Palestine/Talk

Original opening comment

Please, let's try to keep this article written from a NeutralPointOfView--that will be hard, but it's important to try. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements.

---

This is a huge improvement over the original stub.

I think we should have a separate article about Palestinians--the people, who they are, etc. This is expressed to some degree in a history of Palestine--but not entirely. --Larry Sanger

---

(moved commentary that was here to /Commentary -- Simon J Kissane)

---

The last part of the article is a paper from somewhere else. What about copyright? --css

---

I think it is in the public domain, it has an author statement, representing who wrote it is the very last part or the long article 10 years??

Joseph

---

Unless it is very old (i.e. at the very least, over fifty years) or the author explicitly states it is in the public domain, it is copyrighted. Now if it has references to things in the 1980s, the copyright certaintly hasn't expired, so it is copyrighted unless the author puts it in the public domain. So unless you have a statement from the author saying they put it in the public domain, or saying that it can be distributed under the terms of GNU FDL, I am afraid we are going to have to remove it. -- Simon J Kissane

---

Describing the "ancient decline of Jewish population of Palestine" with only passing references to the Babylonian and Roman conquests is like describing the "creation of Palestinian refugees in 1948" with only passing references to the Israeli military. Furthermore, someone reading the above section would think that Jews considered their ancient homeland insignificant between, say, the years 200 and 1900; in reality, references to "Eretz Yisrael" and its importance pervade classical Jewish legal and liturgical writing.

Maybe the changes I have just made make it better. However, while certaintly the Babylonian and Roman conquests was part of the cause, I think its role is often overestimated. Many of those in the ancient Diasporas had ample opportunity to return to Israel, but didn't -- because they didn't want. Many of those deported by the Babylonians, but were given the chance to return (at the end of the Exile), but didn't want. For the same reason as many American Jews today can emigrate to Israel -- the Israeli government even goes to enormous lengths to encourage them to do so -- but they don't. Why? Because they are happy where they are. And in the same way, yes deportation is a factor in the decline of the Jewish population -- but another, often ignored, reason for the decline is that many Jews preferred to live in the Diaspora to Israel. It was also for that reason that many of them voluntarily emigrated as well. -- Simon J Kissane

---

On a new topic near and dear to my heart - nomenclature and etymology: no one has explained the etymology of the odd term Palestine and its relation to Philistine. I don't know enough to write the paragraph. I'd like to know the history of the LOCAL use of the term. Was it continuous, or revived under the colonialist influence? --MichaelTinkler

---

R.K. -- Please try to avoid including statements which reflect only one sides point of view, be it the Palestinian or the Israeli side, unless it is clearly identified whose point of view it reflects. The article should not give the impression of supporting either side of the conflict. The original article was rather pro-Palestinian, yes, but the solution to that is not what you have done, which is try to make it pro-Israeli. The solution is to create an article which both sides could agree on. -- Simon J Kissane

---

There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions; and many Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Samaritan Pentateuch contains some older textual variants closer to the original than the Massoretic text. In particular, it often agrees with the LXX or the Qumran texts against the Massoretic.

The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect. The oral law represents only one sect within 1st century and earlier Judaism, the Pharisees. The Saducees and the Essenes, which were just as Jewish as the Pharisees, either rejected the oral law or had different versions of it. Now it is true that the Pharisees were eventually triumphant, but having the Rabbinical oral law is not a essential part of the definition of Judaism, historically considered. Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai, as the Rabbis claim, but that it was rather developed by the Pharisees, who then projected it back in time in justification.

And there are still Jews today who don't follow the oral law; the Karaites. Claiming the Karaites to be a separate religion from Judaism because they reject the Rabbinical Jewish traditions is like claiming Protestantism to be a separate religion from Christianity because they reject the traditions of the Catholics.

And as to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well. In later Judaism they only did it at the Temple, and since then they have stopped it completely; but in early Judaism there is evidence that it was a lot more wide spread. So the fact that Samaritans practice animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism, in the same way as the fact that ancient Jews practiced animal sacrifice does not show they are not a branch of Judaism. And I find your suggestion that I am a liar or an anti-Semite highly offensive. I think that sort of name-calling is beneath deserving a response. -- Simon J Kissane

Yes, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, and not support one viewpoint or the other. Your statement It is clear that an anti-semitic person is blatantly lying about Jews in this entry as part of a Palestinian effort to disconnect Jews from the land of Israel. is totally uncalled for, and is offensive on so many levels that I do not even know where to begin. Simon has backed up his claim with relevant facts and arguments, and I warmly invite you to do the same, and maybe we can develop an article which presents a balanced viewpoint of both sides of the argument. But keep your racist invective to yourself. Anyone with an anti-anyone viewpoint is not welcome here, this applies equally to anti-semites, anti-westerners, anti-islamic, etc. -- ManningBartlett

---

Simon has received unwarranted criticism. However, on a histroical point I disagree with his position about the Samaritans and Judaism. Simon writes "There is almost no similarity at all? Rubbish. They both use the Torah, although in different versions"

RK (me) writes: I fully agree; however, so do Mormons, Protestant and Catholics. Yet these religions have little in common with Judaism.

Yes, but Mormons, Protestants and Catholics add radically non-Jewish elements to their theology -- the trinity, the incarnation, salvation by grace, the vicarious atonement. And Mormons believe in three Gods, and believe that at least two of these Gods have a body, and at one stage at least (they seem to be moving away from some of their more unusual beliefs, so maybe not so much anymore) they believed that humans could become gods, and rule over other planets, and that God lived physically on another planet, and some of them even taught that Adam was God. These are all radically non-Jewish beliefs. Samaritans, though they may differ in some of their ritual and legal practices, have a theology much closer to Judaism.

As far as I'm aware, the Samaritans are mostly in agrement with the 13 points of Rambam; something which cannot be said for (-- Simon J Kissane

Simon writes The idea that all Jews follow the oral law is just plain historically incorrect." RK writes: I disagree with this claim. With the exception of two tiny Karaite towns, 99% of the religious Jews in the world see Judaism via the oral law. (I am leaving out those people of Jewish descent who have no religion, or who have converted to another faith.) It is true that 2000 to 3000 years ago were there Israelites who felt otherwise, yet these groups no longer exist. Today even Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, the most liberal branches, still accept the Mishnah and Talmud as authoritative to some degree, even if not in a binding sense. RK

Do you deny Karaites are Jews? Do you deny that the ancient Saduccees and Essenes were Jews? Unless you deny they are Jews, it follows that the oral law is not a neccessary part of the definition of Judaism, and that historically (and today as well) not all Jews have followed the oral law. Now, yes, almost all Jews today follow the oral law; but that is not because the oral law is a necessary part of Judaism, rather it is because those Jewish sects which supported the oral law won over those sects which did not have it. -- Simon J Kissane

Simon writes "Many scholars (both Christian scholars and liberal Jewish scholars) doubt that the oral law originated at Sinai,..."

I also doubt this claim; it is definately an exagerration. RK

Definitely an exagerration? The Rabbis taught that the oral law was given in its whole by Moses at Sinai. Many scholars (certaintly almost all Christian scholars, and some Jewish scholars as well) would argue that the oral law was mostly developed by the Pharisee sect of Judaism over several centuries after the return from the Babylonian exile (long after Moses), and that little or none of it derives from Moses. -- SJK

Yet no matter where the oral law originated, it is the lens through which Jews views the Bible. That is what makes their religion different from the other religions based on the Bible. When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the New Testament, you get a different religion (Christianity.) When one replaces the oral law with other books, such as the Samaritan Chronicles and law codes, you get a different religion (Samaratanism), etc. Of course Judaism, Christianity and Samaratanism all have the same basic books as their core, but they all go off in different directions with them, and thus are different religions. RK

But Christianity is much further from Judaism than Samaritanism. Christianity claims that God came to earth in the form of a man to die in order to save the world. The basics of Christian theology are radically different from those of Judaism. But the basics of Samaritan theology are pretty close to Judaism. Karaism also goes off in different directions from the Tanach, as did many ancient forms of Judaism, but they are still Judaism. -- SJK

Simon correctly notes that "As to the Samaritans practicing animal sacrifice -- Jews once practiced animal sacrifice as well." That is true. But Jews do not sacrifice animals, and have not done so for 2000 years. They also do not stone adulterers to death, nor do they follow any of the laws relating to the Temple. Why? The religion known as rabbinic Judaism is not synonymous with ancient Hebrew practices; it is only one evolutionary outgrowth of them. Jews - myself included - believe that this evolutionary path is the correct path for us to have followed. Other peoples have taken different paths. Christians developed different interpretations and scriptures than Jews, and so did Samaritans and Muslims. They of course believe that this is the correct path for them to have followed. C'est la'histoire. But why the need to identify any two or more of them as really still being the same religion? RK

I am sure you must be aware that some Jews want to rebuild the Temple and restart animal sacrifices. Of course that is very unlikely to happen; but supposing it did -- would these Jews cease to be followers of Judaism? No. Then there is nothing incompatible with Judaism and following all the laws relating to the Temple. Isn't it true, in fact, that Rabbinic Judaism teaches that with the coming of the Messiah, that the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple sacrifices will start again? How can sacrifices be incompatible with Judaism, if a central hope of the Jewish religion is that sacrifices will recomence? If sacrifices are incompatible with Judaism, then Judaism is a religion whose greatest hope is to be replaced with another religion. -- Simon J Kissane

RK - I know absolutely nothing about the subject which is why I'm not debating. However, your article calmly takes what Simon said, issues challenges and supports your arguments. This is intelligent, well-reasoned and rational debate, and I find it a pleasure to read. Thank you - MB

---

Can someone explain something to me? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is greatly divergent from Judaism? What present-day political agenda does it serve to assert that Samaritanism is not greatly divergent from Judaism?

The PLO has been producing propaganda for years that the Samaritans are the "real" Jews, and that all the other Jews in the world - i.e. 99% of the Jewish people - are imposters; that they all are "only" recent descendent of European converts, who have taken on the mantle of ancient Judaism as part of a pro-Western and anti-Arab plot. The PLO, further, maintains that the Jewish people never lived in the land of Israel, and never built a Temple in Jerusalem. All archaeology that supports such a fact, therefore, is a hoax and lie, even the archaeology done by Chrisitians, and by moderate Arabs. (They teach all this in their public school system). Accroding to this view, much of Jewish history that is in Western encyclopaedias is a lie and hoax designed to hurt Palestinians. RK

But I have never said that the Jews aren't real Jews. All I said was that the Samaritans and Jews are fundamentally the one religion. -- Simon J Kissane

On the other hand, I am not aware of any cause that has an ulterior motive to "assert" that Samaritanism, Christianity, Mormonism, or Islam is greatly divergent from Judaism. These are just historical and obvious facts. They simply are different religions.

I see. Thank you. Since this is an issue of present-day dispute, I suggest we find a way to work this into a sub-article somewhere. --Branden

---

The entry says "Several of the Palestinians who originally reported the massacre have now say that the claims they made were false and an exagerration. Other Palestinians argue that it is these retractions that are false."

[Are the Arabs who have now retracted their claims non-existent? Wholesale rewriting of fact is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia entry. Palestinians schools and government offices also officially deny that the Holocaust took place? So what? In the interest of "balance" should we admit that the Holocaust might be a Jewish hoax? Look, some Arabs have now retracted their claims, and this indisputable fact is well documented. If Palestinians on this forum don't like this, that's too bad. But if they imply that these people don't exist, or that they didn't retract their claims, then they are engaging in antisemetic historical revisionism.]

"these retractions that are false" is supposed to mean not that the retractions were never made, but that the content of the retractions was false. I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, I'm merely stating what many Palestinians would say, to try to get rid of some of the bias. -- Simon J Kissane

---

Palestinians consider a far more accurate statement of the intention of the founders of Israel ... [Is it the position of this Encyclopaedia that Palestinians are telepaths? This entry should stick to history, and not mind-reading games. Would Palestinians like it if all quotes by Arab leaders were followed by quotes from people who telepathically guessed their "real" intentions? Let us stop the Jew-bashing games and get on with recorded _history_, not histrionics.]

I am the person who wrote that, and I am not a Palestinian. I was trying to make the article more neutral (it reflects mainly the Israeli point of view), and I was incorporating some of the comments placed in the article originally by a Palestinian refugee, Joseph E. Saad, who edited it earlier. I am getting very sick and tired of being accused of "Jew-bashing games" or "anti-Semitic historical revisionism". As I said before, I find those sort of comments so patently offensive as to be beneath reply. Is it at all possible for you to discuss things without being abusive?

You are just going to have to get used to the idea that this article is NOT going to support one side or the other, be it the Israeli side or the Palestinian side. Do you deny that a lot of Palestinians believe that was the real intention of the founders of Israel? Rightly or not, a lot of them do, and so we should state that they do so. Not say what was or wasn't the real intentions of Israel's founders, but just say what many people think those intentions were. See NeutralPointOfView if you can't get this concept. -- Simon J Kissane

On the date of British withdrawal the Jews declared the formation of the State of Israel. On the day Israel proclaimed its independence there were already 300,000 Palestinian refugees, and Zionist forces had occupied large chunks of territory designated for the proposed Arab state as well as parts of Jerusalem intended for international administration.

Israelis allege that the Arab refugees left their homes because Arab radio from surround nations ordered them to leave.

Outrageous historical revisionism. All Arab historians admit that this is real. This Encyclopaedia has been overrun by some fairly serious Jew-haters.

As I said before, I am not a "fairly serious Jew-haters", you have absolutely no evidence that I am, and you are just being insulting and offensive. Do all Arab historians admit this is real? If they do so produce some evidence that they do. I was bracketing the statements as Israeli claims (which is a fact, they are Israeli claims) to try to make it less pro-Israel and more neutral. Maybe the way I choose to deal with the bias wasn't the most accurate; but it was the best I could do. If you can see a better way of including those facts without making the article either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian then do so. -- Simon J Kissane

They claim that Arab military commanders promised an immediate invasion of the nascent Jewish state that would kill all the Jews, and Arabs were ordered to leave to reduce casualties. Israelis claim that the Arabs were promised that victory would be quick, and that they would be able to return to their homes within a few weeks.

---

Simon J Kissane- My name is Joseph E. Saad, I have been very busy, so I apologize that you have had to edit alone, and get blamed for things that I know were never meant to offend. I, originally when I edited, tried to include as much relevance as I could to make the article more balanced. I was extremely shocked, hurt, and dismayed to find the original article so biased towards in my view, the Israeli view. I have seen an encyclopedia written by a Palestinian author, which did much at that time to illuminate my perspectives. Also I have looked at sources such as culturegram, companions to the middle east, histories of the region & others in that line to get an idea how a balanced article should look. I am afraid that the way it is is presented now still needs some work, but it is getting there, the figures are also I would say not accurate.

I am not an extremist, I am just a person, I try & be fair in my views. I have nothing against Jews or the Jewish religion, only Zionism & the concept of Zionism.

This, by definition, is anti-Jewish. How would you feel if someone said that they "have nothing against Arabs or Islam, only against the existence of Arab nations and the concept that Arabs should have the same national rights as other human beings." You would brand such a person as a bigot. So why is this same behaviour towards Jews acceptable?

I don't like any sort of nationalism, be it Arab or Jewish or anything else. (I'm an Australian, and if is little I dislike more than Australian nationalism.) But RK, you are ignoring one fundamental difference between Arab and Jewish nationalism -- the Arabs actually lived in the land they claimed as theres, and had lived there for over a thousand years. --SJK

Garbage. It has been conclusively proven that the majority of people who call themselves Palestinians today are the descendents of people who immigrated to Israel in the 1800s and 1900s. I don't accept your fact-free historical revisionism.

And as everyone knows, the majority of Jews in Israel today migrated there from Europe or from other parts of the Arab world. Even if most Arabs are later migrants, the fact still remains that until the rise of Jewish immigration due to Zionism the majority of the population was Arab and had been Arab for over a thousand years. -- SJK

Agreed. RK

Although Jews had lived in Palestine/Israel?/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the past, and some still remained there, most Jews lived in Europe or in other parts of the Arab world. Jewish nationalism inherently involved colonialism and irredentism. Arab nationalism didn't. -- SJK

Where do you get this socialist brand of antizionism from? Not from history books, UN demographics, or English historical records of the Palestinian mandate. You are merely repeating the antisemetic claims that extremist Arabs use to deligitimize the rights of Jewish people to have a state of their own. RK

Do you have any evidence it didn't inherently involve colonialism and irredentism? Most of the Jewish emigrants came from Europe. Admittedly they did not fit the definition of colonists in the sense of being a colony of a particular European power, but they were Europeans (whatever their more distant ethnic background, they had lived in Europe for centuries). They came with the intention establishing their own society separate from that of the native population, not integrating with the native population. The Balfour declaration was only possible against the background of European colonialism in general. And Palestine was a British colony, although the League had renamed colonies "Mandates" for reasons of political correctness (the system of mandates was primarily developed to deal with the Central Power's colonies after WWI -- they didn't want to give them independence, lest it provide a precedent for their own colonies, but they did not want to let the Germans keep them either.)

Ok, I will defer to your argument and agree with you. (Don't forget to pick your jaw back up...)RK

And it was irredentist. Irredentism is claiming a right to territory occupied by another state or people, on the grounds of distant historical connections. Zionism is undoubtedly the most irredentist philosophy in human history -- it wanted territory which the majority of its people hadn't occupied for over a thousand years.

Also, I didn't get my views from "extermist Arabs". I mainly developed them myself. -- SJK

That it excluded and continues to exclude myself and others from the land of our birth, from our homeland, is the main reason for this conflict..LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT IS THE WAY IT IS....

Nonsense. Over 75% of Palestine is now in Arab hands, mostly run by Hashemite Arabs in Jordan, and partially run by Palestinian Arabs in parts of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is only a small part of the original Palestine land mandate. Further, Arabs already have more than 100 times the land area in the Middle East than Jews do. If every Jew in Israel was murdered by Hamas, Hizbollah and the PLO, and all Israel was destroyed and became part of another Arab state, that would still amount to less than a 1% increase in the amount of land controlled by Arabs. Thus, ending Zionism would have virtually no effect on Arabs at all - but it would be Hitler's greatest post-humous victory. I cannot understand why you see the mere existence of Israel as the cause of the middle-easy conflict? Open up some history books, and you will learn for that every time Arabs have fought against Israel, they have fought against each other four or five times. While there have been only five Arab-Israel conflicts, in this sime time period there have been over two dozen Arab-Arab and Arab-Persian conflicts. The region was war-like before the existence of Israel, and it still is now. As long as you continue to blame Zionism for the problems of the Arab nations, you will get nowhere. [[RK}}

Jordan is not part of Palestine. It was part of the Mandate prior to 1923, but the British then turned it into a separate entity. The British doing so was foreseen by article 25 of the Mandate, which permitted them to withold most of the provisions of the Mandate in its eastern part. And AFAIK (you are welcome to submit evidence to the contrary), the separation of Trans-Jordan was approved by the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with article 27. -- SJK

Saying that Jordan is not a part of Palestine is exactly like saying that Israel is not a part of Palestine. Both statements are so ludicrously false that one hardly knows where to begin disputing it. Yes, the land of Palestine was LEGALLY separated into two different legal domains...but the land still PHYSICALLY EXISTED, and it still does exist! Giving it a new name doesn't make it "not part of Palestine" anymore. If your argument were true, then once the UN recognized the State of Israel (note the new name!) then Palestine no longer exists! The British could have separated 75% of Palestine, or 95% of it, or 1% of it, but that has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Just because the name of one region changes, history doesn't suddenly rewrite itself for that area. RK

Of course the land still physically existed. But geographical names are decided by a combination of convention and legal recognition, and the meaning of geographic names can change over time. The legal definition of "Palestine" changed in 1923, and the conventional meaning has changed as well -- in the usage of most people, Jordan is not part of Palestine.

That is totally true, but I would argue misleading. The places that people came from are still those same places, even if the names changed, and even if today people talk more about the Western region (nowadays the State of Israel) than the rest of the region. RK

Also, Israel is increasingly not a part of Palestine. When a Palestinian state is established, it will be called "Palestine", and then saying "Israel is part of Palestine" is going to sound like saying "the United States is part of Canada"... of course, some Arabs might still think of Israel as part of Palestine, but most of the world won't. And signs of this change in meaning can be seen even today -- increasingly people in the West use "Palestine" to refer only to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as recognised by the UN. -- SJK

Agreed, but this is a semantic problem, and it needs to be carefully separated from the geographic and political problems. This, btw was one of the reasons that the Zionist groups decided on the name "Israel" for their state, rather than "Judea", as they hoped that the name would refer to the biblical land of Israel, and not necessarilly descendents of the tribe of Judah (which most Jews today are from). They had hoped that their region would have the name Israel, and that the rest would have some other name. At the time, the entire region, it was imagined, would still be referred to as Palestine. Today the semantic issue is hopelessly complicated, and no one can even speak about the damn thing without footnotes and maps. RK

So sorry again, but anyone who does not follow the Zionist line gets it, we have seen it too often, again, and again. I am not trying to be offensive or "anti" anything, but the facts are the facts, I remain a refugee, while Eastern Europeans, are welcomed to the land of my birth (with US funds), good luck anyway, I will try and help in a positive way.

Revision of previous statement: I disagree. The State of Israel does not turn away Jewish refugees. In contrast, most Arab states have such a hatred of each other than they refuse to help each other's refugees - and often murder each other by the tens of thousands - and this doesn't bother you? I would suggest that you step back and look at the bigger picture. Jews do take care of each other, but this isn't as true in the Arab community, and the Palestinians suffer as a result. But this doesn't make the Jewish inhabitants of Israel (most of whom are Zionist) bad; it makes the leaders of the Arab nations bad. RK

RK: I really wish you would stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a Jew-hater. It is unjustified and uncalled for. -- SJK

I really wish that people would stop saying that only the Jews have no human rights when it comes to having their own state (i.e. this is the definition of Zionism) but claim that all other human beings (especially Arabs) do have such rights. THAT position is unjustified and uncalled for. As long as people claim "I like Jews, but I am agains Zionism and the very CONCEPT of Zionism", antisemitism continutes, and terrorism against Jews is justified. The position you claim to be justis *precisely* what Hasmas and Hizbollah claim. Doesn't this bother you? Human rights are for all humans - including Jews. RK

I don't believe any people has a right to a state. Ethnic or racial groups do not have rights; only individuals do. Jews have no right to a state; Arabs don't either. Of course, the residents of any particular place have the democratic right (though it is subject to some limitations) as individuals to have the government in that area organized in such a way as best suits them, be that having an independent state, or some degree of autonomy in a pre-existing state. But Jews, in the period when Zionism arose, where not the residents of a particular place claiming rights as individuals. Thus the right did not apply to them then. (On the other hand, it applies to Jews living in Israel now, insofar as they do not violate the rights of non-Jewish individuals in doing so, which I would argue it often does.)

RK, let me clarify something for you. I have no objection to the current existence of Israel, only to its creation. Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel was immoral and was either illegal or should have been so. However, now that the state of Israel has been in existence for over fifty years, and so many Jews have been resident there for even longer, it would be immoral and illegal to just kick them out. Israel's existence although originaly a wrong has been converted to a right by prescription, as it were.

But this right to existence is not absolute. Israel and Israeli Jews have a right against attempts by Arabs to kill or deport them all. However, if Arabs moved in peacefully and slowly grew until they formed a majority in Israel, then although that would be the end of the Jewish state, so long as the Arabs respected the rights of the Jewish minority no harm would be done, and Israel or individual Jews have no right to prevent such a peaceful annihilation. Any attempt by Israel to prevent such a peaceful annihilation would be immoral and illegal, since it would inevitably involve discrimination against Arab people.

And I don't support Hizbollah or Hamas, nor do I support violence, be it committed by Palestinian militants or the Israeli government. -- SJK

BTW- When I do a search for Palestine, it does not come up, why?, is there a way to fix it so when you do a search , it pops up, like any other topic... Thanks, so far the article is not bad...

Joseph E. Saad

---

Don't worry Joseph, I more or less agree with you. Your do have some pro-Palestinian bias, but a lot of other people editing it have pro-Israel bias, so don't worry. I hope people will be able to argue it out to some sort of basic agreement on what happened. The thing that really gets me is some other people (not you) who can't seem to have a civilised discussion without hurling abuse and insults. -- Simon J Kissane

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

Thanks the search is much better, I will have to clean up some other definitions, like, Canadian/Christian ( and others) that come up. It is more professional to have just the meaning without our comments, I am still learning....

Joseph

---

The article's lead sentence makes it sound as if someone has been using "Israel" and "Palestine" as synonyms, something I haven't seen myself. I thought Israel was only part of Palestine.

"Palestine is a region in the Middle East, also called Levant and Israel. "