Talk:Israel

	This geography related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes multiple formatting issues needs a great deal more sources and footnotes

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

Torture

I've removed the section the BoN added on torture because it's more complicated than that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems obessed with calling Israel "occupiers" as often as possible

I see that removing the word "occupied" where it is absolutely nonsensical (describing the borders of mandatory Palestine as initially set up) is somehow controversial... What gives? It appears as if there were some need to declare the word occupied as often as possible. Do the US currently occupy native American lands? Does Germany currently occupy Frisian and Sorbian land? Does NATO-presence in Kosovo constitute an "occupation"? And in case you were wondering, the technical term for a territory one claimant says A about and another claimant says B about is "disputed" at least in all cases not involving Jews.... But I digress. Point is: If we (loosely) define occupation as the presence of (foreign) military forces on "your" soil, the Gaza strip and " Zone A" (as per the Oslo agreements) are as of now not in fact occupied. So please explain what exactly you mean by the word "occupied" and don't just recycle anti-Zionist talking points. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the international community, the Palestinian territories are ilegally occupied by Israel: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx --Gh1900 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also part of the UN Security Council definition. Alternately, it's a description that's accurate based on the Six-Day War.MarmotHead (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel maintains effective control of the Gaza Strip through control of the borders, airspace, waters, population registry, and buffer zones. I normally try to avoid comparisons with Nazis, but according to your definition, the Warsaw Ghetto would not be considered occupied on account of the lack of foreign troops stationed in the ghetto and because they were ruled by the administrative council the Judenrat. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, in an Israel-related discussion, some dumb fuck fulfilling Godwin's Law is always around the corner.--Arisboch (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaza is currently occupied - by Hamas. At least if you ask Fatah... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but whose occupied territory? Jordan/Egypt? Or a state that didn't exist in 1967? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's disputed Territory if there ever was one... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The OPT being occupied is one of the most agreed upon facets of all international politics and law and is the specific legal definition of it. Using the phrase disputed territory in this instance is redundant because international law (which makes the acquisition of land by force illegal) makes it clear that Israel cannot be the legitimate owners of the land and if we use it here then we'll have to use it in every circumstance where one nation invades and occupies (or annexes another) because by definition there will be a 'dispute'. --Overhead (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Do tell who the "legitimate" owners of this particular piece of real estate are. Furthermore, something being "disputed" is a neutral fact, it does not matter how spurious the "dispute" may be. China (both mainland and Taiwan) has been "disputed" between the ROC and PRC for over six decades now. A dispute arises whenever two or more entities of international law cannot agree as to the status of some piece of real estate. It could be as simple as that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So, because the OPT were originally conquered by Israel from Egypt and Jordan but if relinquished would probably become an independent Palestinian state (or two), they're not really occupied by Israel. Yup, sounds legit... ScepticWombat (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Germany for one was occupied between 1945 and 1990, because even the West-German government said as much and no international player said otherwise. Berlin however was a different matter. With East-Berlin being claimed as a capital of East Germany and West-Berlin being de facto part of West Germany though the letter of the law said otherwise. The problem about the disputed territories is: There is no letter of the law to follow. There is no Palestinian state and every other nation in existence (but Israel) does not currently claim administration of the West Bank or Gaza. This is of course further complicated by Gaza being ruled (rather unlawfully) by Hamas... I think the term "disputed" is the best we can do while avoiding flame-wars. You may mention the Israeli police and military presence, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's just plain Israel, why are the residents born there, with ancestors there going back centuries not considered Israeli citizens, with all the rights that entails? It's egregiously stupid to pretend it's anything but an occupation. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Politics, I guess... There are third generation "immigrants" who don't have the corresponding citizenship in more countries than I could easily count... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In a related bit of semantic silliness, since at least the late 20th century it has been politically correct to call pickles "sour cucumbers" in Hebrew, since the same word (kavush) refers both to the tight containment used in pickling, and to occupation of a piece of territory. MaillardFillmore (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I dispute your claim. The last "democratic" country I can recall that had this problem on this scale was apartheid South Africa. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Or Germany (although it is rather easy to get the German citizenship and e.g. my parents and me did). Or Japan. Or Switzerland. Or pretty much every country, who hasn't such easy (not that easy, though) obtainable citizenship like Germany...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to cut to the heart of the matter: What do you call an area that has been conquered in a war, hasn't been annexed by the conquering state, isn't recognised by any other state as part of the conquering state's territory, and yet remains under the control of that conquering state? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some weird-ass limbo shit, that only garners attention by politicians, cause there's oil and stuff in the neighborhood?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Without respect to the actual content of this argument, the "look at how disconnected and uncaring I am about this issue" routine works better when you're not actively defending a view about it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[Regarding the "weird-ass limbo shit"] Nope, it's called occupation - especially as Israel has repeatedly denied that even the special status granted to Eastern Jerusalem constitutes annexation. Inventing all kinds of prettifying euphemisms for it simply obscures the actual state of affairs. You could call the territories disputed if Israel actually annexed them - then they would have the same status as other territories claimed by two states and the question of occupation would basically come down to which state received greater international recognition of its claims. But territory that isn't claimed by a state, isn't internationally recognised as part of that state, yet remains under the control of this state, thanks in no small to a massive military presence, can hardly be called anything but an occupied territory. So, the factually and judicially correct term remains "the occupied territories" (or "occupied Palestinian territories" if you want to be more specific, in which "Palestinian" could simply refer to a geographic and ethnic indicator or implicit support for a Palestinian state). Not to mention that it's the far more prevalent term for the territory in question.

Oh and btw, and Germany wasn't occupied until 1990, as both Germanies were recognised as sovereign states (we can quibble whether this should be dated from 1949 or the early 1950s) which had (more or less voluntarily) agreed to the the large concentrations of NATO/Warsaw Pact troops on their respective territories. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The World Court, Red Cross, human rights organizations, US State Department and the international community consider the territories occupied. The only country who disagrees with this is Israel. To say the area is disputed is a gross application of false equivalence because no other country disputes that the territories are occupied. It would be as if some apologist made an article on South Africa claiming that the Bantustans were legitimate according to SA's perspective even though the international community never recognized them. The apologetics for conquering a territory in a war and then building settlements in grave violation of the Geneva Conventions needs to stop, really. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, since everyone is saying it, it is true, then, right (the recognition of borders and states was and is a political question, not a juridical one, since there isn't a World Government or World Judiciary (the World Court doesn't count, since it's just a arbitrary court between countries and no country can be "dragged" in front of the judge like it is with any real court))?? And (almost) every country's borders were drawn and redrawn by war and conquest, (almost) no exceptions.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it argumentum ad populum. The groups I listed above considered the legal implications of control over the Palestinian territories, and consider the territories occupied. Why not? The World Court did have judges sympathetic to Israel on the question of the West Bank barrier, and after going through the legal implications and evidence, consider the entire territories occupied and hold that Palestinians have a right to self determination much like Israel has a right to self determination on the 67 borders. Israel already has 78% sovereignty over Mandantory Palestine. It's a bit kicking dirt in the face to expect Palestinians to have sovereignty in less than 22% of the territory they've been living on for some centuries. And no it's not a political question. You cannot break Geneva Conventions and expect no repercussions. This isn't the 19th and 20th century anymore. You can't use past examples of conquest to justify a current conquest, this is the 21st century where building settlements in occupied territory has long been recognized as illegal and as an act of aggression. Just because you don't like the law people rule doesn't give you the right to break it. Palestinians do not have a right to take Israel's territory in its legal borders. The same applies to Israel. Either you uphold both people's self determination or you hypocritically deny one person's self determination for a political agenda. That's why they have repeatedly called for two states on the 67 borders in order to acknowledge both people's right to self determination. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, are you saying that international law cease to exist when there is no strict enforcement, or any single state doesn't comply with it? Also, you seem to miss the point that international recognition of sovereignty is defined in terms of mutual and broad recognition by other states, so it's actually a relevant point to raise the lack of any such widespread recognition of Israeli claims on the occupied territories (a claim that is rather odd, since, as I've already pointed out, Israel refuses to simply annex the territories).

The parallel between the World Court and any real court is also a false equivalence because it fails to recognise the fact that there's not a world government and thus the international level doesn't necessarily work in a way similar to the national one. This also seems to end up arguing that the lack of a world government and the fact that international law typically requires a state's consent in order to be applicable to it (though there are exceptions) means that international law doesn't really exist.

Also, as ChrisAmiss pointed out, an appeal to the fact that in the past it was seen as a-okay to nick other people's land isn't really a very good argument in favour of continuing this approach. Quite aside from the quite nasty consequences of such a "might makes right"-logic, humans have done lots of shit in the past that we now (and I think rightly) deplore and I suspect that Israel both is and ought to be extremely aware of this... For instance, I doubt that Arisboch is applauding the Russian conquest (by proxy, so to speak) of Crimea, yet that has more legal window dressing to back it up (a dubious referendum and a formal annexation) than anything in the occupied territories, not to mention that it reversed a far more recent territorial loss as Crimea had only been Ukrainian since 1954. But perhaps I'm wrong and Arisboch is just as sanguine about the Russian "reconquista" of its "traditional lands" as about Israel's? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A law that is not enforced might as well not be there at all, it would make no difference and a "law", where both parties have to agree upon it's enforcement is a treaty, not a law (unless you redefine the meaning of "law", when we're talking about "international law", cause there is no World State with the Three Branches (executive, legislative and judiciary)). Recognition is basically "might is right" or, rather, "horse-trading makes right" (Taiwan). The sad fact is, that in international relations, it's still basically "might is right", just clothed in nice words (about Crimea, how recent has a loss of land to be, before it becomes set in stone? 50 years? 60 years? 80 years? 100 years? 2000 years? How long will Russia have to hold in to it, until everyone just accepts it beyond some token "non-recognition"?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If no part of Germany was occupied during the era of (roughly) 1945 to 1990, why than was there a Besatzungsstatut (roughly "occupation treaty") signed between Adenauer and the Western allies in 1955? Furthermore the allies did reserve (and in some cases exercise) a number of "special rights" with regards to Germany. Among them the prison for Nazi war criminals that was maintained jointly by all allied powers or the legal fiction of joint administration of Berlin (which nonetheless led to the odd consequence of all people in West Berlin being ineligible for German military service). West-Germany was occupied if ever a place was. The fact that they themselves agreed with said occupation makes it all the more evident. And regarding the argument of the international court: You kind of contradict yourself. First you claim it is a court like any other and than you say it isn't. And of course nations cannot be judged the same way in courts as people are. That's just the very nature of it. If a single person does not accept a verdict and goes on a rampage, sooner or later (s)he will be caught and punished (unless it is a really crappy country like Somalia where courts don't matter). If I rule a country and my country does not accept the international court, the only ones who can even begin to try and enforce the verdict are other countries. Take the example of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. They got into a minor debate over a road next to the Rio San Juan (the border between both countries). Nicaragua sued Costa Rica in front of the Central American Court (a minor international court). The court found in favor of Nicaragua, but Costa Rica basically said "Fuck you" and still does not comply with the verdict. However, Costa Rica is currently suing Nicaragua in front of the international court (in the Hague) over some trees Nicaragua cut down on a disputed island that - according to google maps at the time - may well have been Nicaraguan territory after all... International law is not at all unlike small kids. And the only thing you can rely on is childish tit for tat. US citizens for example are fingerprinted and retina scanned upon entry to Brazil. Why? Cause Brazilian citizens undergo the same treatment in the US... Yes. It's that childish. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

International law and laws of the conduct of war aren't perfect, but they're worthy liberal standards to abide by for a better, more peaceful world. International law hasn't always failed as pessimistic as the above two posters seem to postulate. Recall that the Bantustans received no recognition and South Africa eventually became an pluralistic society. Indonesia ended up withdrawing from East Timor after a 24 year occupation after harsh criticism of its occupation. Iraq, with some military fiangling admittedly, was forced to withdraw to Kuwait after the UNSC allowed for the operation. Libya had a no fly zone and intervention implemented to protect civilians. Again, it isn't perfect, but with the low amount of deaths in warfare today compared to the earlier world wars and greater recognition of people's independence movements in the 20th century, abiding by international lawn for principle sake isn't a bad thing. I don't accept the argument of might is right, because I doubt the above posters would be okay with the hypothetical of a Palestinian army becoming well-organized enough to defeat Israel in a war, and occupying and annexing its territory. Might makes right after all. If that would not be morally acceptable, the same standard should be applied to Israel's occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Most, if not all of these examples were not motivated by any "international law", but by countries and/or governments doing, what they profit off and using international law as a fig leaf.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Very debatable. The Gulf War I will concede was about the Gulf states wanting to maintain stability, and Saddam's invasion threatened OPEC relationships with the US/EU. The war in Libya wasn't really about profits because Western companies flocked in after sanction on Qaddafi were lifted in 2003 or so, as Juan Cole explains here, source:http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html. The withdrawal of Indonesia from East Timor was more brought about by public pressure and Clinton deciding enough was enough. South Africa had sanctions placed upon it because, well, it was probably the only country by then that was explicit about racial segregation long after it was seen as extremely immoral. Investing in South Africa was seen as consolidating an immoral regime and politically untenable, so I would say that owes more to public pressure than profit. In Israel's case, the EU may or may not enact sanctions on the settlements, so it's not out of the realm for companies to decide investing in settlements is a bad idea for argument's sake. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this nonsense??

A militia is a completely neutral term and most self-defense groups are such. Just cause some journalists are being stupid doesn't mean, we have to be.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, leave militia in there - it is an appropriate description. Also, we don't need little quips which attempt to justify blowing up the King David Hotel. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The question "Why would anybody blow up the King David Hotel?" is a legitimate one. We would be remiss if we didn't hint towards possible motives. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It already did. But I have now made it very clear. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No. That does not make it clearer. "Has to be seen in that context" is not the same as "is perfectly okay because of this" but rather "would not have happened if circumstances had been very different" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Irgun decided that Britain was the enemy and blew up the King David Hotel because the British were headquartered there. What could be clearer than that? "Has to be seen in that context" hints at justification of a terrorist act.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Only if you want to see it like that. And given that the Brits were sending Shoah survivors back to camps in Germany at a time contemporary to the attacks, does merit mentioning. Whether you reject the means Irgun took (which I do) or not. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete before, added clearer, accurate info

This article needed more sourcing, as well as more data showing that, e.g., the White Paper plan was not a matter of Arab intransigence any more than it was of Zionist objections to immigration and other restrictions, which led to Zionist terrorism. The British Government material is good sourcing for that. Moreover, the first paragraph had been opaque on the matter of the capital and the controversy surrounding it. I fixed all that and can't understand why there would be objections, but please set them forth. Also, the matter of Africans/blacks in Israel is not as rosy as the previous version would have it. Truth does matter.---Mona- (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does racism exist in Israel? Of course it does. Is it significantly worse than in any other Western nation? No. A majority of Israeli Arabs (even those opposed to Zionism and pretty much everything Jewish about Israel) say they would rather live in Israel "then any other state in the world". So the discrimination (which does exist, no doubt about it - as a matter of fact the discrimination Jewish Arabs experienced in their early years in Israel is a major factor in the rise of Likud) can't be all that horrible. In fact, most Israeli Arabs say they would rather stay Israeli citizens than become citizens of some Palestinian state, if such were ever established. Furthermore, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, for all intents and purposes. Yes, some embassies are in Tel Aviv, but all governmental institutions, including the Knesset, the Supreme Court and the dwellings of the President and the Prime Minister are all in Jerusalem. And as for the white paper: Jews were being murdered at the time all over Europe. The British knew that, the Jews knew that and the Arabs knew it as well. The white paper constitutes proof positive that all who supported it were accessories to mass murder. No Jew in their right mind could have supported the white paper. And the Brits knew that. But they wanted Arab sympathies and (rightly) thought that the Jews would come to some grudging cooperation with them no matter what. The Jews simply had no alternative. And the few who took an alternative view have been called bad names by you or someone who holds similar opinions to yours. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Some embassies being all of them. Jerusalem may be the de facto capital of Israel due to its own actions, but the rest of the world disagrees legally. Monas version is more accurate to this point than yours, and would be a better base for improvement. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to get some compromise going so Avenger wouldn't feel his concerns were being ignored. But Paravant's wording re: the capital really is the best. As for Avengers' points about the White Paper, again he mistakes citing historical facts with documentation as "calling people names." The British should never have been "given" Palestine by the League of Nations to "oversee" and divvy up. But they were, and they were trying to socially engineer a state of affairs pleasing to both Zionist and the indigenous Arabs. Unsurprisingly, this failed miserably, but the fault for that is not remotely all to be laid at the feet of the Arabs! Especially when Jewish immigration illegally exceeded the White Paper quotas and the Zionists went totally terrorist. Those facts are part of history.---Mona- (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears Mona was not aware that the name calling referred to some user somewhere calling the "Stern Gang" (I will use the term the British used to insult them as it is more widely known thaen their own term) fascist and many other things. They were in fact the only ones who said "fuck the war, let's fight the British and if we have to ally with the Nazis to win, so be it". The Nazis of course rather preferred to Antisemites like al-Houseini on their side instead of Jews... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"The" Zionists... Well, some Zionists regarded actions by the British that were knowingly and willingly endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews to be worth fighting against. The majority of Zionists at that time believed there still to be enough common ground with the British. You know exactly what happened to the Jews that tried to immigrate to Mandatory Palestine "illegally" who failed. May I ask whether you agree with Viktor Orbán's policies vis-a-vis the current refugees from Syria? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

42.---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's one answer. Another one, asked by a very rationally thinking person, a physicist who was once my boss, came out of the blue, when I called him and said I had a question. Over the phone without hearing the question he asked: „And what is the answer to the question?“. The answer, in the spur of the moment was „It's all for nothing“. We were both joking, but he agreed. Forgive me for telling anecdotes, but this pretty much summarizes my opinion of the process here. The response to the article's incompleteness seems to have been to cut it down without any good reason. How is that making it more complete? The cuts appear calculated to slant it. Please don't sow more than you or anyone else would like to reap. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk)

I'll let the substantive reasons given in the FR speak for themselves, when given. Some of the simple cleaning up didn't merit stating other reasons. Avenger didn't offer rationales or engage in discussion of edits on this talk page today, so things went forward without him. And Sorte, I am editing wiki articles; this hardly calls for portentous cautions about reaping and sowing!---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

They do speak for themselves. It's called tilting the balance in one's favour, apparently having this as a job. But you are obviously going to make it a project to ignore any calls for not going on. Reaping and sowing was a reference to your earlier activities and you were by no means blameless. Nobody really liked that. Or did you? Anyway, since you will not pay heed to reason, I suggest that you demolish the Israel-article to your heart's content and then insert a few pages of material about Israel here. It probably was next on your list anyway. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, Sorte, this elliptical, oblique communication style of yours is definitely not my thing. It's all far too fraught and Baroque -- if you can't just directly speak your piece, well, then we will not be able to communicate. I'm editing RW articles where I feel competent and comfortable in my knowledge base. If you see more to it -- something vaguely sinister -- well, I can't help you.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So to get your position on the record you neither care for the Jewish refugees of the past nor for the Syrian refugees of the present enough to even dignify the question with a significant response? That's a new low, even for you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was being clear, taking your word for for it that you are intelligent, well-read, educated and hard-working. OK, for your piece of mind I'll boil it down. When all is said and done you are pursuing a vendetta driven by hatred. That is never good. For the source of that, see your own description. You seem to be able to edit RW almost full time in the secure knowledge that nobody will be able to compete with your output and single-mindedness for the time being. I couldn't make any substantial contributions in this field, because I have, on the whole, different interests and my spots of expertise would interest nobody here. Still, one day we will both be forgotten and by some roll of the dice somebody in your position but with opposed views will reedit the whole thing. Then repeat. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: If anybody else was not clear about my meaning I would ask them to do me a favour and say so. A simple „understood“ or „Not understood“ will do. Thanks in advance. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just adding two quotes, which should be impossible to misunderstand.

„The response to the article's incompleteness seems to have been to cut it down without any good reason. How is that making it more complete? The cuts appear calculated to slant it.“

„They do speak for themselves. It's called tilting the balance in one's favour, apparently having this as a job.“

Is it possible not to understand this? You are being evasive, when claiming not to understand. As for any verbal baggage, I don't claim to be a great writer, but a widely read lawyer should have no problem understanding any of it. Or perhaps there is a lack of intelligence. I don't personally believe that you are not widely read, I don't believe that you are not a lawyer and I don't believe that you do not possess an intellect. And don't let the double negatives confuse you. What remains is that you willfully claim not to understand, when in fact you actually have. If that is not the case, then some of your assertions (being a lawyer, being widely read, being intelligent) must be questioned. (By the way, being widely read is not really the same thing as being well-read, just as having gone to school is no guarantee that one is educated.) I can be no clearer. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"I can be no clearer." That's unfortunate. What you and Avenger both lack the honesty to forthrightly state is you want facts suppressed if they do not work to the advantage of Zionism and/or the State of Israel. To be conversant with the facts and establish them is to hold "hatred." Actually, this showcases terrifying hatred. As does this. You were saying?---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a downright lie that you have not understood. If you haven't, you're an idiot, and idiots of that scale are not comon. You are still playing games. I have been honest. You have been devious when it suits you. And you have cursed like a sailor when you were in the mood. I've never said f***, you have on many occasions. On the whole you eare not taking the high road and you are morally no better than any of us. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Yeah, I do on occasion use the word "fuck." And "bullshit." As well as "bitch" and "asshole." These are not the hallmarks of hatred, however. It's just how I sometimes roll. Big (ahem) fucking deal!---Mona- (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And yet again you split hairs and avoid the main thing. The real questions are two. Are you an idiot? I believe not, so it follows that you are being deliberately obtuse. And your honesty, well, who are you to claim honesty in view of many statements, but you needn't look any further than this thread? But you have already answered this yourself. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See you later, I suppose. Leaving in disgust for the moment. You may have been schooled, but you are not educated, you are not well read and most of all, you lack civilization in the entire meaning of the word. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been reduced to simply hurling (many and long) insults, Sorte. Even without the word "fuck" in the mix that's hardly indicative of clear thinking. ---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I feared Sorte's points are correct and it has been due time someone utters them, but it does not gets us closer to Mona answering any of our questions. It appears the one who wants to "suppress" things that "don't suit her" (like the editing privileges of myself and Arisboch) is neither my humble self nor Sorte Slyngel. But that may just be the Zionist occupants of my brain talking. After all, logic has often been associated with Jews Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: I wasn't hurling insults. I stated the obvious. I'm sorry you can't defend yourself rationally, but that is your problem. As for swearing, that is does not in itself detract from content, but it does show a lack of culture. Get well. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: I forgot to ask: Why is it so difficult to answer simple question with a „Yes“ or „No“? I'm rather sure I know the answer, but I'd like to hear it from you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Avenger, you lost your ability to freely edit pages at a whim by being a massive tool, and Arisboch because he would not stop edit warring. It had nothing to do with your views, so stop that nonsense, jesus christ. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I lost my sysop rights, so that Mona could turn Zionism into shit without any significant opposition.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, sure thing; I'm "uncultured." So be it. As are a number of other folk here. It's just awful, and Sr. Mary Ignatius is gonna rap our collective knuckles with her fucking ruler! Now Sorte, what are these sincere questions of yours you feel are in urgent need of my answering? Or were you truly wanting me to answer whether I am an idiot?---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Evading again. If you truly have not understood, then you are an idiot. I don't believe you are which makes you dishonest. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, I have not seen any serious inquiries addressed to me by you -- certainly not ones I have not already answered. If you have them, please (re)state them.---Mona- (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Patience, you'll have them. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I already had them and had somehow failed to answer? Just direct me to where these "unanswered" questions were already posed here.---Mona- (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you two going to actually suggest actionable changes to the article, or just continue tone policing and what I believe is some hybrid of demonization/Danth's Law/loaded language/style over substance?Whatever it's called when you just repeat "I'm sorry you're so stupid" without actually ever making a logical point...

Read, Krytenkoro, and please sign. I'm taking a break for reasons of health. I'll be back (no joke intended). This has been a sustained analysis for my part, however you may understand the words. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I did read, and more than half of your posts in this section are "are you still beating your wife"-isms about Mona answering your two super-special questions. I can't find any actual, demonstrating-that-you're-discussing-in-good-faith proposals to revise the article in this entire section. If you're referring to a suggestion elsewhere, simply repeat it instead of going on and on about how erudite and shiny you are.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Krytenkoro, I did make several changes to the article and then the objection Sorte raised, well, you can see they mostly have to do with claims that I'm full of hate and won't answer questions, and such. I've been willing to entertain sincere questions but not most of the loaded ones s/he's been posing. If s/he's done, I assure you, so am I.---Mona- (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for the unintended insult -- by "you two", I was referring to Sorte and BoN, whose entire contribution to this section seems to be "Mona is a racist asshole and probably kicks puppies" instead of actually providing point/counterpoints relevant to revising the article.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@KrytenKoro: My questions and statements have not been about „Are you still beating your wife?“ They should obviously be „Why are you still beating your wife?“. I suggest you read Mona's description of herself on her own talk page. As for me and Avenger, I'd think Arisboch should be insulted being left out. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just to put this as clearly as I can:

1. Even in the fevered universe where your accusation against Mona is actually correct, her alleged racism and your explanations for it aren't going in the bloody article, so harping on them is an absolute derailment.
2. I'm not gonna read her talk page, because that has nothing to do with this article.
3. Arisboch isn't busy being a time-wasting prick on this talk page. I have no (fundamental) problem with those who are pro-Israel, I have a problem with people being disingenuous fuckwads pretending they are contributing while purposefully wasting everyone's time.

PS: Just asking: Where have I gone on about „how erudite and shiny“ I am? Just asking. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are three. Most of it is in the theme of "You're not as intelligent, well-read, educated, or hard-working as I am, and also I am friends with very smart people and we do smart people things together." In other words "You should do what I say because I'm very smart, trust me, even though I'm not actually engaging in discussion or rebuttal of any substantive, relevant claims."

• "As for any verbal baggage, I don't claim to be a great writer, but a widely read lawyer should have no problem understanding any of it."
• "I thought I was being clear, taking your word for for it that you are intelligent, well-read, educated and hard-working. OK, for your piece of mind I'll boil it down."
• "That's one answer. Another one, asked by a very rationally thinking person, a physicist who was once my boss, came out of the blue, when I called him and said I had a question. Over the phone without hearing the question he asked: „And what is the answer to the question?“. The answer, in the spur of the moment was „It's all for nothing“. We were both joking, but he agreed."

Please, for the love of God, either shit or get off the pot.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify:

1. What, specifically, do you feel should be added/removed/revised within the article? Please provide samples of how the new write-up should be phrased.
2. What sources do you have to support your suggested version of the page?
3. What makes those sources more reliable than the ones being used now?KrytenKoro (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Another one is unable to comprehend. I've never boasted about anything except perhaps having seen a lot of things before. My writing style really is influenced by the way I write in Icelandic. If you do not understand then I should change the style and you should think harder. As for my English it is just what I learned, no more no less. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, are you able to see how you writing an entire post about how I'm "too stupid" and your English "is great" is totally irrelevant to making changes to this article? That's the point that I've been driving at, which you seem to be avoiding. You've spent a lot of time talking about how awesome you are and how much your ideological opponents suck without once saying something relevant to writing the article. I pointed it out above and you simply replied with more of the same, apparently unaware of the irony.

You don't like the article and you don't like Mona. We all get that. What are you actually proposing be done about that?KrytenKoro (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Just a short one to clarify things for KrytenKoro, who seems to have come out of hibernation, although on the northern hemisphere it's the wrong time of the year.

• Point One: I have intelligent friends. Sue me.
• Point Two: I was trying to be clear, but Mona tries hard not to understand. That is her problem and yours.
• Point Three: I tell stories. I have stated so plainly. What is wrong with that?

Regarding the toilet, I'd like to suggest that you go back there whence you came. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never said my English is great. On the contrary. I can write what I know in English, I can write what I want in Icelandic, with a refernce to Antti Tuuri. Please go back to sleep. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, Sorte, I decidedly do not "have a problem." No, the problem is that you can't offer any substantive objections to my edits and are waxing all oblique, insulting and ultimately, very silly. That I do understand.---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're committed to derailing discussion even when explicitly asked to be on-topic. Great. To be absolutely clear about this: I do not give a shit whether your English is good or not. I am not criticizing your fluency, I am pointing out that you've spent more time congratulating yourself about your fluency and other things, than actually discussing relevant topics, and asking you if you have anything substantive to contribute. Your repeated refusal to actually clarify what, in particular, you want the article to say makes it clear that you have no desire to engage in good faith.

Those who are regulars here: what's the preferred protocol with trolls like this? Hat the section, block the user, ignore and let him sputter, what?KrytenKoro (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been oblique and I haven't congratulated myself. You're definitely reading too much between the lines. But to give an actual oblique quote: „Asellina and her employees vote.“ Graffito found in Pompeii. Get off your horse. Cheers. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorte hadn't done anything meriting a block. Ignore him/her. That's what I intend to do from now on after realizing s/he is full of bad faith bullshit. (The naughty word will cause Sorte to clutch his/her [cultured, no doubt] pearls!)---Mona- (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A perfectly neutral statement. I'm a he just as you are a she. My anatomy does indeed make it easy to grab my pearls, but I refrained. So do not worry. As for being cultivated, well, have you shown anything resembling culture? I honestly thought we had made peace in good faith, but then you proved to have been less than honest. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I read the Israel article with great attention just now. I must admit, that it seems to be OK as it is. Further additions don't seem to be required. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the white paper did not "work"

Is a good thing. The unfortunately makes it sound like we are terribly sorry that the Mandate of Palestine provided shelter refuge and a save haven for the Jews that did manage to get there. The white paper was probably one of the most heinous pieces of British foreign policy. In a sense even worse thaen Munich 1938, because in Munich it was at least genuine concern for peace that motivated the British government. The White Paper was published with eyes wide open to the coming disaster and the British response was basically "Ah fuck 'em, we need the Arab support more thaen some Jews". Fighting against the White Paper was a noble act in and of itself, the fact that not all actions undertaken against it notwithstanding. If those who fought the White Paper were terrorist, what should we call the Arab murderers of 1936? Civil libertarians? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The British occupation was dictated by concerns for their empire of course and they really were scared, wavering and subservient to the Arab elite's interests. Not that they cared either way about individual Arabs or Jews. With exceptions, see this guy who at least had the courage of his convictions. Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Shifting the blame

I thought I had removed the word „Jewish“ from the passage about the White Paper, which had as I recall been altered again to „Jewish political violence“. Leave this be as it is, please. It is not the prerogative of any one person to monopolize articles, even if they have stated that wish. Talking about „Jewish political violence“ alone is trick to shift the blame to one side only, and not a clever on at that.Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The British left Palestine specifically because of Zionist, Jewish terrorists. Which is to say, the terrorists got what they wanted. It's an example of terrorism working.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stay away with your rhetoric and partisanship. There are two sides to everything and you are not nearly as clever as you think, although that comes as a surprise only to you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're the one trying to shift the blame, Sorte. Away from Zionist extremists that is. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Sorte, see all the documentation in the Zionism article in the "Zionist terrorism" section. The British SAID they left because of Zionist terrorism. Zionistst themslves admit that. It's all documented at the Zionism article.---Mona- (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So there was no Arab terrorism? The British never had a grip on things as history shows and they usually wrote history to suit themselves. The mandate was not theirs anyway. But racism should not have a home here, as you should know - proud as you are of your gray stuff in your skull. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There was Arab terrorism, but it was less and not what drove the Brits out. Zionists made it impossible for the Brits to govern. They sent bombs to Brits in Palestine and in the UK. (Indeed, they apparently sent one to Harry Truman as well.) Zionists AGREE their terrorism got the Brits out. Again, see the terrorism section at the Zionism page.---Mona- (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(ec)„We“ don't agree? You're not royal in any sense of the word. Whatever „Zionists“ say, they too have their reasons for rewriting history, and just as with „Anti-Zionists“ they are a religion with many sects. You seem to belong to the more violent sects of your creed. Nobody speaks for them all, even if you wish to do so and even if people on all sides have tried to. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, 142.124.55.236 is not part of me. And Chris also has not agreed with your edits. Now, will you listen to yourself?! You are arguing against history that both the Brits and Zionists agree upon because, blah blah reasons blah blah. That's deranged.---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Brits so that to blame "the Zionists", "The Zionists" do that to take the credit of "freeing Eretz Israel from the British" and you of course agree with that, cause it gives you one more way to take a shit on Israel or "The Zionists™"--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I had your comment on your talk page in mind. As for deranged, I have seen a number of those and you fit right in. You have at least demonstrated megalomania. And here you show your respect for others. „blah blah reasons blah blah“. You're absolutely right. Reasons are not your forte, and neither is thinking. I do accept that you can absorb and memorize, but you don't seem to be able to do anything with your acquired knowledge. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant your edit comment. That doesn't make you any less in the wrong. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, this consensus as to facts is not what the Brits and Zionists say it is because blah blah reasons blah blah reasons. I see.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

because blah blah reasons blah blah reasons. I see.- -Mona- Stop pretending, as if your Hamas view of history is anything like fact, you fuckface.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sorte has an accurate analysis of the conflict with regard to terrorism. And this is speaking from evidence. I'll quote historian Benny Morris on the events in 1948: "Two of the three major Arab massacres of Jews...were revenge attacks triggered by Jewish atrocities against Arabs. On the other hand, Jewish atrocities against Arabs...were generally unconnected to or lacked any previous, direct Arab provocation". That is not to justify violence. However, if we're taking a serious view of history, we can't leave other factors go unnoticed. As far as terrorism in the 1930s, Benny Morris in Righteous Victims also merits quoting when it came to targeting civilians indiscriminately, such as how Arab violence and terrorism in the mid 1930s "triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict". Thus, Zionists militias first targeted civilians indiscriminately. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Another round of victim blaming, as always with a Jewish name on the label as a nice form of tokenism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be called Zionist political violence rather than Jewish political violence personally. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Chris: GMTA -- I had already changed it to " Zionist terrorism."---Mona- (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)