I thought you might want to take a look at some wikipedia policies from the links above. We often have to present both sides of contentious issues, so it is appropriate to use terminology then which would not be appropriate when we are simply trying to present undisputed facts. Thanks for the link to the new wall decision; hadn't bothered to dig it up myself. I confess I don't precisely understand what you mean about sections 67 and 116 so much in particular. By the way, what you say in discussion is hardly OR: that the wall was originally opposed by Sharon etc because it would limit territorial ambitions; had been meaning to add it to the article myself.John Z 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Zeq, I noticed your comments about Ramallite and vandalism. As you're new here, I thought it might help to let you know that Ramallite is a great editor, very highly regarded, and about as far from a vandal as you can get, so I hope you'll try to work with him. You'll find that he's very reasonable and always prepared to look for compromises. I know these topics can be frustrating and feelings often run high. Welcome to the madhouse. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Zeq, please listen to SlimVirgin, who understands Wikipedia policy very very well. (Out of many, many thousands of editors, Slim and Jay are two of the very most hardworking, famous, respected and responsible.) You should assume good-faith and realize that others are certainly now assuming good faith of you - you seem to have hit a time when nobody is particularly grouchy or watchful, a couple months ago there probably would have been a half-dozen people reverting you just like that. For something to be vandalism, it must make its 'bad-faith nature inarguably explicit." Ramallite is not a vandal; he is a very respected editor. Why not take a look at his talk page? - you might start to see why.

It is always best when starting out on such a topic to be a little slow and careful. The general rule at Wikipedia is "Be bold." but the Arab-Israeli conflict (and a few others, like abortion) are the exception - "be timid!". At the very least, this helps others understand your changes. If you make major changes and move things around it can be a lot of work just figuring out what to do, especially disentangling just what happened after the inevitable disagreements ensue. So you should realize there is a natural conservative prejudice to stick with a version that has often been the result of a great deal of discussion. It is good that you bring knowledge which others might not have to the issues; however, you might find that others who have edited the article like Ramallite, Slim, Jayjg, Aladdin, and last and least me, might know some amusing things too. It's a lot easier if you make changes one at a time and see if they are understood and accepted, and make bigger changes a little later; everybody takes time to properly understand Wikipedia policies, which are the result of a lot of hard thought from many, many people.

Here are some problems with your edits - you refer to the recent high court ruling twice - in History and Purpose, and now in the new section. This does not make too much sense. Next, the quote in the History section is far too long - it is not Wikipedia's aim to repeat knowledge and statements which can be found elsewhere, but to summarize and point to it. Not much more than "the Israeli court/government claims that the purpose of the wall is to prevent terrorism" is necessary. Frankly, what is there now would just have the effect of putting people to sleep. Not many people like to read long quotes from judicial decisions.

All in all, there is too much on the recent decision. The new section is not acceptable at all as it stands, not even the title. Words like "principled", "praiseworthy courage and fairness" "the court compares conflicting opinions and decides according to its own best judgment after determening the actual facts" are all unacceptable editorializing. That the Israeli or American or the German supreme court says something does not make it true. If there is dispute about something important among reputable sources, Wikipedia needs to represent it, not decide who is right.

Claims by the Israeli court are stated as facts:

"although both courts rule according to the same Int'l law" - of course the ICJ used only international law, while the Israeli court can use Israeli law too. The ICJ unanimously agreed that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure to these territories - this is a major legal, not factual difference between it and the Israeli court. The Israeli court may say different, but practically all international legal experts disagree with it here.

"The main difference between the two judgments stems primarily from the difference in the factual basis upon which each court made its decision." is again a claim by the Israeli court, not something which is universally held to be the case. Much opinion, e.g. some of even Ami Isseroff's on the site you link to, about the ICJ ruling disagrees. Although this is part of a quote, it is so confusingly presented it took me a long time to realize that.

"The Hague, which determined that the entire fence violates international law " is just plain wrong.

"For the first-time, the dismantling of a section of the separation barrier" seems wrong, the first Israel barrier decision did that too, IIRC, though maybe I'm wrong.

The bolding makes the text nearly unreadable - it is not in the original, and is not acceptable.

In general, just relax a little; everyone here knows personally that the first time someone reverts or modifies changes which you have worked hard for, it is only human to get upset. But you should realize that there is usually a reason and that the other guy, who has been here longer than you, often knows the rules better than you and knows what is and isn't acceptable. You should realize that this constant change is what Wikipedia is all about, and you should just aim that the other guy not change all of your edits. There is a lot to say about the barrier, and I think you should realize that a lot of what you have written will be cut or summarized - it should be proportionate to the amount of space devoted to other topics. You should think hard about exactly what you want to say, Ramallite and Jayjg are a bit puzzled too. Maybe broach the matters in discussion first, and above all, don't make what could be understood as personal attacks on well-respected editors. The best thing would be to take the criticism of others like Ramallite and me and try to work them into "your" version.John Z 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

John has given you excellent advice, Zeq. And he's right that we're normally a lot grouchier, though I should speak only for myself, I suppose. ;-D It might help you to read our main content policies. These are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also important is to write in a dry, disinterested tone, so that no one reading the page can tell whether the authors were for or against the subject. This means we can't include words that appear to praise or condemn any particular issue (e.g In a discouraging ruling, the Court stated that ...). If we want to include words like "discouraging," we would have to attribute the view to someone (e.g. In what The Guardian called a "discouraging ruling," the Court stated that ..."), linking after the quote to the Guardian article if it's online, and giving a brief citation if it isn't (The Guardian, October 4, 2005), with a full citation in the References section ("Barrier ruling stuns supporters", by John Smith, The Guardian, October 4, 2005). Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your confusion about what I wrote there Zeq, this is a fine point. I'm in the process of writing something for this for another article that I have to go dig up the cites for. Hope I can find them again. The Israeli position in this decision seems at least roughly the same as it has been since the late 70's - the Elon Moreh decision, I believe. Read it very carefully. The ICJ, etc position is that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure, in its entirety - that when Israel signed it, it agreed that it would be bound to it in precisely the situation it finds itself in in the occupied territories. However, the Israeli position is that the convention does not (necessarily) apply to the West Bank and Gaza because they claim that article 2 of the convention itself exempts this situation from the application of the body of the convention. On the other hand, Israel claims to apply the humanitarian portions of the convention in the territories, while not specifying which these are. Many, perhaps most, experts say that the whole convention is humanitarian. In particular, the court has never applied article 49(6), which if understood the way everybody else ( The UN SC, the UNGA, the USA, the ICJ) understands it, would make the settlements quite illegal. (The courts have held since the 70's (or maybe 80's) that the vaguer 1907 Hague conventions do apply, and as customary international law are automatically part of Israeli law.) So they may be quoting from the same law, but the interpretation and the finding that it is not automatically applicable is quite different from the rest of the world, and is a genuine legal, not factual difference.John Z 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have added some information earlier about the three-revert rule (3RR). This states that if we revert to a previous version of a page (in whole or in part, which can mean as little as one word in some circumstances), we may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for more details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions

Thank you for your greetings and also forgive me for not wishing you a שנה טובה earlier. The comments you saw on my talk page from another editor regarding the wall are comments directed at me during my first two days on Wikipedia, when I was still not familiar with the rules, and just like you are going through now, it takes a little bit of time to really familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy and realizing what it *is* and what it *isn't*. These comments are not relevant to me now, so using them against me now is out of context since I am much more familiar with Wikipedia than I was my first day here. As for your personal opinions of the barrier, you are of course entitled to them, but I do not need to know them, it doesn't matter to me. All that matters to me is that what is presented on Wikipedia is neutral and balanced. Most of the people who work on these articles in WP are very much pro-Israeli, but if the material is presented neutrally from both sides, then there is usually no hard conflict. I do not fully understand your objection to using NAD as a source, because even if they are propaganda, they are representing statistics and studies done by others (including the UN and B'tselem) to argue against the barrier. Almost all Palestinians believe that the barrier is an inhumane thing, and I have seen many friends and relatives cry as they describe what they have to go through because of the wall around Ramallah, and the NAD tries to represent the Palestinian perspective of why the wall is bad. I don't agree with everything they say (or the way they present it), but I don't think they are wrong just because they are part of the official Palestinian apparatus (although not "foreign office" as you claim). You have not shown anything that refutes what the NAD is saying. For me, the Israeli Supreme Court is just as POV as the NAD is to you, because it is an official body of the State of Israel, and most sources internationally do not consider it a neutral body.

My own experiences with the wall are not important, so I do not want to answer your question about whether it has affected me personally because I don't want you to use anything I say out of context as you did here. But let me assure you that I do not know any Palestinian living in Palestine who has not been directly affected negatively by the wall, and leave it at that. I appreciate that you are new here and that you are still familiarizing yourself with WP (like I did when I first started contributing), but I again am offering to help you write without lengthy POV quotations (and half-quoted sourced) by pasting on the discussion page what you want the article to contain, and we can work together on the discussion page how to word it, then we can place that into the article.

The article right now is unacceptable to me, and we both need to agree on it otherwise there will be endless reverting. I don't really care about the ICJ ruling or the Israeli court ruling, because rulings have no impact on the actual lives of people under occupation. But I want them both to be written in an encyclopedic fashion. If you want to quote the UN sources, you have to quote them completely or not at all. And as far as the checkpoint outside Qalqilya, I haven't been there since the Intifada started, but I am only going by your sources. Your sources claim 1- It was there in 2003, 2- The Israelis removed it in 2004, 3- The UN said it was not manned in March 2005, 4- The UN said it was there in August 2005. 5- An Israeli youth group visited it and took pictures with soldiers there in the summer of 2005 (my source). Also, Al-Quds frequently has stories and pictures of the checkpoint with soldiers. So it is clear that my text that the road to Qalqilya is frequently manned by a checkpoint is accurate based on these sources. You cannot collect sources and make a new claim because that would be OR, but you can use the sources to just state what they are saying, which is what I am doing in this case. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know - I am going to have to try and significantly shorten the section about the effects on Palestinians because it has just become too long. I will try to keep all important points, but this "back and forth" editing like a basketball game has just made it unnecessarily large. I also also add some more examples other than Qalqilya. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove the references to terrorism, I just removed the endless quotations listing unnecessary things that are already in the article. As for your statement that "You may think that 5k"m detour must be terrible but to mention a "human guided bomb" must be POV......", again I must ask you not to assume you know my POV. A human-guided bomb is terror, as is an F-16-guided bomb that kills civilians. But the vast majority of people who are affected by the wall (and 5km is very short compared to what people in Ramallah have to go through) are not terrorists, but are human beings. If I were to ask Palestinians about the "quiet" I doubt many of them would be happy that they have a wall/fence built around them, they would say they are being treated "like animals". And that, unfortunately, brings more hatred and violence. If you were to ask a Palestinian about the wall being "beneficial", she would tell you that it is as beneficial as somebody imprisoning you in your house, and then telling you a few months later that you are now free to go into your garden, and that's a "benefit"! These are all things I've heard. As for my own opinions, I am not going to state them, they do not matter. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your username

Just wanted to let you know I liked your username :) Qaz ^(talk) 11:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Hi Zeq, I've been on the periphery vaguely watching the battle going on in this article. You have some good input, and I think you'll be more successful if you'll listen to what several editors have suggested: 1) edit in smaller chunks, 2) present proposed edits on the discussion page before making them (this will also help with spelling and grammar errors), 3) remember that "facts" and "truth" are subject to interpretation, so clearly identify who holds particular viewpoints, and 4) when you source statements, be careful to accurately represent what those sources are actually saying, otherwise it can still be "original research" if you are presenting quotes in a novel way not intended by the sources of the quotes. I know I'm only basically repeating what others have said, but seriously, if you modify the way you are currently proceeding there, you'll get a lot further since it will be less divisive and won't get everyone so worn out. I hope to get more involved on the article myself, but except for brief periods on Wednesday, I won't be able to edit until next week. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Is there any text in the West Bank article, from which I added, that is different from what you wrote? I clarified that it is not just the settler roads that are restricted, traditional roads between cities are also restricted because you also said it in your edit. Why do you just blindly revert everything I do without reading it? Even the West Bank barrier article is full of mistakes because you just keep reverting. You are going to do the same here now? Can you please ask another editor to look at it if you don't care to read my edits first? I'm really discouraged by your attitude. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I hope you had a peaceful Yom Kippur. I don't recall ever saying that most Israelis don't like Palestinians, but I know there is huge misunderstanding on your side. I have noticed that most Israelis actually believe what the your government tells them. Somehow, you have the idea that if you lift a checkpoint here and there, we should be very happy!! You were describing how Palestinians can move through Qalandia checkpoint south of Ramallah, but you seem to fail to understand that there should be no checkpoint there to begin with.

When I want to go visit friends or family in another town in Palestine, I don't want a soldier from a foreign country who speaks a foreign language deciding for me if I can pass or not. As long as the soldier is there, you cannot expect me to be happy that the checkpoint is open. There should be no checkpoint. There should be no soldier.

You may argue that this is all in response to terror, and yes many idiots on our side have given people from your side reason to behave like they do. But to think that such things as building walls around as and then placing checkpoints (and then expecting a party when you remove a couple of them) should bring peace is hugely mistaken, because it is the fact that you can place checkpoints and build walls around us that makes us very skeptical of your true intentions. (You as in your people and government, not you personally).

Most checkpoints were there long before there were Palestinian suicide bombers. When I was coming from a visit to Jordan when I was a little kid, it took me 12 hours just to cross the Allenby bridge border area, and I was stripsearched! Your soldiers made little kids take off their clothes to make sure there were no papers or bombs or whatever, and that was in the early 80s, long before the Intifada. Now you are saying that Palestinians have freedom of movement, no we don't. As long as our freedom of movement depends on the permission of your government, there is no freedom of movement. Lastly, about Arafat, I don't think he was against peace, I think he was corrupt and had no real vision. I think Abbas is a much better person, but to say he is 'weak' is not fair, because everything he does, if he goes to Gaza, if he returns to Ramallah, or if he wants to visit the US, is all with Israeli permission. Israel holds all the keys of the Palestinian Authority, they can open and close the gates as they please, and until this changes, there can be no peace, and you cannot call him weak, because you control everything. Real peace is one thing: Not to make us accept things that you would not accept for yourself. If you wouldn't accept something, don't make us accept it, and then call us "weak" when we don't. That's just my opinion, which I'd be happy to discuss on our talk pages, but not on article talk pages.

Lastly, if you want to know what I think about, read the "Falafel in Nablus" on my talk page, written by an editor who will make Aliyah to Israel very soon. I don't think the Israeli government is different, except this editor is honest enough to admit it. The government is not. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting short article here from Haaretz, which pertains to what we were talking about. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I left this article (above) for you a few days ago, I guess you didn't see it. And it's not nice to make accusations, it's not easier or harder to talk to you compared to Irgun supporters. I just don't know what to say to you except answer your statements directly:

• A unilateral wall around my city is nothing I can defend. It may have bought calm as you say, but it a price that will be much heavier in the future. Nobody likes to be stuck behind a wall built by a foreign army.
• I think the wall will have many many unintended consequences for both sides. For the Israeli side, read this article (which I included in my edits on Israeli West Bank barrier but you deleted, in fact, that article is still really messy and a lot of my edits were removed for no reason and I am still disappointed about that because you didn't try to work with me like you are doing now in Israeli Arab). Also read the following from Thomas Friedman (who I rarely agree with, but sometimes I love his quotes) here. It was written in 2003, but don't tell me that the checkpoints have been removed according to the UN, they can come and go, and right now, after what happened with the settlers in Gush Etzion, they are back.
• You are comparing settlers with general Palestinians. Most Palestinians that I know also agree to a two-state solution, but there are two things that you don't seem understand about this. First, Israelis can talk from a position of power, whereas Palestinians have to talk from a position of humiliation (not weakness - humiliation). It is easy for Israelis to declare things (like Sharon declaring support for the road map and then building settlements anyway) because they are in a position of power, but Palestinians are not only in a position of weakness, but of humiliation, השפיל, and what Israelis have to understand is that it is almost impossible for Palestinians to do or say what the Israelis want while they are still humiliated daily. Second, again read the Friedman article above, because it is the Israeli government's policies over the last 20 years that are making the two state solution impossible. More and more Palestinians no longer think that a state on a sliver of disconnected lands is feasible, and what Friedman writes makes more sense to more and more people (including Michael Tarazi).
• You remind me of Haj Amin - let me tell you something about Haj Amin - I never heard of him until I started reading foreign books and web pages a few years ago. We weren't allowed to study Palestinian history in schools, and I think most people now don't know much about him. From what I understand, he was influential - 80 years ago- within those people who followed him, but not all Palestinians. In fact, there were large rivalries between the Husseini and Nashashibi and other clans in the country. So telling me about Haj Amin is like me telling you about Ovadia Yosef, who has many followers, but is hardly somebody to represent Palestinians in general.
• More importantly, bringing up Haj Amin or Arafat or anybody else is pointless, because the Palestinian child growing up now doesn't care about somebody who lived 100 years ago, he cares what his life is like now. When he is born with Israeli soldiers with guns standing in the street, that is all that matters. Talking about the past is useless because young people don't care what happened before, they care about their lives now. And they also react to their lives now, in many different ways. You said "and there are 14 years old kids who go to checkpoints with bomb belt this give an excuse to the Israeli government to keep these checkpoints." Many Palestinians will tell you that if the checkpoints were not there, there would be no angry boys with bombs going to them, they would be studying to become doctors instead.
• Palestinians don't blame Israel for all their problems, although in the past they have put some blame on Israel when they should have looked at themselves as well. But these days most Palestinians realize that they need to clean up their own house also. But most Palestinians also believe that it is not in Israel's interest to see a strong Palestinian leadership, Israel needs the Palestinians to remain weak and scattered.
• You said "Do you know Palestinians who understand that dividing the land also means giving up this so-called "Right" to return into Israel? Why can't your Abu Mazen, if he is so strong say that out loud ?" He is not "my" Abu Mazen, (I didn't vote for him), but he is the elected head of the PA. The right of return seems to be perceived very differently between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. To use the words of "Rashid Khalidi", a professor at Columbia university: "The refugee problem is a deep wound in the Palestinian collective psyche, and there needs to be an acknowledgment of responsibility from the people who caused it (i.e. didn't allow the refugees to return) before any healing can begin". In other words, nobody seriously expects Palestinians to return to Israel, but an acknowledgment of the "right", followed by the necessary compensations that Israeli itself has agreed to, should be enough. And you said that Palestinians are strong but the leadership is weak. Let me tell you, Palestinians have fought 2 intifadas against a much stronger power - Israel - and you don't think they can remove a weak leadership? Palestinians know that the major problem is not with the leadership, it's with the occupation. Just look at Arafat, so many went to the funeral and then the very next day, everybody forgot about him. I don't know what it's going to be like next month during the anniversary of his death (and I will be abroad anyway), but don't make the mistake of believing the Israeli government about the "weakness" of Abbas (read the Haaretz article above). It was Saeb Erekat who said: "I'm afraid that if we get Mother Teresa to be the president, Thomas Jefferson to be the speaker of our parliament and if we get Mahatma Ghandi to take my job and be the chief negotiator, and Nelson Mandela to be the prime minister of the Palestinians -- if the Israeli government is not ready for peace, they will link them to terrorism," . If the Israeli government, which is in position of power, is not ready for peace, they will find all excuses (like calling him weak or an unfit partner) to prevent it.

Ramallite ^(talk) 16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So you have called me a liar ("I am glad you say tarazi is now against the 2-state solution because you have lied when you used his older articles to claim he is"), a propagandist ("You are mixing between different things (like any good propaganda person)"), and repeated nonsense statements from the Israeli government (like writing in English vs Arabic), and then you ask why I don't respond to you.

• Again, don't argue with a Norwegian about Oslo, and don't argue with a Palestinian about Ramallah. You cannot understand if the wall is a "monster" or not unless you come and live behind it. I'm not going to use Wikipedia to list the reasons why Palestinians are against the wall, but let me just tell you that you clearly have no idea what it is like. Stop pretending like you know. It is not just the farmers, it is everybody. Either come and live with Amira Hass for a while, or just stop your constant accusations, because you are like an Argentinean who is arguing with an Italian about Venice.
• It is useless to say this old Bibi Netanyahu rubbish that "Palestinians say one thing to their people in Arabic, and another thing to foreigners in English". Most Palestinians understand English, it is required in all schools from grade 1 to 12, so Palestinians do not need something to be said in Arabic to be understood. We are not idiots and we are also not robots that can only be "programmed" in Arabic. Also, you don't know who I am, and you have no idea if I've written against Hamas or anything like that.
• You accuse me of "lying" because I told you Michael Tarazi is for a two-state solution. I only wrote you once about Tarazi, and about an article he wrote entitled "Two Peoples, One State". Read this title: where did you understand that I told he is for two states? He is clearly for one state, and I did not tell you he supports two states. I told you that his article says that Israel has made two states impossible. Where is the lie? And by the way, have you read no personal attacks?
• You are saying I want to "play the victim"? What do you mean? That I am actually the aggressor? I really don't understand how you can say you are for peace when you have no idea at all what is going on except what your government tells you. As for what happened after World War II, yes everybody knows that the Jewish people achieved miraculous feats in a short time after gaining independence. But they were independent, we are not, and it's not honest to compare Jews in 1951 to Palestinians in 2005. Also, don't forget that after 1967 your state had billions of dollars support from the US, and most analysts agree that Israel could not have flourished without this money.
• You said "So you want to get there by having more Palestinians babies and Hamas wants to get there by killing more jews. What is the difference ?" So having Palestinian babies is the same as killing Jews??? This again shows how I cannot find your statements about wanting peace honest, because you are referring to Palestinians and their babies as if they are a "disease" and a "problem". As long as you think Palestinians are a "disease" and a "problem" and having more babies is a bigger "problem", this shows why people like you and your government really built the wall. It is nothing to do with security, it is taking as much of Eretz Yisrael as you can while keeping these "diseased" people away.
• Lastly, I would pay close attention to those articles I referred you to, especially what Friedman is saying. Let me try to put it simply: There is a barrier, and there are Palestinians on both sides, and Israeli Jews on both sides. Because there are Palestinians on both sides, this is a major problem because Palestinians are cut off from each other (and vital services) because their cities are surrounded by the barrier OR checkpoints (like Ramallah, half encircled by the barrier, and half by checkpoints, what's the difference?). This is bad enough. BUT, as long as there are Jews on both sides, Palestinians will also suffer because of checkpoints and army raids and all of that in the name of "protecting the settlers". On the other hand, the more you try to keep all the Jews on one side, the less and less land the Palestinians have, and they will suffer because of being separated in little islands and have to cross tunnels and "Jews only" highways to travel. What Friedman is saying, and what Tarazi may be saying (I don't remember), is that both these situations cannot last, and they will cause another explosion of anger. In other words, the barrier, in Friedman's words, will be "the mother of all unintended consequences", and the unintended consequences are 1- making a Palestinian state impossible, 2- so this makes a 2-state solution impossible, and 3- that leaves only two more options: either a one-state solution, or expulsion of the Palestinians. A significant percentage of Palestinians believe that Israel will ultimately expel us, and this fear only breeds more hatred. In either case, whether there is a one-state solution or expulsion of the Palestinians, Israel will cease to be the respected and modern country it has tried to be since 1948. Your leaders, through their policies, are putting your state in great danger. So yadidi, you still think it is our leaders who have failed us?
• Ramallite ^(talk) 22:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Ramallite. I think your leaders have failed. You are (well I would not write it because it might be a personal attck) ..... if you think the only source of my info is the israeli govrement.

You are proving again and agian that you are a good propegandist that does not want a two state solution. The wall is creating a border and Israel already shown it can remove settlers so I suggest start thinking about how life would be in the west bank when israel will leave it like it left gaza. Instead you dream about this one state solution in which palestinians will be a mjority. I have said nothing on babaies as you accuse me (So you are also engage in personal attacks) what I said is that palestinians have this dream about becoming a majority in a one state. It was Arafat who said that the womb of the palestinian mother will win this war. So did it helped you win in Gaza ? How would you develop gaza with it's 1.5 million people now ? Zeq 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"The wall is creating a border" Ahh, finally something true, because the Israeli government refuses to admit this, but I'm glad you do. Look, clearly you are disappointed that I don't agree with you, but you also seem to be misunderstanding everything I'm saying. I support a 2-state solution, but I think that Israel is making that impossible. The wall is not designed to make it safe for Israel to leave, it is designed to make it safe for Israel to stay in the West Bank, so there can be no 2-state solution. Just because I have my opinions doesn't make me a propagandist, and you have a very wrong opinion about Palestinians. You did say something negative about babies, you said that Palestinians having babies is the same as killing Jews, and I reject that.

• you shoud reject it because I did not saythat. Why do you twist what I say ? Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, I admire that you have worked for peace, but I hope you understand that you cannot support both peace and the occupation, and you cannot support peace and the wall together.

• Of course I don't support the occupation. ::::I support creating a clear border between tow states. That is the opposite of the occupation. You have never bothered to explain why you think the wall prevent a palestinian state. Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is my opinion, and instead of calling me names and accusing me of wanting to "take over your country", just accept that my opinions are different than yours. You will never be able to understand what it's like to live behind the wall and checkpoints, so please stop arguing with me, it is impossible for you to know. You are Israeli, you have a blue ID card, you just will never know what it's like.

• You are wrong. I travel in the west bank and I stand in the line for Palestinians just to know how it is.

You also do not know how many times when a suicide bomber alert is in effect there are checkpoints inside Israel. I have stood many times for hours in such checkpoints stop again you think you are the only victim of the situation. (Situation that is caused by Palestinians who are unable to work for peace by giving up demands such the ":right of return") Zeq 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

For you it's just a peace border. For me it is a prison. One of us is right, and one day we will know! Ramallite ^(talk) 05:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. Even your young people who should be in schools and universities are building caravans next to settlements, and "it's only the beginning" as she said. Amazing. Did you write the first reader response at the bottom of the article (kol hakavod?) I'm just kidding. Anyway, I fail to see what your point is, are you saying that I'm like the settlers because I'm against the wall? Actually, I would support a wall, as long as 1- it is built on the West Bank border (because right now a lot of Palestinian-owned land is confiscated, if it was built on the border then no land would have to be confiscated), 2- both sides agree to it, and 3- it not only protects Israelis from Palestinians, it also protects Palestinians from the the settlers and the IDF. That is a real wall. A unilateral border with the IDF on both sides will not bring peace. You keep asking why I personally object to it, as if I have to defend something so obviously monstrous. If you were really pro-peace and anti-occupation, why are you not in Bil'in with other pro-peace Israelis? Instead you are on Wikipedia arguing with me and removing sources about the barrier from the UN, Amnesty, and Haaretz. How has the barrier affected me? Right now I will give you one big reason (there are many more): I cannot go to Jerusalem anymore because I'm not Jewish. Before I could sneak in, now there is no way. But that is one major reason out of so many more. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Zeq 18:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem disappointed? Anyway, you may not understand why I am not as optimistic as you... here is another example why:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=639246&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

Do you still believe a two state solution is easy? Ramallite ^(talk) 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Work for you...

Work awaits you; see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And again, more work: see Talk:Israeli Arab Regards, Huldra 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Enough is enough: message for Zeq:

I wonder if you read any of our messages for you? I have asked you PLEASE to help "clean-up" all that information -much of it contradictory- you copied into this article. This you have not done. Istead you leave this job to your co-editors (mainly Palmiro and me). If you were not on WP; well, then it could have been understandable. But you are here, editing. And not only editing: you are inserting edits in a very contested manner, indeed, I will not hesitate to call it pure POV-pushing. And this, while the article is mostly a complete mess with all the information you copied into it. I do not know how many hours I have spend on this article, trying to get it readable by:

• deviding it into categories,
• finding and moving info. into their correct category,
• removing information when exactly the same was/is beeing said three or four times,
• pointing out to you in which cases you had given contradictary information,
• adding links and correcting spelling

And what do you do?? I had at least expected you to find out what is correct when you have given contradictary inf. given: eg.: is the Arab/(Muslim?) population estimated to become between 21% to 24% of Israel's population in 2020, OR is it estimated to become 24-26%?? Now, both are "true", courtesy of you. Is the birth rate 3.4%, or 3.6%? Again, now, both are also "true", courtesy of you. The only section which is reasonabe readable now is the "Location"-section, and that is totally thanks to Palmiro and me. (You can thank Palmiro for managing to interpret your wrongly spelled names of cities (e.g.: Ramalah ->Ramleh). Organizing, editing and wikifying text is rarely a very exciting thing to do. I can quite understand that it is much more interesting to insert inf. which suits ones view. I would like to spend my time here doing the same, but quite simply: I´m not selfish enough. And I would like to see WP become fine encyclopedia. Now: this is what I´m going to do: I will revert the "intro section" to the Revision as of 15:53, 16 October 2005. This was the edit before all these edit-wars over this section started. I believe it is reasonbly neutral version (i.e. nobody is perfectly happy with it.....). And: if you edit the least bit of this intro: well, then I´m out of this article. You can clean up your mess, all by yourself (If you don´t get Palmiro ..or others to help you.) But you can rest assured: if you as much as move/remove a single letter of the " Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs"-section, or the "Modifications to Citizenship and Entry law" or "See also" and "External links": then expect it to be reverted. I will not sit by and idly watch you destroy perfectly wellwritten/wellsourced information. And if nothing more is done on this article: well; it will be as if you had not brought the info here at all: it is so confused and contradictory that people will ignore it. (And then go directly to the part that is crystal clear: the "Discrimination"-part. If that is the way you want it; well, so be it. I have better things to do on Wikipedia than fighting such &%$#*@$% as this. Think about it. Huldra 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (And now I see that you have reinserted all the double inf. I removed from the "Population"-section!! LOL! Why don´t you reinsert all the double inf. we took out from the "Location"-section, too?? Come to think of it: I think I´ll do it myself....- Nobody, and I mean nobody will read these first section the mess they are in now. And that is perfectly ok with me.......they will go straight to the "Discrimination"-section.....Anyway: I will do what I have told you, then it is up to you if you will edit these first sections alone, or not.)

Question

I saw your entries on the RfA page. I want to ask you something honest (and I'm not trying to be strange): We have communicated extensively over the past few weeks over articles, and you have formed an opinion of me. Let us forgot about the RfA, I'm just really curious about something: What do you think is my POV? If somebody asked you "What is Ramallite's POV?" What would you say? Truthfully? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see. First of all, you are the one who keeps saying that I support the "right of return", I never said that I want all refugees to return to Israel. Second, I don't see how I personally claimed to be a victim in the barrier article (which is still a big mess), can you please show me? Third, whatever aspects you brought up in that article, I tried to include them, including Um-Al Fahm residents being happier and Jenin being calmer, but you reverted them (with no real explanation other that I support a one state solution which has nothing to do with the article or my beliefs). There is no official Palestinian source (whether NGO or PLO) that supports the wall, and that is what we have to represent in Wikipedia. Of course Jenin residents are calmer because there are no more incursions, but that doesn't mean life is heaven now, because now they are stuck behind a wall, and your Jerusalem Post article says this. The only thing I have told you is that the outcome of the conflict is in Israel's hands, and Israel is making it impossible to have two peaceful states. I support the people of Israel, I don't support the government policies of Israel, and the wall is one of those policies that is making the two-state solution impossible because of obvious reasons (it is part of a network of controls, which includes the wall, the checkpoints, the major checkpoints, and the IDF presence on both sides of the wall, as well as the settler presence of both sides). I'm afraid you are just intent on misunderstanding me, and misinterpreting my positions. I am very sorry for this, you seem like a nice guy, but you have taken an adverse position towards me because I don't love Ariel Sharon (I know you don't either, but you think I should!). Ramallite ^(talk) 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My answers to you are not the same as my editing of articles. I asked you to show me how "my victimhood" as apparent in actual articles. If you cannot do that, I cannot take you seriously. Again, all Palestinian official sources (NGO or PNA) do not support the wall. If I want to claim that Palestinians support the wall, that would be my own original research. Lastly, if we are not victims, what are we? Are we the victors? Do Palestinian tanks patrol the streets of Tel Aviv? Did Palestinians build a fence around Tel Aviv to protect the people of Nablus from your soldiers and your tanks? Do we control all exit and entry of Israelis into the country? What on earth are you talking about? You are just not serious. Sorry. If you can't demonstrate how I portray personal "victimhood" in articles, instead of stating Palestinian sources (and not just your Israeli or UN maps), then you are being very discriminatory against me, and I reject such humiliation. If I don't show the Palestinian POV in articles, that I am not abiding by the NPOV policy. I am here to make sure that all POVs are properly represented. You only want the ones you like, while I want all, even the ones I don't like. This is why I tried to also edit the section about "effect of the wall on Israelis" but you reverted it without reading it. Your accusations against me are just disingenuous, and I'm terribly disappointed in that. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - you have cast your vote, so thank you for that. Now please stop harassing me on my own talk page. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello - I noticed your posts on the request for adminship page in which you reported problems with User:SlimVirgin in response to a post I made asking her not to make bad faith sockpuppet allegations without proof. It also appears you were attacked by her in this same discussion as a "difficult editor" - something that arguably violates WP:NPA. I am currently in a contentious arbitration case against this user at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin. Unfortunately, the persons on the other side of this case are all admins and have widespread influence on wikipedia. Nonetheless, I believe I have documented evidence of multiple major policy violations by the parties in this case & I'm open to input from any editor who has had a similar experience with one or more of them. Please take a moment to review this case and, if you desire, share any input from your own experiences [here. Thanks. Rangerdude 07:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Zeq, you've posted enough to Ramallite's RfA, and your posts are starting to look disruptive and gratuitous. By all means continue posting comments to the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's looking gratutious because you've made your substantive point several times, yet you're continuing to post to the project page rather than on the talk page. By all means carry on there if you have more that you want to say, but as things stand, my guess is that you're upsetting Ramallite for no reason, and making yourself look bad into the bargain, so the wisest thing might be to cool down. I hope you'll consider doing that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried the discussion page but could not edit for some unknown reason so i am doing what you and others have done and editing the project page. Thanks, for you note. Zeq 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't edit on the talk page. Make an edit, save it, and wait for it to show up (it may take a few minutes). There is no one else doing what you've done. A few people have commented more than once, but no one to the extent you have, and it's not often done in RfAs. Please use the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, what you're doing now is getting very close to trolling. I'm asking you again to stop it, and I hope you'll take seriously that you're giving people a poor impression of you, so it's in your own interests to stop. By all means continue the discussion on the talk page which is what it's there for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)