Talk:Palestine/Archive 5

Many historical texts alluded to or quoted in the article are considered by some people to be "Zionist lies". This phrase is be an ad homenim against Jewish people. If there is genuine historical reason to cast suspicion on a document, that's fine by me. Sometimes such suspicion is genuinely warrented. But there needs to be solid grounds for doing so, and not just a general suspicion that "the Jews" control the publication of most of the world's books. RK

Finally, to Michael Tinkler, a bit on the nomenclature. Philistine - Palestine - Falastyn are actually a lot more similar than they seem. In Hebrew, P and F are interchangeable. They are written with the same letter, which is used as an explosive (P) or a fricative (F) depending on its position in the word. Add to this the fact that the Hebrew and Arabic alphabet do not have vowels, so people actually make an educated guess as to how the word should be read. In effect, all three words can be written the same way (though modern Hebrew has found ways of distinguishing between all three).

No one name has ever really been applied to the country. In biblical times, areas were simply named after the mythical ancestor of the tribe that inhabitated the region or the nearest city, and this convention survived well into modern times. There was a tribe of Judah and an eponymous territory, along with Benjamin, Zebulon, Ephraim, etc., for a people that simply called itself Children of Israel (itself a name for Jacob--House of Jacob also appears in the Bible). It could also be called Canaan after a legendary descendant of Noah's son Ham, who was believed to be the forefather of the indigenous peoples. In the article, I spoke briefly about how the Romans renamed the country Palestine after the Philistines. That word originates with the Semitic root P/L/Sh, meaning invader. In fact, it concurs with modern theories that the original Philistines of the Bible invaded the country from the Greek islands shortly before the Israelite invasion.

Sounds like a very accurate description to me. RK

While the Roman name survived in Latin literature, most Christian texts simply called the country the Holy Land (Terra Sancta). This was unacceptable to the Muslims, for whom the foremost holy sites, Mecca and Medina, were located in Arabia. They simply referred to the different regions of the country by the names of nearby cities (interestingly enough, though, they followed the Christian convention in Jerusalem, which they renamed al-Quds, "the Holy"). The Crusaders followed this method by naming their kingdoms Jerusalem, Edessa, etc. It was only in the past 150 years, when Europeans began taking an academic interest in the country, that an "unbiased name" was sought to refer to the geopolitical entity. While some (for instance Kenyon) continued to refer to as the Holy Land, Palestine gradually came back into vogue and was adopted by the local Arab population, albeit with their own pronounciation.

(By the way, as an example of Arab prononciation coming into vogue, it is interesting to consider the West Bank city of Nablus. In biblical times, this was the city of Shechem, which was renamed Neapolis by the Romans. Because Arabic lacks the P sound (Falastyn, rather than Palastyn), the name became Neabolis, which eventually evolved into Nablus.

The Jews considered several options for their new state-in the-making, including Zion and Judea. Judea, however, referred to a specific region of the country south of Jerusalem, while Zion is actually a hill in Jerusalem. The name Israel was chosen to serve as a link with the past and encompass all Jews as the "Children of Israel." Meanwhile, the Palestinians kept the name introduced by the Europeans.

Finally, I think it is one of the little ironies of history that the Romans changed the name of the province they conquered from Judea to Palestine. If they hadn't, the struggle for political hegemony would be between the Jews and the Judeans, and in Hebrew and Arabic both words are identical. Danny

You are right, and the only reason I got involved was that a library journal I was reading mentioned Wikipedia and Nupedia some time last year... When I naturally did a search for Palestine, what I found was clearly unacceptable, nor unbiased, nor objective. I thought it needed improving, so I jumped in and wrote, that was not the best solution, but I was really upset the first time I read the article and the blatant attempt to change history. I appreciate your attempts at correcting the article.

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

Mister/Miss RK. You seem to be the one who rants and raves, all the time. Again you did not read my message correctly, oh well, perhaps you never will, whatever. I said earlier that "Whatever, I put up some entries earlier for URI to check out" which means Uri as in Uriyan, not URL . Here are some of the authors and titles I asked him to check out, you as well, if you want to see the other side:

The Encyclopedia of the Palestinian People by Issa Nakhleh

Encyclopedia of the Palestinians - edited by Philip Mattar

The Arab-Israeli dispute by Don Peretz

Beseiged bedfellows: Israel and the land of Apartheid by Benjamin A. Joseph

Creating Facts: Israel. Palestinians, and the West Bank by Geoffrey Aronson

The Intifada: causes and effects by Aryeh Shalev

Resignation or revolt?: socio-political development and the challenges of peace in Palestine by Cristopher Parker

The Fateful Triangle: Israel, the United States, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky

All that remains: The Palestinian villages occupied & depopulated by Israel in 1948 By Muhammad A. Khalidi

Before their Diaspora: A photographic history of the Palestinians, 1876-1948 By Walid Khalid

The Fifty Years War: Israel and the Arabs By Ahron Bregman and Jihan El-Tahri

Also there are these:

Whose Promised Land? By Colin Chapman

The Middle East Conflict: From 1945 to the present (a bit dated only goes to 1982, but still relevant)

The Origins of the the Arab Israeli Wars By Ritchie Ovendale

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East

Culturegrams [sp] new, published by Gale group.

Read, then talk

Finally I ask you have you ever been there?? Were you born there?? Did you lose family there?? Unless you are there, you canot say what goes on. I say I know because I was there, I saw, and I will never forget... Believe me the truth will come out one day, I may not see it, but my children will bear witness, and if not them their children will. Justice will come, it may take a long time however...And many more lives, tragically. Now do two things: 1) Leave me alone. 2) Address all inquiries at the bottom. I hate the indents...

Joseph (Palestinian Refugee)

First of all, I'd like to propose to divide this (rather large) article into several parts:

Holy Land - tourist and geographic information, holy sites
History of Jewish rule in the Holy Land
History of Palestine between A.D. 130 and 1917
History of Mandatory Palestine
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Palestine - used to redirect to the various sections.

I understand your desire to promote your view above all others, but Wikipedia was not designed for this purpose. In the articles themselves, you must stick only to facts and truths, which must be objective. You can spill your own feelings at a section named "Commentary", however. See neutral point of view for explanation why this is necessary. On my behalf, I can do the same with statements regarding Israeli positions.

As to books, not everything that is written in books is true. So you can't just write Chomsky's opinions in the body of the article and claim them to be objective facts. However you can refer to facts from whatever source you like, provided that you mention the source in the case that the fact is not common knowledge, and you can refer to opinions provided that you disclaim whose opinion it is (e.g. "Noam Chomsky believes that ..."). And of course in the case that you make a far-going statement that happens to offend a lot of people (e.g. "Zionists are liars"), you'd better provide a lot of solid facts to prove your point. --Uriyan

I vote for breaking this monster up the way Uriyan proposes. As for the NPOV issue.... I think we have all broken this one once or twice in the past, but the complete deletion of an entire article and replacement with another is way over the bar. This is not to say that certain other persons who also have an emotional stake in the article are not also guility of lessor crimes against NPOV. This is mostly done by the choice of which information to present and which to not present. I can't go into specifics right now, but I would just like to say is that we all must be careful due to the sensitivity on both sides of this issue. This is serious stuff here - people are dying over two seemingly hopelessly opposing views of history in the Israel and adjacent lands right now. --maveric149

I second Uri's proposal. And I am also willing to read what Jospeh has to offer. But it has to be point by point, with a NPOV discussion on each point. We should not junk the entire article, and we should especially take care not to accept a historical claim just because it can be found printed in a certain number of books. (e.g. i can literally find more than a dozen 20th century books printed in the modern day Arab world which teach that Jews murder Christian babies and eat their blood for Passover - but this doesn't prove that such a claim is true. Rather, it only illustrates the extent to which both anti-Semitism and conspiracy theory has taken over a substantial segement of the Arab public sphere.) Historical claims that counter the prevailing view can be taken seriously, but they need to examined critically. RK

This page is getting way too long -- too long for some browsers to edit at all. Other than the last few posts, is there any talk in here that is currently valid? I would like to create a few talk archives for the out-of-date talk. --mav 11:15 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

Not really (my discussions with Joseph about NPOV are nostalgic, though). I agree to removal of most all discussion to old talk. --Uri

OK that is enough archiving for me now. I thought I could make a logically cut archive 4 but I can't distinguish what of the above is current talk and what is old stuff. Somebody from the above discussion will have to make an archive 4 -- this page still is way too long and does need it. However, this page should now be editable by all browsers. --mav

Here are some rhetorical questions placed in the wrong location (Talk:Palestine/Commentary) by an anonymous poster (67.17.4.96) on April 20. Hopefully the people that talk here know where to place it in the archives; I got lost in them. And anyway, maybe somebody wants to respond to them ^_^. — Toby 20:57 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

I want to know: When the roman general Tito took away the jewish people of Palestina, wht % of them went away from his land. - When the Catholics Kings of Spain (Isabel y Fernando)gave the order to the jewish people to go away from Spain, ¿why most of them went to the actual Turkey, and not to Palestina, both of them were part of the Otoman Empire?. - In 1930, what % of palestinian people were living there and what % of jewish people?. - What were the reasons of the ONU, to created the Stat of Israel. Please send me an objetive answer to: agusnico@adinet.com.uy and if you can, send it in spanish, because as you see my english is very poor. Thank you.

I removed the following 2 paragraphs, since they really belong to the discussion at [[Proposals for a Palestinian state. --Uri

In the Camp David Accords of 2000, that would provide a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed the expansion of Zones A and B to almost 95% of the population and over 70% of the area of West Bank. Sections of East Jerusalem would have Palestinian administration but Israeli sovereignty. However, Yasser Arafat did not agree to these proposals. Critics claim that Barak's offer did not give room for a viable state as the territory would not be contigious but fragmented by multiple Israeli security zones, highways and settlements. As a result, Palestinians would not able to move freely within the territory. In addition, the water division issue, the external borders issue and air space issue remained unresolved. Finally, Palestinians point out that the Israeli settlments in the West Bank are considered to be illegal under international law, and Barak's proposal would allow more than 80% to remain in place.

To this, Israel replies that the freedom of movement by the Palestinians would by guaranteed via a series of corridors and passes (although Israel would be able to close them, in the case of an emergency). As to the questions of water division and external borders, Israel holds it that the total division of the land, which is in all places less than 80 kilometers wide, is an impossible fallacy, and the Palestinian refusal to understand that originates in their desire to manoeuver Israel into indefendable borders.

A map of Barak's proposal may be found here: [1] (http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/maps/finalstatus/2000campdavid.jpg)

Ed Poor suggest this addition:

There is considerable and apparently intractable disagreement over whether Jordan is or ever was part of "Palestine".

This is phrased poorly. Everyone agrees that the nation of Jordan is about 78% of the British Mandate of Palestine. (Only a lunatic or liar could claim otherwise!). The debate is over whether this fact matters at all in the present day dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelies. RK

Thank you. My phrasing was handicapped both by my historical ignorance and my desire to write neutrally on Palestine despite being a strong advocate for my own POV (i.e., Gaza and WB belong to Israel & let the so-called "Palestinians" immigrate to Jordan and try fomenting rebellion there!!). I am trying an experiment to see if someone having such extreme opinions as I do, can nevertheless mediate edit wars. The question is, can I avoid taking sides despite being on a side? --Ed Poor

This section is now redundant, because I copied it into History of Palestine. --Ed Poor

Contents

1 Historical overview

2 What is currently disputed in this article?

3 Palestinian views of the peace process

4 Intro

5 Using the most current definition of Palestine

6 Palestine as an anarchonism

7 Using the most current definitions of words

8 Map

9 Bensaccount's edits

10 Requests for comments on RK

Historical overview

The term Palestine originates with the Philistines, who inhabited the southern coast of the region in biblical times. It went into disuse with the disappearance of the Philistines c.1000 B.C., but was reintroduced by the Romans following the Second Jewish Revolt ("Great Revolt") of Bar Kochba of 132-135 A.D in the province of Judea. Historically, there was a clear distinction between Philistine and Judean territories, however, the Romans adopted the name for the province in an effort to erase any memories of the Judean rebels they defeated: similarly, Jerusalem, Palestine's historic capital, was renamed Aelia Capitolina.

For nineteen hundred years since that time, the region was subject to successive waves of invaders, each of which left some mark on its people and landscape. This can be attributed to Palestine's strategic location at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and its unique religious status as a Holy Land" to the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In 1917, the British captured the region from the Ottoman Empire and called it Palestine, after the longstanding Roman name for the area. This came at a time of renewed interest in the country among the European powers, Arab nationalists, and Jewish Zionists, who sought to reestablish their ancient homeland there. Competition between the latter two groups came to a head immediately after World War II, when Zionist claims gained greater urgency after the murder of almost six million Jews in the Holocaust. The Zionists demanded an independent homeland to absorb the Jewish refugees from Europe; the local Arab population, by now called Palestinians, argued that they played no role in the Holocaust, so the refugee problem should not be resolved at their expense.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition what remained of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Jewish, and one Arab. The proposal was rejected by the Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states but accepted by the Jews. Less than five months later, the Jewish population declared its independence as the state of Israel, and the first of a series of wars rocked the region. Large numbers of Palestinian Arabs fled, while others were expelled from their homes during the fighting in what is called in Arabic the Naqba, or "Tragedy." Israel managed to maintain its independence and even expand its borders, but a new refugee problem, this one of Palestinian Arabs, was created.

What remained of the territories allotted to the Arab state in Palestine was occupied by Jordan (the West Bank) and Egypt (the Gaza Strip) from 1948 to 1967, when Israel occupied those areas in the Six Day War. Since that time, the Palestinians have struggled to assert their own independence, either in all the territories of Palestine or in the West Bank and Gaza. To date, efforts to resolve the conflict have ended in deadlock, and the people of Palestine, Jews and Arabs, are engaged in a bloody conflict.

In current usage, then, the term Palestine describes the geographical area, the geopolitical unit in its colonial boundaries, or, most frequently, the proposed state of the Palestinian people.

Do Israeli Jews really call Palestine Eretz Yisrael? Do they refer to it that way when talking about Palestinian Arabs? Or is this some sort of loaded terminology implying that Israelis don't recognize the existence of Palestine? -- Zoe

Yes, the do call it Eretz Israel, when talking about the geographical entity, rather than the country. It would make perfect sense in Hebrew to say that Eretz Yisrael is home to two states: Israel and Palestine. It is most commonly used when talking about the region historically: the Crusaders conquered Eretz Yisrael, the Ottoman rulers of Eretz Yisrael, the British Mandate over Eretz Yisrael, etc. etc. Danny

Zoe writes "Do Israeli Jews really call Palestine Eretz Yisrael? Do they refer to it that way when talking about Palestinian Arabs? Or is this some sort of loaded terminology implying that Israelis don't recognize the existence of Palestine?"

Many Jews, both non-Israeli and Israeli, always call this land "Eretz Yisrael"; this term literally means "The land of Israel", which is distinct from "Medinat Israel", Hebrew for "The State of Israel". Many Jews have always referred to the land of Israel this way, even centuries ago. This obviously has nothing to do with anyone's views on the Palestinians. Further, Jews have never referred to all of Palestine as "Eretz Yisrael"; they have only used this term to denote the small part of Palestine that was once the Biblical kingdom of Israel. RK

Consider this passage: 'The Romans ruled Judea through local client Kings from 63 BC to 66 CE. In 70 CE the Romans destroyed the northern Kingdom of Judea; they re-imposed the name "Palestina" as a way to humiliate its inhabitants, and to erase the Jewish identity of the land. Despite Roman efforts an encouraging assimilation, many Jewish citizens of the Roman Empire remained attached to the land.'

This - and the parts talking about "independent republic" - are wrong to the exent that they are unthinkingly sticking later concepts on over the top of the ones that were actually there. "Jewish citizens of the Roman Empire"? There were a few, like Paul/Saul, but mostly Jews just weren't citizens. They were subjects, when not slaves or worse. I would venture to suggest that the only Jewish citizens were cosmopolitan enough that they weren't attached to the land at all. Similarly, Rome rarely bothered with symbolic humiliation when it had imposed real physical destruction, and it would have been local misunderstanding that interpreted other things as being done in order to humiliate rather than being merely incidentally humiliating. (Think of "sowing fields with salt", that was done to Carthage; that was experienced as a symbol, but done for a solid reason by its perpetrators.) And so on.

So I think these parts should be rewritten to describe what happened more than what was understood by its inheritors, and understood from a later perspective at that. PML.

I changed "citizens" to "subjects", which might be better. Please make lots of changes to fix these kinds of problems - it sounds like you have some expert knowledge on the subject, so you'll certainly do a better job than me. be bold! :) Martin

Just speaking historically, this paragraph has confused about 1,000 years of history. To start with, there was no northern kingdom of Judea: there was a kingdom of Israel, called the Northern Kingdom because of its location vis a vis Judah (not Judea), which fell to Assyria in 722 B.C. The country was renamed after the Second Revolt (132-135), led by Bar Kosiba (or Kochba), not after the Great Revolt (and I am not even gonna start arguing about when it actually ended: Jerusalem fell in 70; Masada in 73--cases can be made for both). The whole bit about citizens/subjects is misinformed, while the statement "I would venture to suggest that the only Jewish citizens were cosmopolitan enough that they weren't attached to the land at all" is contentious and anachronistic. What does "attached" mean? Why is disattachment "cosmopolitan," except in some contemporary notion? What distinctions are being made between Jewish subjects who lived in Judea (the minority) and Jewish subjects who lived throughout the empire (the majority)? And that is just for starts... Danny

I just found this page and must say I am appalled at the disinformation it spreads. I am not Israeli, not even Jewish, but for the sake of historical accuracy and honesty you cannot say "much of the information on both sides is propaganda" - there are facts, there are historical documents, there are realities you can refer to. The very use of the term "occupied" territories is not neutral: "disputed" is what they literally are. The origins of the name "Palestine" refer to a geographical area, not an ethnic identity or precise population - by admission of Arabs first and foremost. The issue of refugees is also being described as a consequence of Israeli action instead of the policies of those states that so-called "Palestinians" were coming from: Egypt, Syria, Jordan. It wasn't called "transjordan" for nothing. The mere fact that Palestinian Arabs disagree with a fact doesn't make it any less of a fact. Israel was attacked instantly after declaration for no reason at all. In 1967, the war started with an aggression by Egypt based on a lie, that Syria spread as reason for conflict - they alleged they had been informed by Moscow of Israeli plans for invasion. The Arab media continued to lie about the defeat of the Egyptian air forces by painting it as victory, until the Prime Minister was forced to resign when it became evident it wasn't so. We're seeing the same lies today with Arab sources denying that the Baghdad regime has fallen. It is completely inaccurate to paint everything that is being written on the Arab-Israeli conflict as "propaganda". Arabs themselves have pointed out the total misinformation of the Arab media and sources on this. It's not a matter of partisanship or disagreement - if you want to keep this neutral, just keep it as short and succinct as possible with only statements of fact, not skewed judgements implied by use of politically charged language.

I removed "(The name [Palestine] is considered by most Jews to be offensive and anti-Semitic.)" since it is complete rubbish. This is not the opinion of most Jews. Nor was it historically true; consider the enthusiastic use of the name by Zionists during the period 1890-1948. Some even called themselves "Palestinians" before going there. --bdm

Most Jews, many Christians, and some Palestinians argue that despite the British policy of administrating the territories separately, the term "Palestine" should include modern Jordan also.

Some examples of Jews, Christians and Palestinians that argue for this view would be very good.

Anyone who has ever seen a map of the British Mandate of Palestine would fall into this category. How could you ask for proof? It is an undeniable geographical and historical fact that the entire Kingdom of Jordan was once part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Only the most rabid propagandists could claim otherwise. Of course, there is a big difference between is and should: Just because a certain nation is in a given geographical region does not mean that it should (or should not) be in that region. Admitting these geographical truths should have little bearing on current issues. RK 23:00, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

About Eretz Yisrael, isn't it true that even when the ancient Israelite kingdom was at its peak it did not include most of the territory known as Palestine? AFAIK, the kingdom never included the coastal plains, Negev desert or the Acre district. BL 22:46, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is correct. Even the largest extent of the Biblical Kingdoms of Israel never included all of what later would be known as Jordan. That is precisely why the vast majority of Jews have not tried to make this land part of the State of Israel. RK

BL, you are wrong. Israelis do not claim that every Palestinian Arab willingly left on their own due to urgings from their fellow Arab leaders, and Arabs and Western historians do not claim that no such events occured. You are being more Palestinian than the PLO! Plenty of Arabs admit that many Arabs left due to the urgings of Arab leaders. The historical consensus is not as black as white as you make it out to be. RK 23:10, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. NO historical work written in modern times (1970+) claims that any significant portion of the palestinian refugees leaved because of calls from Arab leaders. So far I have only seen a few stray quotes from a Syrian leader and such that backs up the thesis. There is no contemporary evidence for the thesis.

2. Don't say "Israelis" because it is something completely different from the "Israeli position" or the "Israeli government". "Israelis" are for the most part smart people and include historians like Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim which support the Palestinian view.

3. The "Israeli position" is that most Palestinains left because they were called out and that the Jewish military played no significant part in the exodus. Complete fiction and a total ignorance for history, but nevertheless so used that it needs mentioning.

4. Besides, despite my blatantly obvious POV, the paragraph as written does not take anyones side in the issue. If it actually is everyone else against Israel and USA it should be written as that, not Israel versus Palestine. BL 23:39, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All right, then, BL and RK, let's have some answers to the following questions:

How many Arab refugees left Palestine?
More particularly, how many Arab refugees left their homes in ANY PART (and name each part) for another place, whether inside or outside of Palestine?
Why did they go?
- Voluntary decision
- Better job (heh, heh, just kidding)
- Prompted by Arab leaders (names/dates, etc., please)

- Forced by military of a particular nation (e.g., Israel, I guess)
What places did the try to go, but couldn't get to?
- Did any Arab country refuse refugees/immigrants? If so, what reason did they give?

If I had the privileged of reading an article that answered all those questions, I would be a happy man ^_^ --Uncle Ed 14:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here are some statistics I've been able to dig up. The ulimate source is the UNRWA.

How many refugees left & where did they go:

380,000 to the West Bank
190,000 to the Gaza Strip
100,000 to Lebanon
75,000 to Syria
70,000 to Jordan
11,000 to other Arab countries
Total: 826,000

Were did they come from (based on origins of current refugee population):

13.8% Jerusalem disrict
11.2% Haifa district
18.5% Northern district (Galilee region)
22.8% Southern district (Ashqelon & Beersheba regions)
33.6% Tel-Aviv & Central districts (Lyyda & Sharon regions)

I hope this answers some of your questions. - Efghij 21:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to break into you little discussion here - but can this whole issue please be moved to one of the two(!) articles devoted exclusively to it - namely Palestinian refugee and Palestinian exodus? Once the relevant section (and the discussion about it) is moved into one of these articles (actually, I think it's pretty much repeated there already), we can have a link from this article to there. uriber 17:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Uriber; this discussion is out of place here. RK

What is currently disputed in this article?

From reading the discussion I am not clear what issues are still considered non-neutral on the 'Palestine' page. It looks like there used to be a reference to 'Zionist lies' on the page, but it has been removed. If someone could point out to me what is possibly nonneutral I'd like to have a look at it. (I admit I skipped parts of the article.)

Palestinian views of the peace process

-> Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process

I've heard this story a million times:

One story has it that the Roman Procurator in charge of the captured Jewish territories called for historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their history. The historians replied, "the Philistines"; thus, the Procurator declared that the Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Palestina" to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history.

but never saw a source mentioned. Is it in Josephus perhaps? Given that the Romans merely adopted the existing Greek name, the story cannot be 100% true even though some element of truth may be possible. Anyway, I propose to delete this sentence unless a source can be given. --Zero 12:28, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the Jordan sentences: the location of Jordan is described very accurately already. Also the history of the PLO in Jordan is not about boundaries and if it belongs on this page at all it should be in the history section. --Zero 12:38, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If anyone finds the answer to this, could they add it to Hadrian or the article on the revolt? Martin 15:31, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I reverted OneVoice's most recent edit, which was not only propagandistic but stupid. Come on, if you are going to edit this stuff, try and read a little bit about it first beyong 101 Answers to Critics of Zionism. Danny 19:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Never read it. Should I? Been looking at maps recently. During many periods there was not a region called Palestine. The region had other names. Or the region was divided up into other areas. Are you suggesting that all these maps are wrong? Zero's own source cites Palestine at that time being on both sides of the Jordan....Zero has hotly contested this.

If Wikipedia is going to cite boundaries. Then it should note the changes of those boundaries and the lack of any region by that name at times. Its much easier with countries and fixed political boundaries. Regions are dynamic. Just imagine trying to define regions in Southwest Russian border areas. very difficult indeed.

Moving the historical material into the historical section seems an improvement. When discussing the Mandate and how Jordan came to be, a little history is not out of place. The history may not be in accord with present desires. Nonetheless the historic documents remain. OneVoice 20:33, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OneVoice, as Danny noted correctly, your edits are often quite inappropriate. You have the problem of not knowing much about the historical documents that you keep referring to, but your main problem is that you are here with a political agenda. It comes through loud and clear. Take the example of Jordan and Palestine: despite your claim "Zero has hotly contested this" above, I have many times written in Wikipedia that parts of the East Bank were considered to be included in "Palestine" at various times in history. That's a plain fact and nobody has expressed it in Wikipedia with the accuracy that I have. However, whenever you write about it there is always a subtext and therefore the Palestinians should go to live in Jordan. Whether you actually write those words or not, anyone who has paid attention to you can see the subtext clearly. It is unacceptable to use Wikipedia for promoting a political program like that. Again, take, "during many periods there was not a region called Palestine". How do you know? Because you found a map that doesn't show it? Maps tend to show administrative districts; they don't show the traditional names used by the local inhabitants. For that you have to consult an expert on the Arabic literature of the period. Anyway, why does this matter to you? I suspect your motives. --Zero 06:20, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000 an expert, Bernard Lewis is quoted below. Now Bernard Lewis is an historian. An expert in Arabic Liturature is Daniel Pipes. His view of the matter is available at his web site [2] (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/174). The crux of the matter is: Historically, "Syria" (Suriya or Sham in Arabic) refers to a region far larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today. At a minimum, historic Syria stretches from Anatolia to Egypt, and from Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today's political geography, it comprises all of four states-Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon-as well as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and substantial portions of southeastern Turkey. To distinguish this territory from the present Syrian state, it is known as Greater Syria. and Significantly, the view of Palestine as Southern Syria was not limited to Syrians; from the end of 1918, almost all the Arabs of Palestine agreed on this point. Their enthusiasm for union with Syria greatly enhanced the legitimacy of this concept and did much to make it endure. OneVoice 02:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the historical documents speak for themselves, and commentary that I might provide would only detract from the document. As a result, I do not make a display of my knowledge of the period or its documents.

Added the UN and UNRWA definition of refugees, since the refugee section takes up a significant part of this article and play a prominent role in the conflict. Noted the differences in the two. The difference is particularly significant as the years pass. Under one definition significantly fewer refugees remain. Under the other definition, the population of refugees can be expected to grow exponentially. (please check population dynamics text books or a basic text on ordinary differential equation for the exponential statement. this one is a math fact which is more solid that an historical fact.) OneVoice 02:29, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000 good addition regarding on the dependants of refugees as opposed to children that have reached the age of majority. OneVoice 02:39, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the name Palestine, the following are quotations from Bernard Lewis' book __The Crisis of Islam__

Even the name reflect their artificality: Iraq was a medieval province, with borders very different from those of the modern republic ,excluding Mesopotamia in the north and including a slice of Iran; Syria, Palestine, and Libya are names from classical antiquity that hadn't been used in the region for a thousand years or more before they were revived and imposed &mdash again with new and often different boundaries &mdash by European imperialists in the twentieth century; (page xx footnoted as follows)

The first of these names reappeared briefly in the late Ottoman period, when the province of Damascus was renamed province of Syria (Suriye). Its borders were significantly different from those of the postwar republic. The Roman-Byzantine name Palestine was retained for a while by the Arab conquerors but was already forgotten by the time the Crusaders arrived. It reappeared with the establishment of the British Mandate after the First World War. The Roman name Libya was unknown until it was offically reintroduced by the Italians. (page 167, endnote 1).

Bernand Lewis is a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and author of 20 books on Islam and the Middle East. OneVoice 02:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lewis is simply wrong if he says that "It reappeared with the establishment of the British Mandate after the First World War." The Times newspaper (London) used the name "Palestine" regularly from 1789 (the archive I have only goes back slightly further than that), and I don't believe they were the only people on earth using the name. Perhaps he was only refering to the name used for a formal administrative district, in which case he is right. I would agree to a sentence like "The word was not again used as the name of an administrative district until the establishment of the British Mandate after the First World War." --Zero 13:19, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even that turns out to be wrong, see below. --Zero 05:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I would like to see the Times mention from 1789 but if that is not possible we can change it to say "The first known modern use of the term dates to 1789 in the Times of London." I, personally, would hesitate to contradict Bernard Lewis regarding his area of expertise. There are few people that have the "chops" to do that creditably. OneVoice 14:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, it is wrong to mention 1789. That's just how far back the electronic archive of the Times goes. Usage of "Palestine" in English is certainly older. I just found that it appears in the travelogue (1546-1572) of Anthony Ienkinson, published in Richard Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation. No reason to believe this is the earliest either. I don't know how to search older sources efficiently. --Zero 15:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two mentions of Palestine by Shakespeare: The Life and Death of King John , Scene II.1; The Tragedy of Othello the Moor of Venice, Scene IV.3. --Zero 15:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Going back: Mannyng, Robert, of Brunne (fl.1338)] Ye Story of Inglande als Robert Mannyng wryten it fand, & on Inglysch has it schewed. mentions "Palestine".
--OK let's drop the idea that the name was unused until recently, shall we? --Zero 15:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The key to this discrepancy is probably in the phrase "hadn't been used in the region". While the name "Palestine" survived in European literature throughout the middle ages, it was practically forgotten in the region itself, until it was re-introduced by the British following WW1. - uriber 22:42, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that Lewis's words can be interpetted like that. However, he would be again wrong. The name was often used within Palestine itself. I will bring copious proof of this over the weekend. --Zero 12:22, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Arab empire" to "Muslim Empires". There were more than one. The defining characteristic of the empires were that they were composed of the Believers, rather than a particular ethnic group. Arabia had the population available to replace or substantially change the population makeup of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. OneVoice 15:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I made a sequence of major edits about political divisions and the name "Palestine" during the period 6xx-19xx. I still intend to mention the political divisions used by the Ottomans, and also something is needed concerning the major divisions during the Crusader years. My main source for the Muslim period was Le Strange (see the references) who quoted from a large number of contemporary Arab geographers. The fact that there was an administrative district called Filastin in the middle of the 14th century is from a geography text called Muthir written in 1351 (and somewhere else I saw a map of it; I'll try to find that again). The usage of the word Filastin in Palestine during the 16th and 17th century is from Gerber, who notes a "widespread consensus that the concept [of Filastin] disappeared" then proves the consensus wrong with a good number of examples ranging from a 13th century inscription to 17th century Islamic legal texts. Another item I read about but didn't mention is the report "All chronicles call this country the Land of Palestine" made by a Turkish visitor to Palestine in 1648-1650 (Evliya Celebi's Travels in Palestine, trans. St. H. Stephan (Ariel Publishing, 1980), p63). The comment about Arz-i Filistin is from Mandel, page xx. The comment about the educated Arab public in the 19th century is from Porath, p8-9. (Anyway, pre-WWI Arab usage of the word Filastin is something everyone knows.) The note about European usage of "Palestine" is based on Biger. --Zero 05:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some additional examples: In the Cairo geniza is a letter from Rabbi Solomon ben Judah of Jerusalem, dated 1029, that refers to the province of Filastin. (Moseh Gill, "The Political History of Jerusalem During the Early Muslim Period", in Joshua Prawer and Haggai Ben-Shammai (eds), The History of Jerusalem, the Early Muslim Period, 638-1099, New York University Press and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1996). A later one: Rabbi Ashtory HaParchi, who lived in Palestine ca. 1310-1355, wrote twice in his travel book Kaftor VaPerach that the Arabs refer to the town of Ramla as Filastin (cited from the original). A Muslim traveler Ibn Battuta who visited Palestine in 1326 also wrote that Ramla was also known as Filastin (The Travels of Ibn Battuta, ed. H.A.R. Gibb (Cambridge University Press, 1954), 1:71-82). I also found a modern scholarly opinion that this was a practice at that time. Note that Ramla was the capital of the Filastin province for many centuries so it is not so strange that the name became associated with the city. The same happened with Damascus. A modern example is Mexico. --Zero 12:11, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) and Zero 00:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the flag belongs at the top of the page as it represents a political entity that is not the main topic of the article. At most it should go further down the page where the State of Palestine is mentioned. On balance I would leave it out. It would fit much better in articles like Proposals for a Palestinian state. I'm keeping out of this edit conflict though. --Zero 00:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Adding different languages to the intro is useless, and decreases clarity of text. Bensaccount 19:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Using the most current definition of Palestine

"Palestine" is mostly a historic term. Therefore it makes sense that this article will be devoted almost fully to the history of Palestine, with only pointers to the modern entites which are currently within its boundaries. I personally think that this article should be merged with History of Palestine. -- uriber 21:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is used today therefore is current not historic and therefore the current meaning should be given. Bensaccount 21:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is actually not commonly used today, and when it is used (usually by Palestinians), it is usually not in the primary sense covered by this article. -- uriber 21:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Palestinian is a native of Palestine. Therefore every time you use the word palestinian in the current sense you are referring to Palestine in the current sense. If you disagree, please introduce a better definition of a Palestinian. Bensaccount 04:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the contents of this article do not fit the common usage of the word Palestinian today, the contents should be moved. Bensaccount 04:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll correct what I said: The word Palestine is commonly used today, but mostly in historic context: i.e. by historians etc. discussing the history of the region (not its current status). -- uriber 07:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I dont know where else it may be used, but unless you can think of a better definition, it is used to define a Palestinian, therefore it is used today. Bensaccount 16:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how it is used to "define a Palestinian". Anyway this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So definitions are not our first priority. -- uriber 17:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore Palestinians should not be defined in a historic sense. Bensaccount 16:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Palestine as an anarchonism

I think that Palestine is often used today in a non-historic sense. The main example I can think of is that a Palestinian is referred to as a native of Palestine. Bensaccount

Using the most current definitions of words

An article should be defined in the present tense. The history of the subject should be a subtopic.Bensaccount 17:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you apply the same rule to the British Empire article? And how about the Roman Empire? -- uriber 18:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The British empire was the sum of the geographic and political units formerly under British control in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Roman Empire was the Roman state in the centuries following its reorganization under the leadership of Caesar Augustus.

Notice the word was is used because these empires no longer exist. Bensaccount 18:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will correct my above statement:

An article should be defined in the present tense first if possible.Bensaccount 17:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's nearly always "possible" - one can argue that the British Empire still exists - it's just a lot smaller now. The question is what makes more sense, not what's possible. The term "Palestine" was (and still is) used when referring to the region in times where it was either not a separate political entity, or when it existed as a political entity called "Palestine" (1920 - 1948). Today, most of the area previously known as "Palestine" constitutes the State of Israel, and the rest is split between the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and, perhaps Jordan (and maybe parts of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt as well). When referring to the region since 1948, those terms are preferrable, and are more often used, than the anachronistic term "Palestine". -- uriber 20:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What you just said is a start towards a better article about Palestine.

My conflict is more general. I am saying that the most current definition of the article should be used. The meaning of words changes over time. For example the word bacteria used to mean all of prokaryotes. Now prokaryotes are divided into bacteria and archaea. It would be wrong to currently define bacteria as all of prokaryotes. It could however be mentioned how the term came to mean what it does, but this would preferrable be in a subcatagory. Bensaccount 21:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My statements before didn't really express this clearly.

An article should be defined using the most current meaning of the word. Bensaccount 21:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Map

I found a map of "Palestine". I modified to show the borders as according to the website where I found it. (I have modified it much so it is not a copy). I don't know if it is biased or accurate (I don't know anything about the subject). All I know is that it is an attempt to define the borders, and anyone who can tell me the accuracy of it should do so and I will modify it accordingly. Bensaccount 19:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bensaccount's edits

I think the purpose of this page is to help people understand what the word Palestine means when it is currently mentioned. I aim for clarity. Context is important for the article to be accurate, but that requires a good understanding of the subject. I dont have a good understanding of the subject. I will therefore base my information on what I read in this article and possibly a few other websites. (I am not here to research, I am here to clarify). Any bias that I might expose is already present it just isnt clear. Bensaccount 21:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comments on RK

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Let him who is without sin, throw the first stone." --Jesus (quoted by Uncle Ed 13:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC))

A literal interpretation of this Biblical quote would mean the implosion of any form of jusice system. I choose to ignore it. (And it's "cast", not "throw"). Jonesy 14:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about: deconstructing a comment, instead of listening to what it says. What I meant was that a person making a complaint has better standing, to the degree that he is not guilty of what he complains of.

When I was a Sunday School teacher, I encountered a phenomenon which at first stymied me. One or more children would torment another, e.g., Billy -- by poking him, grabbing his things, making nasty remarks and so on. When Billy finally got riled up enough to try to stop them (by hitting them back, grabbing his things back, or making a nasty remark about their behavior), the first children would immediately protest that Billy had broken the rules.

Since all off this took place just outside of my immediate notice, it was impossible for me to determine "who started it". So I tried an experiment. I declared all hitting, grabbing and teasing to be against the rules. (Except for self-defense in the teacher's absence.)

The immediate effect was that the bullies' campaign went on as before, and the "good" children got into trouble -- much to the bullies' glee. But they didn't foresee the ultimate outcome. Can you? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know I cant, but in a case like this should we worry about who started it or how best to stop it? The answer is the latter (not that I know how best to stop it). Bensaccount 16:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, Uncle Ed's response is as patronising as it is irrelevant. I do not believe RK is the victim of a bullying campaign of any sort, or of any other conspiracy. I myself am ignorant of exactly what is going on at Alternative Medicine. I do know, however, that RK is guity of biased editing and reverting articles if they include facts his political philosophy finds uncomfortable. RK is a staunch Zionist, as is evident from a link on his user page. His editing on both the Israel and Palestine articles has had one sole aim - to make them as sympathetic as possible to Zionist and pro-Israeli beliefs. This is against the purpose of Wikipedia, and immensely frustrating to those who have attempted to defend impartiality. Furthermore he is immensely aggressive to those who he disagrees with, and indeed told me to leave Wikipedia for including a fact he was not comfortable with. Victim, I don't think so.

Anyway, I don't think the misuse of a quote by Jesus Christ was particularly helpful. How his purported teaching that given all humans are sinners and guilty of wrong-doing, they should thus refrain from judging the faults of others is relevant to this situation, I just don't know. (Oh by the way, I'd be interested to have a private discussion with you about your views on homosexuality and transgenderism.) Jonesy 16:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a Christian, I don't think Jesus meant than all humans should refrain from judging the faults of others. If you read the entire "stone the girl" story this quote came from, you'll recall the ending. Jesus said he did not "condemn" her, and he told her to "sin no more". It's hard to read into this story an absence of judgment. Jesus is certainly confirming the judgment that adultery is wrong. The novel twist is that he (a) forgave her and (b) gave her another chance. --Uncle Ed 22:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a non-Christian, I should perhaps just point out the teeny weeny little flaw in what you say here. Jesus was the Son of God and thus without sin, so of course he could judge her. His statement against the hypocrisy of mortal Fallen humans - and this is what the quote is about, hypocrisy - does not apply to him, for he is guilty of nothing. Is this not correct? Jonesy 00:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents just about one thing: Even though RK spends almost all of his edits ideologically, I was going to stay out of it. However, I was dismayed by the fact that as soon as the request for comments link was posed, RK came and deleted the user's comments who posted the link so that others wouldn't see it. That is just really bad form - trying to hide negative criticism of one's self. --Rei

From the edits ive seen on Palestinian views of the peace process RK was definately in the wrong but he was clueless about what was wrong with his "contributions". He has convinced himself that he is right and anyone who opposes him therefore must be attacking him because of his ideology.

This is really hard to reason with, but I dont think a ban would make him realize he is wrong. Anyone have any other suggestions on how to deal with him? Bensaccount 20:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If he has deleted valuable material, please post a copy here. I will re-insert it, and we can then see what happens. (I bet you 2 WikiCookies to 1, that I can make the re-insertion stick. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Palestine/Archive_5"