User talk:Nableezy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.

Need sources?

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to JSTOR at the Wikipedia Library. JSTOR currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 03:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WP: AE notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy, where I asked for admin input on what is believed to be an infringement by you of stated Wikipedia policy, and where you wantonly engaged in WP:Gaming the system to advance your own political views and agenda, and to delete sourced material.Davidbena (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Have You Seen This Editorial?

Cant make somebody actually reply to the point, but can control when this ends
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just to show you how the word "occupying power" is used derogatorily, take a look at this article: Israel slams UNESCO vote that calls it 'occupying power', published on 5 July 2017 by Fox News.---Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel does not determine what is fact and what is not on Wikipedia. You seem to be under the impression that because you dislike something that it cannot be used. Again, there are plenty of Palestinians that say all of Israeli is stolen land. Does that mean that the article Tel Aviv can not say that it is a city in Israel? It should say it is a city in "disputed territory"? Answer those questions for me and Ill be happy to continue the discussion. Otherwise I dont really see the point. nableezy - 19:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Nableezy, here we're dealing with many issues. Yes, some of the land was expropriated for military needs (security), some of the land was legally purchased, and some of the land was abandoned by its tenants after war and conflict; land acquisitions being a very complex subject. We might even go back to the time before Israeli rule, during the British Mandate and Ottoman Turk period, and you may find that not all land tenants were legal land tenants. Take, for example, Silwan (Shiloah), where Yemenite Jews actually bought houses there in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, yet fled their homes during the Arab-Israeli War. Will you call their usurping occupants legal tenants? Of course not! They're thieves! You see, the matter is very complex. Nevertheless, what we're talking about here is current political rule over the country and its inhabitants. We say it is legal, but you say it is not. That makes it a dispute, and that makes Wikipedia treading between a hard and soft place. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you call the inhabitants of the Israeli settlement on these villages for thieves? Huldra (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha! That was a funny link, but considering that Jews were evicted from their land by the Romans (during incessant wars) and the land was exposed to sale by Vespasian (just as we learn in The Jewish War, VII.6.6 [VII, 216]), it is no wonder then that so many vagrant farmers, or people looking for work, came and settled the country. There's a place for them too. I'm not arguing against that. Still, the history of the people of Israel in its own land cannot be denied.Davidbena (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I really dont see what is funny about an ethnic cleansing of a native population, but thats just me. nableezy - 04:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No, may God forbid, I was not laughing at that. I see these villagers as being very unfortunate, but let's remember what caused their situation. I was laughing, rather, at the way she is trying so hard to dispute the claim of Israel's sovereignty over the land. As for the displacement of these people, anyone familiar with the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict can tell you that had these Arab villagers been at peace with Israel, had they not resisted Jewish immigration, had they welcomed Jews in their midst who had possessed Palestinian citizenship and not fought against them, often under the incitement and war-like rhetoric of Sheikh Amin al-Husseini, then all of these villagers would have remained in their place. These are the unfortunate circumstances of hostility between the two ethnic-groups living in Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
David, you have a serious misunderstanding, at best, of what is at issue here. But you again seem to avoid my point. That saying a village in the West Bank is "in occupied territory" has the same fact basis as saying Tel Aviv is "in Israel", and you only wish to change one of these things. Palestinians dispute Tel Aviv as being "Israel", but that dispute does not render moot the international consensus that Tel Aviv is in fact in Israel. Just as Israel disputing the status of the West Bank does not render moot the international consensus that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. You only seem to be concerned with advancing the Israeli position with seemingly no interest in the converse dispute. If Israel disputing something means we cannot say it is true then the Palestinians disputing something should likewise mean we cannot say it is true. If the West Bank is not "occupied Palestinian territory" because Israel disputes that then Tel Aviv is not "Israeli territory" because Hamas disputes that. Again, try to see this from outside of an Israel-centric perspective. Wikipedia does not bow to the views of Israel or the Palestinians, we base our articles on reliable sources. The end. nableezy - 03:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That is incorrect, Nableezy. I have no dispute with you, nor with Wikipedia, on naming conventions, such as "West Bank" and "Israel" as used in their respective places. However, "occupied territory" is NOT a naming convention, but a derogatory adjective that carries a one-sided political message. The matter of whether or not the country currently claimed and held by Israel is "occupied territory" is a matter that is disputed. During the British Mandate and Ottoman Turk rule over Palestine, Jews were also Palestinian citizens. Golda Meir was a Palestinian citizen! If you have any complaint, you can say that it is because of what Jewish-Palestinian citizens did to the country after Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank," and what has now come to be known as "occupation in the view of the United Nations." While Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention[vi] explicitly prohibits an “Occupying Power” (Israel) from transferring any part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, former Israeli Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." See article: From `Occupied Territories` to `Disputed Territories`, by Dore Gold, of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law). Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967 (ibid.). You see, the issue of "occupation," as it relates to Israel and its claim over the country, is a matter of dispute. Accordingly, WP:IMPARTIAL would apply in our edits here, on Wikipedia, when referring to the term "occupied territory," so as not to take sides in this dispute.Davidbena (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Davidbena: "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is a well-known and accepted name for the West Bank and Gaza. See this UN OHCHR page, for instance. Here are the latest UN General Assembly resolutions on Palestine from last November (the votes were 150 to 6 or something like that -- so it's not just "western audiences"); just search for "occupied" or "occupation" or "occupying" and you'll see plenty of hits. You are free to think whatever you want about the history, but when we write on WP, we go by the internationally accepted convention, which considers the West Bank and Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory. Kingsindian   14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Kingsindian. I wasn't denying that "occupied territory" is often used for territories held by Israel in the "West Bank." What I was saying, however, is that the wording takes on a certain political tone, almost critical of Israel, when the matter is actually disputed, especially by the government here in Israel. Rewording a text to read, "such-and-such a place has been under Israeli occupation, according to the international community," would mitigate the tone, and still be faithful to its widespread connotation. The difference is, by rewording the text as I suggested, we steer clear from infringement on WP:IMPARTIAL.Davidbena (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)