Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Palestine (region). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

OK, not bad, but how about where you have 'Arava valley' also should we add the more common name of the 'Jordan Valley' as some people may not know what you mean by 'Arava valley' (if that is the name for the 'Jordan Valley'. We have to treat the material and content from the perspective that someone may not know much about it, so the intro. should be plain and easy to understand without complicated matter. Also 'Lebanon Mountains' I do not think is a very good geographic name, perhaps something like: from the north by the 'Sea of Gallilee', the 'Golan Heights', and the 'Bekaa Valley'. Also the correct Arabic would be 'EL Falastyn', also like 'EL Lebnan'. or 'EL Ourdan' (for Jordan). Always 'EL' for 'the' when describing a geographic area. As for the more detailed descriptions, (the animal/plant life, natural deposits etc.) I think that that should be later on in the article, prhaps under natural resources and animal plant life sections. The More general geographic explanation of the area, should be at the beginning with an explanation about how it may be considered in modern day terms (at least for the intro). So something like 'What was once considered Palestine is now:' or 'The general goegraphic area of what once was palestine is now modern day Israel (including the Occupied West Bank and Gaza)...' Whatever it is that sounds best, the point being that we should again explain in general terms, in terms that most people who may not understand or know much about it, could say oh that is what they mean by that.

As I said before later on in the article we could treat the subject in more detailed ways. I have sort of an outline plan for the article:

Intro: Much of what we have with some refinement. (main points are that this is the area where the current conflict in the ME is raging, that two peoples have equal rights to this land (both had always lived there, even during the Diaspora of the Jews many stayed there, they never ever all left). Equally so that the Palestinians have also continously lived there.

Later on we break down the article into three main headings, as that is how most people would identify the history:

Heading 1: Pre-history or period up to the fall of the Ottoman Empire... Whatever we may agreee on. I kind of like 'History of Palestine up to the First World War' myself. There could also be a link saying something like 'See also Israel, or Ancient Israel, or the Levant'. As these are seperate topics, at the end of the first heading would allow the reader the chance to check into more history if they want or to read on to the next heading if they want.

Heading 2: could be from the End of the First World War to the end of the British Mandate. In this section we lay out the main conflict, various aggreements and statements, and the partition plan, all the dirty/conflicting stuff.

Heading 3: from 1948 (the establishment of the state of Israel) to present times. In this section we lay out the rest. We could also place here Arab/Palestinian views and Jewish/Israeli views on the conflict and subject.

In each of the 3 main sections we could add sub-sections explaining in more detail specifics on topical items like for example: the animal/plant life, natural deposits, customs, etc., specifcs to the time frame, and the people.

What do you think of that?

What is considered Israel (including the occupied territories and the Gaza strip) is considered by most historians as the actual physical area that was once the state called Palestine.

That's not really precise (Palestine has been a Mameluk and then Turkish province, never an independent state). Maybe the following is better:

Currently, the area of Palestine is divided between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Previously, Palestine was an administrative unit of the Roman Empire, Arab Khaliphate, Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Kingdom of Mameluks, the Turkish Empire and the British Empire, in roughly similar borders.

The Palestinians of today, are a people who are the direct decendants of all the people who have conquered, lived, and occupied this land. Palestinians are a people who comprise an Arab identity, and are usually, but not limited to, being Christian or Muslim. Their Christian identity can be traced from the time of the earliest Christians and Christianity. Muslim Palestinians, trace their conversion from about the 7th century A.D.

It should be noted and understood that in addition to the Palestinians, there was/is another people who have lived in this area without interuption from the beginning of time, these people are known variously as: Hebrews, Canaanonites [sp], Israelites, and Jews. These people throughout their long history and diaspora, have not only lived in the land of what was once known as Palestine, but other countries in the Middle East (Link here), as well.

There has always been a Jewish and Arab/Palestinian presence in this land.

I'd rather replace (and reorder) the three paragraphs above, so that it reads:

Two peoples are historically associated with the land of Palestine: these are the Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinians (most of your text intact)

The Jews lived in this land since immemorable times. It was in this Palestine where they have written the Bible; they were expelled by the Romans in the 1st century A.D. Although most Jews were forced out of their land for thousands of years, they have never given up the hope of returning to it one day.

Palestine, is a name that was given to the Holy Land by the Romans during the period of the Roman ocupation of the region in 70 A.D. The name Palestine, derives from the biblical Philistines, who occupied the region of the southern coast of the land of Israel.

The name "Palestine" originates in Palestina, the name given to this land by Romans to replace the older Judaea following the Jewish revolt of A.D. 70. The name Palestine, derives from the Philistines, who, as the Bible says, occupied the southern Mediterranean coast of Israel. By the time of the renaming, the Philistines ceased to be a separate ethnic group, and the name was chosen specifically to opress the Jews.

The history of this part of the world, being the subject of a conflict that continues to this day, is heavily disputed; there are indeed few statements concerning its history which would be agreed with by both Israelis and Palestinians. This article attempts, however imperfectly, to present both sides equally and fairly.

That is the main part of what I would like to see, please note that links have not really been included yet. My suggestion would be that once we agree (if we can) on the intro. we add the links, and wherever we leave off, explain that the revision is on-going. I do not want to rewrite much of what was once a fairly accurate article, however, I want us (and others who have an interest)to agree on the content before we post. Let me know what you think, sorry it took so long for such a small revision, but I wanted to be sure it was unbiased. There can also be made mention through links, specific subjetcs on Israel, Jews, Palestinians, etc...

Remember that the intro. just should give a basic overview, of the subject, details can be added later on in the article.

Hoping this meets your expectations somewhat...

Your writing was very good. A point which I felt was important is the fact of Palestine's being a separate land (with distinct geographical/zoological/botanical features). This land was in most cases a single administrative unit, but it was never independent (since at least 50 B.C.). What do you think about it? --Uriyan

Joseph

========================================================

Thanks Uriyan for your patience and time (please see comments above) I feel that if we take our time, and work these things out, we could have a realy good article, that most people could understand and agree with. Also I feel that one of our main guidelines and principles should be, that we should look at the subject from these two points of view:

1) What is in the best interests of the reader, how would they look at it? How would they understand it? There is no point in placing material that only a Jewish or Palestinian scholar or person would know or understand. We should go from broad to specific...

2) What is the most current view? What is it, that is most commonly accepted as the facts for a certain chain of events or subjects. For example I have never heard of 'Arava Valley'. Sorry for my ignorance. But do you see where I am going with this, I want the article to encompass the subject from a distinctly matter of fact way. Later on at the end of a heading or subheading, you place a 'See Also link:' In the library world see also's are the way complicated subjects are handled, that way a novice or experienced user will both find what they need when doing research.

Waiting for your next reply, sorry it took so long.

Joseph

Well, first of all my first name is Uri, so you can call me that :-). The points that you bring are important. I think that you're right in proposing to separate the pieces of information (indeed, perhaps the introduction should only say that "Palestine is a land situated at the northern part of East Mediterranean") and expand later on in the body of the article. So perhaps we should need yet another heading on "Geography of Palestine" or something of this sort.

The "Arava Valley" (translation/transliteration of Hebrew emeq ha-a'rava), is a wide valley that is a continuation of the Jordan Valley to the south. This was a bad choice of name (even though it's used in some English sources, most of the English public does not know the name). In general, I think that it's best to stick to the English names, as Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia.

P.S., please see my comments at Talk:Ariel Sharon. Uriyan

===============================================================

Ok Uri, thanks for that, my friends sometimes call me Joe for short. I have added some comments to Ariel Sharon Talk. Also feel free to make changes to editorial style, however, not to specific content, I will work with you to make all issues on Israeli/Arab pages better, more professional, and easier to understand. I regret now, that I made unilateral changes earlier on when I first started some months ago. Feel free to start the intro. for Palestine, keeping in mind points I have made, I will mention any problems in talk here after I review with you. I am working on some articles in my spare time specifically on the 1914-1948 and 1948-1967 period. Thanks again for your help in this, it is turning into a lot of work.

Joseph

BTW: have you geard of Gush Shalom? I would like to add a page for them...

Hi Joseph. I appreciate your cooperation a lot. I've started to write an intro which I think to be generally better than the existing one (geography rather than politics), but it'll probably take me some more days to post it. One thing that I don't feel comfortable, though, with the choice of name - I feel that e.g. Holy Land would be better. Palestine is a name alien to Jews, while "Holy Land" is relatively neutral. What do you think about it?

I've heard of Gush Shalom, they're one of the more radical peace movements here in Israel, led by Uri Avneri. You can find their site at http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/. Note however that most Israelis don't take them seriously, Peace Now is more popular (as far as I can tell, I'm not affiliated with them).

P.S. Thank you for your kind words at my Talk page. Uriyan

No it is not all right, the reason I got involved was because it was refered to as Palestine, but I see now that there is no room for the Palestinian position. Right now I am a bit upset perhaps I should not write, but Palestine is the name, if you want to create a 'Holy Land' page, create one, but I feel it is a wate of time, RK will come and dispute the whole article.

Why is there not allowed any mention of my point of view, the Palestinian point of view like:

There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine: For all the invasions and changes in its rulers, the core of Palestine's population has been etthnically stable for millennia, posessing for the last thirteen hundred years a culture that has been unambiguously Arab. Many popular images of the Zionist movement portray the land as desolate or empty of a vibrant people and culture. Golda Meir announced that they never existed as evidenced in this famous quote "There was no such thing as Palestinians...It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." This kind of propaganda could never have been really convincing outside Israel because so many people - travellers, merchants, missionaries, and soldiers - had actually seen the Palestinians and knew that they existed even if they did not know much about them.

There are now somewhere between 6.5 - 7 million Palestinians worldwide, some live as a minority in Israel proper, some live in the West Bank and Gaza portions of Palestine, most are refugees in many parts of the world (mainly the Middle East, Europe, and North and South America) living a life of diaspora, as displaced persons. Few Palestinians have assimilated to their host countries. Most feel too strong, a sense of identity, with their Palestinian nationalism.

In 1948 Palestine ceased to exist politically, however, its people remain a vital and integral part of the land, known variously as: 'the Holy land', Israel, Palestine, etc. They remain Palestinians awaiting their political and national rights. I know that it is a waste of time now, I will have to try to edit and fit my text the way I see fit, because the Palestinian views will never be allowed, only Zionist propaganda. I am sorry URI, but if there is real change I will go back to cooperation otherwise, we do not agree, especially with RK.

Joseph (March 6, 2002)

I removed the following disclaimed from the main entry. "The Palestinians dispute most of the contents of this article, as it represents mainly the view of a single side, that is one of Israeli Zionists." I removed this sentence for the following reason:

The Palestinian community is well known for disputing much of ancient and modern history regarding this subject. A great many Palestinians literally believe that much of history, ancient and present, is a hoax by "the Jews", or the Western powers of the world. In many Palestinian elementary schools, middle schools, high school, and Islamic seminaries, they teach that (a) The Biblical nation of Israel never existed, (b) The Jews really came from Yemen, (c) There really are no Jews; most "Jews" are really Kazars who are trying to steal Palestinian land; (d) There was no Temple in Jerusalem, ever, (e) There was never any Jewish presence in the land of Israel, ever, (f) The Holocaust didn't happen, of if many Jews did die, it was greatly exagerrated, (g) that "the Zionists" have a secret plan to rule the world. Among Palestinians these are not the views of a tiny number of extremists; these are fairly mainstream views. As such, it should not be surprising that some of them view everything in Wikipedia as distorted by "Zionists" (whom Palestinians erroneously believe to be monolithic.)

The question is, is there good reason to believe that a great amount of the current article is a lie, or distorted to the point of needing such a widespread disclaimer? I note that no other Wikpedia entries have such disclaimers. The Wikipedia community should just follow the standard Wikipedia editing protocol. If someone has a concrete reason for believing that a statement needs to be changed, put forth the new version, with valid historical references, and explain why. This shouldn't be a battleground accusing "the Zionists" of being liars. RK

Hello, Joseph. First of all, to maters of principle: in Wikipedia, we write encyclopedia articles that are objective and neutral. There should be only one article for each subject; that's why you can't claim "you have the article about Israel to spill your truth on". There can be only one article covering the history of Mandatory Palestine, and if we beleive there are several versions of these facts - they should all be combined into that article. That is the reason why I chose to cooperate with you - but I can do it only if you recognize that there's more than one "truth".

Secondly, as to the choice of name. You would most certainly be offended if I created an article called "Eretz Israel" (or "Land of Israel"), because it is a name alien to you and your people. In the same manner, Palestine is a name alien to me and my people. "Holy Land" is a compromise, and while it is not the way we both usually call this land, it would offend noone.

Thirdly, as to the part of the article that we've been debating (it has a heading beginning with the words "There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine"), it uses 6 paragraphs to explain 3 points:

Palestine has been ethnically stable for millenia.
Zionists are liars
There are 6.5-7 million Palestinians worldwide

Point #3 is factual and could be integrated into an article (e.g. Palestinian). Point #1 is very vague - how does one define "ethnically stable"? In the millennial range, the only thing that I could say is that the region is occupied by Semites (Jews included), and you don't bring any facts to explain yourself further. As to Point #2, you skipped the part of proving that the land wasn't desolate, and rather switch to "uncovering the Zionist propaganda". Note that I'm not taking a position in this argument - it's irrelevant whether it was or was not desolate, but you need proof no matter what you try to prove! Because you prefer to make far-going statements that offend many people yet do not bring any relevant facts, this fragment is a piece of Palestinian propaganda in its own right, and as such unacceptable to an encyclopedia.

If I were writing this fragment, I would first provide information about the ethnical build-up of population and the land's economical life throughout the history (which is factual). Then I would write a paragraph about the Palestinian people's struggle for national liberation (which is also factual). And only in the section titled "Commentary" I would provide my thoughts about propaganda (which are an opinion).

You ask "What does the Holocaust have to do with Palestine?", and I answer: the Holocaust was a major event in the Jewish world, which changed the way Jews treat Zionism. You cannot separate the Holy Land from the rest of the world, and you cannot separate it from the Jews, for whom it is as much a homeland as for you.

If you recognize that there's more than one view of the truth, and that not all people must accept yours(this is particularly important in Wikipedia, which is a tool for education), I will protect your right to state your view as such. But if you deny the other people's right to state their opinions, in the same way as you state yours, you will only be pushing your own, subjective, view of the things, and I will have to resist that. The choice is in your hands. Uriyan

Part of the problem is that Palestine has several different meanings: geographical, historical, political, etc., each of which has different connotations for the people involved in the conflict. Furthermore, the definitions are so intertwined that no one has, as yet, succeeded in untangling them (and I mean politicians, journalists, historians, etc., and not just Wikipedians). Here then, is my attempt. If people think that this this is more or less the right direction, I will continue with Geography, then History, then People. Danny

Mister RK.I could search the libraries here and find source material for you, I could also give you ISBN #'s of books, names of authors, etc, etc, etc... You will never believe them, you do not even listen to any points that I make.

The problem, Joseph, is that you do not make any points. You just shout that everyone in the entire world is a "Zionist liar", and that only you have "the truth". Your lack of methodology indicates that you are basing your facts on emotional outburts, rather than historical documentation. RK

Whatever, I put up some entries earlier for URI to check out, also I suggested some new publications, one in particular called Culturgrams [sp]... I suggest you read these, and learn the truth, the real truth.

A quote from a website, in of itself, means nothing in a historical debate. Anyone can write anything on a website. I can even show you many, many websites that "prove" that the world is flat. Does this constitute valid scientific or historical truth? No. RK

I had no assistance from anyone in furthering my education. We came to this country as refugees from a war that was started by Israel, I know, it was not Israel's fault right... They had to attack right, I know the story, more lies, I was there as a child, and I remember, believe me...

Please, re-read the emotional outburst you just made. Dispense with the paranoia and self-pity. As long as you are controlled by your rage, you will not be able to work with history-minded individuals in a productive fashion. RK

You can say what you want, you can do what you want, but leave me alone... I will listen and address those that address me, as is appropriate. One more thing please, post at the bottom, I find it hard to follow where you post comments now, and also find it confusing. I know the truth about Palestine, and until it is posted I will not be content or quiet.

No one accepts that your claims are true, simply because you claim that you "know the truth". History books are not written by those who shout the loudest. You need to be objective, that's all we are asking. RK