User talk:Dianelos

Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for beefing up FROG, cheers. — Matt Crypto 12:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Crypto WikiProject monthly summary

Quick note to let you know that some of your editing this month was mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptography/March_2005. Thanks! — Matt Crypto 16:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ACRI

I just wanted to be sure that you noted my explanation of the diff that you cited. As it stands, I still believe that my version is more neutral, but I would like to hear from you before I change it. On a totally unrelated point, you may want to either replace your email on you userpage with a gif, or at least substitute the @ with an _at_ and the . with a _dot_, or something like that, in order to prevent a spider from picking it up. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to reexamine the diff, as I did not delete any part of this claim. Rather I rephrased it as a claim, since it is not a fact that that is the primary reason that civilians did not leave. And ACRI being Israeli doesn't remove it from needing to be presented neutrality, just like every other claim in this article, including Lebanese claims which were hostile to the Hezbollah position. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to commend you on turning to Talk, as this is the ideal manner in which these types of disagreements should be worked out on Wikipedia.

In terms of this passage, no one disputes that Israel attacked the transportation infrastructure. What the ACRI statement is adding though, is that those attacks "prevented many residents from acting on these leaflets and left them with no choice but to remain in their villages." The effect of the attacks on the residents' decision can't be objectively gauged, and we cannot cite the ACRI analysis of cause and effect as being synonymous with reality (as important or true as it might be), but rather it is only an argument that "some point to."

Regarding your advice about slowing down, I think you'll find that I followed it long ago. I don't think that I have edited very much at all over the past few weeks; most of my recent editing has been minor, and the last real flurry of activity was the Kosmopolis/IP reversion. However, if you nonetheless feel that I'm taking too active a role in some part of the article, or if there is a specific problem you think I may be involved in, I would be very much interested in hearing your input. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 19:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kosmopolis version

(With apologies to The Browning Version)... you wrote:

As this issue [the background to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict] is both important and complex I think it's a good idea to prepare a new article about it (with much of Kosmolopis’ work) and link it from the short section

To quote Bob Dylan in Highway 61 Revisited: "Why yes! I think it can be very easily done!" In fact I already did it, with much expansion: Israel-Lebanon conflict, and it is linked to many times in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict acticle -- Kendrick7 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Dianelos, you have brought very reasonable arguments and valuable contributions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and I see that you are at it right now. I am calling for your help. This user MPerel [1] has sprung out of nowhere and obviously tries to push his and Tewfik's POV by means of indiscriminate reversing. There is a long discussion on the talk page which he obviously neither read nor took part in, and he reverted indiscriminately in the past (which was then undone by Kendrick7). Since I would violate WP:3RR, could you prevent him from doing more damage, restore the previous version and reinsert your latest changes? Here is the relevant diff: [2] Thank you very much! Kosmopolis 12:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Human Rights

If you are going to say what Israel is doing wrong, you should include what the Palestinians are doing wrong as well. Here is a link to a good article on it http://www.jcpa.org/christian-persecution.htm. This is only what they are doing to the Christians. Terrorism is against human rights principles too. --יהושועEric 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Janeray.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Janeray.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Military strength

Hey, I saw this site that you talked about in the discussion of the Military History Wikiproject. I just wanted to caution you that the list is very unsound and precarious. It is normally very dangerous to go on "top ten list" hunts like that because there are a number of complex factors that are often missed. I personally disagree with that person's analysis and rankings (France and Germany are where? What is North Korea doing there?), but that's beside the point. The most important thing to remember is that this kind of information is most definitely not encyclopedic. To consider it such is also a little bit dangerous. It is heavily riddled with POV and personal impressions to be fair game for Wikipedia.UberCryxic 02:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The context in which it is cited is the most important thing. As long as no one has the idea to start ranking militaries here on Wikipedia based on that article, I guess we are fine.UberCryxic 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and kudos

Dear Danielos,

I just wanted to saw thank you for your hard work and cool head in the discussion on the Talk:Israel page. I noticed how much research you put into the different issues under discussion and have to say that your commitment to NPOV under the difficult circumstances there, is really admirable. As such, I would to recognize your efforts.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For patiently perservering in the pursuit of NPOV under difficult circumstances and defusing tensions at the same time

Tiamut 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What's your idea ? :)

Btw, may I ask why are you so interested in the Arab Israeli conflict ? Amoruso 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew from the first instant that even though I... disliked... your proposals, you were acting on WP:AGF and I like that, and you also confirm it. I agree with what you're saying and Peace is truly the goal of the Israeli people, both "lefties" and "righties". I think the problem, the core problem though, from MY point of view, is that Peace does not equate a long term solution. You say that Israeli military occupation in west bank etc is bad and so on, and it may be true, but that ignores the fact that Israel was attacked BEFORE 1967, BEFORE there was an "occupation". It goes back BEFORE and BEFORE.... and the core issue I believe, it's sad, but there will never be a real recognition of Israel in the area. Never. And if there will never be such one, then Israel needs to have secure borders, ones that can also reflect its identity and can strengthen their conviction for their just existence in the area, as it was in Hebron and Jerusalem (and also in the Golan) and not in Tel Aviv , that the Jewish people had amazing history throughout the centuries, and Israel should strive to reflect that history - again IMO. The thing is if one comes to the conclusion that true peace is impossible, then the perspective is totally different. Amoruso 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I want to belittle the notion of forgive and forget , but... just an example, you quoted Jesus right ? You know that Palestinians often deny that Jesus was Jewish ? Why am I saying this ? Well... there's a romantic idea that the two sides can put behind grudges and come to peace and understanding, but I have found out that when you're dealing with clashes of civilizations it's impossible to work out a solution. Sure Israel could sign a peace agreement with Abu Mazen who truly wants peace IMO and there are good hearted palestinians (also in wikipedia) who will follow him on such a soluton. But behind him there are MILLIONS of ... Muslim fanatics, for lack of better word, who will never give up on eradicating Israel, and I mean REALLY eradicate. The idea of conceding more and more and letting go of everything for peace is DAMN RISKY when the price is complete GENOCIDE OR POLICIDE - Israel WILL cease to exist if Israel neglects either its basic security or its basic ideological roots - reason for existance in the region - and there are signs that in some ways Israel is losing both in fact ever since Oslo for example... Amoruso 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my idea for resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict:

A one nation two states solution. One federated country from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan river, with two states, Israel and Palestine, as defined by the green line. All Jews (by religion or ethnicity) would automatically be Israeli citizens, all Muslims/Arabs would automatically be Palestinian citizens, and the few people belonging to the small minorities would have to choose between the two. One constitution approved by a majority referendum of Israelis and of Palestinians, and which cannot be changed except by the same process. Every citizen would be free to live anywhere they wished within the Federation, but under the laws of the state they live (the laws of course would be non-discriminatory and would have to respect the constitution). Israelis, wherever they live, would vote for Israel’s government, and ditto for Palestinians (so there is no question of the state of Israel ever losing its Jewish government or of the Palestinians not being free to manage their own state). The central federal bureaucracy (a la EU) would get part of the taxes and would invest them in economic convergence and other federal objectives. National defense would stay in Israel’s hands until such time as Israel unilaterally decides to share that responsibility with the Palestinians (until then Palestinians won’t have to pay taxes for defense). Terrorism? Each person killed in a terrorist attack would cost the state (indirectly) responsible a huge fine, say 10 million dollars (the point being to make it extremely advantageous for each state to make certain that its citizens do not resort to terrorism). The Israeli settlers? They stay where they are but somebody pays the Palestinian state the fair market price of the land they use. The Right of Return? Ditto – somebody pays the Palestinians fair market prices for their expropriated properties. Who pays? Oh, I am sure the international community would be happy to contribute most if not all of it. The name of the Federation? Both “Israeli Federation” and “Palestinian Federation” would be equally valid official names. The two states would have a seat at the UN, just like European states. The capital city? Jerusalem (united, both west and east) for the two state and the federal governments (actually it would be really nice if some time down the road the Israeli and Palestinian state ministries of education would share the same building). I am sure there are other questions to be answered (the name of the currency and how to manage fiscal policy, who writes the constitution and overlooks the whole initial process, what to do with the Golan Heights and in general how to manage the Federation’s foreign policy, how to organize some kind of Federal Supreme Court to check that the constitution is being respected, the state citizenship of the offspring of mixed marriages, and others) but I am sure they can be answered. Maybe the EU can help; after all the EU is a living example of previously bitter enemies now living in really durable peace and making business together.

Any comments? It really looks like workable to me. As far as I can see it's a balanced solution and everybody wins. Palestinians get sovereignty over every inch of Gaza and the West Bank. Jews can settle everywhere in Eretz Israel. The map shows a country with beautiful borders and two states in it in different colors (just like the US is presented in maps). The Palestinian society will get a huge economic boost, and the Israeli society will reap a huge peace dividend. Dianelos 09:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

response

Some questions --> what IS the name ? You can't have both names for one country, one name has to be official. Same goes for flag, anthem etc. Overall, you phrasesd your proposal nicely, kudos for that. Basically, you're saying it's similar to United Kingdom yes ? With Scotland and England for instance. Maybe we can actually use the United Kingdom name, this was used for ancient Israel at the time, see United Monarchy :) . It doesn't sound too bad in theory... Israel remains a state, Jews live everywhere freely, if holy sites are maintained, Israel still has complete control of army which also resides on the borders in the jordan valley and egypt... it really sounds okay in theory.

• One big problem is that Arab Israelies will never agree to switch to the Palestinian state btw (I know they won't have to move geographically but politically too many will disagree)... this is something quite problematic because you mentioned the issue of the demographics...
• another problem is that HAMAS doesn't recognise Israel and won't suffice with West Bank and Gaza as the territory of its state.
• Another problem I see is Jerusalem, because you say East Jerusalem is palestinian according to the green line. Does one need any passports or checkups between states or can just move freely ? (which will create big security and also demographic issues) Can a state put its flag anywhere they want ? this is problematic in the sense of Jerusalem and especially the Old City...
• About the constitution, Israel can't agree on its constitution right now... it will never agree on a constitution like that which also is in violation of Jewish law. Palesitnians will never agree on one, they haven't even agreed on how to change the Palestinian charter at the time.

Thinking about it, I'm a bit confused on what the solution gives differently from simple seperate peace... is it the complete withdrawl to the Green line ? meaning the issue of settlements is solved in your opinion per this ? You also said the issue of the fine on terror, but is that workable? anyone who makes a terrorist act immedially phucks up the government ? Seems a bit unlawful and will open manipulation - what constitutes as terrorist attack etc. Also, what if those people simply don't care... Hamas certainly didn't seem to care about losing financial support from EU and US after the elections for not recognising Israel. it's true that it's a better solution for how the borders will look on maps, you won't find me disagreeing there for sure !Amoruso 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The one bi-national country has been proposed by the left in Israel, usually it's dismissed but... the idea of the federation like you said has been officially proposed by the left... extreme left usually, here for example : [3] it's a bit differnet than yours but has a similar general idea. In Israel, such a plan is called "MEDINA DU LEUMIT" although it's confusing and I too thought it meant ONE STATE WITH ONE PARLIAMENT ETC... which is also a proposal (bad one)... the federal country is a better proposal no doubt.

Right wing in israel (or extreme right) often proposed same solution but for JORDAN AND PALESTINE as a federation - what do you think about that, just curiously ? Amoruso 11:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• About the name of the Federation. Why can't it have two official names? The Federation will have two official languages (Arabic and Hebrew of course) and documents in Arabic would use the Arabic version of "Palestinian Federation" when referring to it, and conversely Hebrew documents would use the Hebrew version of "Israeli Federation". Documents in other languages would use any version that the document's author prefers. The better known news media outlets overseas would probably use the unofficial "Israeli Palestinian Federation". Actually everybody's life abroad would be easier if the latter were accepted as a third official name. What’s important is that the Federalist model proposed here is somewhere between the US and the EU models but probably closer to the EU one. So people would most often speak of Israel or Palestine, as they now speak of France or Germany. The two states will have independent and strong governments that will control the issues of economic development, culture, education, religion, etc. They will have two seats in the UN (but would coordinate their foreign policy at the Federal level - a win-win situation). They will keep their national flags, anthems, etc. But they would be also a Federal flag, and many federalist projects (cultural and educational exchanges, joint business startups, maybe the same team at the Olympic games, this sort of thing). Israelis and Palestinians would use the same ID cards and the same passports, but their state citizenship would be explicit there (similar to the European solution).

• An fundamental part of the proposal is that the current Arab Israeli citizens will become Palestinian citizens. I don't think this will be a problem. Arab Israelis will continue to live exactly as they do now except for the following differences: a) In state elections they will vote for the Palestinian government and not for the Israeli one. b) The taxes they pay to the state of Israel will be lower because they won't be covering defense costs. c) No law of the state of Israel will discriminate against them, and if there is any discrimination in theory or in praxis it will be up to the Federal Supreme Court to strike it down. I cannot speak for them, but it seems to me they are clear winners. And as they won't feel like second class citizens (as many feel now) they will become better citizens too. I think justice and prosperity will work wonders to make people on both sides forget the hatred.

• The constitution must be approved by the majority of the Palestinian people (both inside and outside of Israel) and by the majority of the Israeli people (both inside and outside of Israel). If Hamas doesn't agree with this plan (which is not a given; I trust they will agree) let them argue their case before the referendum. If the constitution is approved they will respect the will of the Palestinian people or else find themselves marginalized. Of course one can imagine a scenario with some Islamic (and I daresay maybe also some Jewish) terrorists trying to derail the process, but I don't think that's likely. I think everybody is more or less tired with the current situation and if a really good solution is proposed that respects both peoples' deep-seated national needs and sense of honor I think it will capture their hearts and minds.

• Of course no passports will be needed to move from one state to the other. There will be absolutely no restriction in the movement of peoples, goods and capital either, just like in the EU. One tricky point will be immigration laws. An idea is to have some kind of quotas: depending on the ratio of the Palestinian/Israeli population (k) today, if N Jews are allowed to immigrate in a particular year then k*N Muslims will be allowed to immigrate too. I think that would be fair. As for Jerusalem it stays united; it's true that East Jerusalem would belong to the state of Palestine - so what? Israelis and Israeli companies could move there and do business with exactly the same rights as Palestinians. And, why not, Israeli government building could exist in East Jerusalem. And vice versa, for Palestinian rights to West Jerusalem. I don't pretend to be an expert on the complexity of the issues, but I really cannot see any big problems. Maybe some peoples' nationalistic sensitivities would be disturbed if they saw the wrong flag waving in the wrong place. So how about: In the state of Israel only the Israeli flag could be used, in the state of Palestine only the Palestinian flag, except that in East Jerusalem the Israeli flag could be used at Israeli state government buildings but only with the Federal flag at its side, and vice versa for West Jerusalem.

• The constitution is indeed a very critical point, because after all it must be approved by the majority of both peoples for the plan to work. I am not sure what you mean by that constitution being in violation of Jewish Law. The fundamental points of the constitution are very clear I think: two democratic states that fully respect all citizens' human rights.

• As for the fines in case of a terrorist attack, it's an idea that comes from the EU too: states here are fined when they do something wrong. These fines will be administered by the central Federal bureaucracy; and everybody knows a terrorist attack when they see one. But the main point is that a solution that fulfills both peoples' sense of right and honor will make terrorist ideology obsolete.

I couldn't read the page you referenced above because I don't know Hebrew. Let me know if I misunderstood something or left something unanswered. Dianelos 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

About the page, it has an english version on the left there, I thought it might work. The two-state solution is endorsed by Gush Shalom and their likes.

• Two official name is problematic for example in the internet domains, official maps, tourism, that sorts of things. I think it could work only with a neutral name without Israel or Palestinian in it. As for the other issues, flag will also have to be neutral and not a combination. Anthem is impossible. The Olympic joint team - scratch that - over my dead body :) .
• But I don't understand how one group can vote for a differnet parliament and law and yet be liable to the law of their geographic area ? How could they complain about laws affecting their geographic area if they're not particpating in the decisions  ? Apart from basic human right issues, what right do they have to be involved in the decisions ? Especially since their population is very large... a "better" proposal will be like the one above to give every area with lots of Arab population to the Palestinian state and all the settlements area etc to the Israeli state and not the 1967 border solution.... That they won't agree because they want to still be a part of Israel and enjoy ITS laws and not the Palestinian laws. Israeli laws, the democratic with free press etc is what they prefer. They made this clear that they won't' agree to be a part of the Palestinian state (the Avigdor Liberman proposal. You will say that the new federation will be free etc ANYWAY, but you'll be ignoring the cultural differneces between the societies and the religious impact making a truly free society in the palestinian areas in comparison to the israeli areas very unlikely).

• Quotas on jewish immigration is unlikely to get support due to anti-semitism, persecution and the very nature of Israel's existence. There are quotas today due to fianancial situations but not ideology. Israel can't deny any Jewish person who feels he must emigrate to Israel.

• The proposal in the web-site above said Jerusalem (and Bethlehem for some reason) will be of special indepedent status which will mean no flags I guess. I can tell you that Jerusalem is a city very important to Jews and they won't agree to it, and Palestinians again with extreme Muslim thought will continue to fight for domination of the city, see AL AQSA martyrs brigades etc. You just won't be able to convince the parties.

• According to Jewish Law, there can only be one constitution, that of Moses from Mount Sinai. This is one of the reasons why Israel doesn't have a constitution yet.

• But is a person doing something wrong from a state equals the state itself ?

• How about the idea of the same lines but Jordan + Palestine instead ? The idea behind it is that Jordan already has according to some estimates more than 80% Palestinians... do you dismiss it and if so , why ?

Amoruso 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That "English" link points to the site's main page in English. I searched a little but could not find the proposal you refer too.

In answer to your observations:

• Maybe you are right and one name for the Federation that omits both "Israel" and "Palestine" would be the better solution. Still let me defend the multiple names solution: Multiple Internet names can point to the same site. Some maps will print "Israel" and "Palestine" (like they show "France" and "Germany") and will also print "Israeli Federation" or "Palestinian Federation" or "I.P.F" over the whole region. Some will show only one contiguous region and print "Israeli Federation" while some others will print "Palestinian Federation" only. All these maps will be correct. Tourists will ask to visit Israel or Palestine or maybe the Holy Places, like they now ask to visit France or Germany or Europe. The Federation, just like the EU will mostly be seen as an administrative matter.

• I don't see why this is a problem. A Greek who goes to live or make business in Italy must abide by Italian law but cannot vote in Italian state elections for the parliament that decides these laws (still I suppose if a state so decides it may allow all its residents to vote in local elections; I personally think that would be a good idea). - Now you say that Israeli settles would prefer to live under Israeli law. Well, they will live under the protections of the Israeli Federation constitution. That constitution would be explicit, iron-fisted, and would effectively protect peoples' freedoms and rights. Palestinians (in both sides of the green line) would also prefer such a constitution to protect their freedom and rights, so there won't be any disagreement about this. But if some settlers would really prefer to live under Israeli law then they are free to sell or rent their property and move to the state of Israel. The solution we are discussing here speaks of a "state of Israel" and a "state of Palestine" but is in fact very different from the "two state solution" and, it seems to me, makes everybody feel more of a winner. But I concede there will be some (both Jew and Palestinian) whose nationalistic dreams will not be fulfilled by this solution but I trust they will be a very small minority. (As far as I understand the issues even the ultra-orthodox Jews will prefer this solution over any two state solution that limits their rights to settle on Eretz Israel, and even the most hardline right-of-return Palestinians will prefer a solution that allows them to return to where their grandfathers lived: they are free buy some property there, maybe from the Israeli Land Authority, suffering no discrimination of course.) As for the cultural differences, there are many cultural differences within the EU too - that's something that cannot be helped; the Federation would have projects that aim for tolerance, understanding, and even appreciation of the other peoples' culture.

• I understand Jewish immigration is a fundamental issue, and so the idea is that quotas would apply to Muslim immigration. At some level both states would probably prefer to stabilize the situation. And with raising living standards Palestinian would have fewer children (and I understand the so-called demographic problem has be blown up by exaggerated numbers).

• Jerusalem will be a united city and be the capital city for both states thus fulfilling both peoples' aspirations. Again some of the more extremist nationalistic fractions may not be completely happy. No solution can possibly completely satisfy every single person - but I think this solution fulfills both peoples' basic wishes.

• I very much respect peoples’ religious beliefs, but no modern state can prosper under religious law - not Islamic Law, not Jewish Law. A constitution is absolutely necessary, but one that also absolutely protects peoples’ religious freedoms and rights.

• Yes, states will be held responsible for terrorist acts committed by their citizens or even in the name of their citizens. Terrorism will have to stop. Surely everybody will agree with that.

• A federation of West Bank + Jordan would leave Jews without the right to settle everywhere in Eretz Israel. And would leave Palestinians without the right to return. And my guess is that after Black September the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would not particularly like to associate with Jordan. And I doubt whether Jordan would like to deal with millions of more Palestinians. Would Israel be prepared to give all of the West Bank to Jordan? And even if Israel managed to keep some regions near the green line would the rest of Israeli settlers want to live under Palestinian-Jordanian law? I am not sure how real the security issues are but would Israel want be really thin at its center? And the demographic problem in Israel would still exist. It seems to me that a West Bank + Jordan federation is an inferior solution all around. Dianelos 09:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dainelos, interesting read, thanks for your time. I didn't understand still why the green line needs to be your criteria for the two states of the federation ? Why not say that anywhere there are Jews it's part of Israel and anywhere there are arabs it's part of Palestine ? If everybody is free to move around and everything, why does it have to be defined by the green line ? This is basically the one country proposal I told you about. Same for Jordan-Palestine proposal - that proposal doesn't say that the west bank becomes foreign to Israel like you thought it did - it says that the Palestinians are jordanian citizens and that anywhere THEY are it's part of the federation - meaning the whole cities and towns - nablus, ramallah, jenin, tulkarem and so on... because they are jordanian citizens living in Israeli borders... that's what it generally means.

Anyway, the proposal is of course quite beautiful but it's utopic, and if the PREMISE of this proposal was true, then there wouldn't be a need for any proposals, because there wouldn't be any fighting to begin with. The idea that Palestinans will accept the human rights and refrain fromt terrorism and live happily with Israel and there will be this amazing constitution for an awesome federation of peace , it's fantasy land. You say there are cultural differneces within the EU... and that implies to me you don't understand the extent of the differences. The notion behind the EU is that Europeans aren't THAT different from one another or atleast not the "NATO" european which is the problem of accepting more and more eastern european countries with different mentality. I don't think that in essence there is a huge inherehent cultural difference between Israelis and Palestinians, definitely not with the Israelis who lived in Arab countries of course , and also not because of inter-action between the Arab population of Israel and druze with the Jews, but there's a problem of religious fanatic behaviour and of pan-Arabic identity which can't accept Israel's existance and will not accept it. Israel only has peace with Jordan and Egypt because these countries are NOT democratic. I think you'll find that if you make a survey in Egypt about whether or not they want Peace with Israel, then more than 80% will say "Never" and possibly a huge % will also add "Death to Jews". Anti semitic books are very popular in Egypt and other arab countries.

Rabin famously said that the Oslo Accords are good to Israel also because the Palestinian Authority will be able to deal with terrorism without the "burden" of the Human Right groups and so on - what he meant is also that if you find a strong enough ruler that can control the violence then you can sign a peace treaty with him. This is the basic premise behind Israel's foreign policy with the Arab states. If Israel believed that Assad like Mubarak is willing to fight terrorism to its core and open his arms to western world then it would give the Golan Heights without hesitation. But Mubarak cracks down on the Muslim Brotherhood while Assad endorses Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Jordan used to harbour Hamas too, but eventually Abdallah kicked out the Hamas HQ and it moved to Damascus. This is because Abdallah wants stabiliy, and this is why Israel supported Jordan and NOT the PLO in 1970, because it wanted stability (this could seem silly because Israel could have preferred a Palestinian state in Jordan instead of the West bank and gaza, but Israel probably didn't look that far ahead and just wanted stability and not to create an active enemy state on its border). Now your idea says that "no... it will be a fully democratic federation with full human rights" instead of the usual strong control of the government to oppress any terrorist activity. And I ask you is this possible ? If Hamas win 80% of the votes and says what it says and has the rallies it has and demonstrations and palestinian mothers are proud that their sons blow themselves up... if this is some of the behaviour of the people, the last thing they're interested in is some western human right system. They'd much rather have a full islamic empire which has restrictions over any citizen who's not a muslim, over women, over beliefs contarary to "the prophet's" teachings etc.

It's just difficult to conceive a plan like yours with "people" who are capable of this - (warning - nasty picture) - [4] . Think about it... Really. I think people dismiss such thoughts and don't take it into full account especially abroad but also locally, if you truly stop and think about it... I think you see what it's all really about. Amoruso 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dianelos! I think your proposal is on the right track, though I'm more of a one-stater myself. I thought that you might be interested in this website [5]], and in particular the article by Meron Benvinisti [6]. The biggest obstacle to peace is the fear-mongering and prejudicial notions fostered by the extremists on both sides against one another. We are all just human beings trying to find a way to survive, preferably happily. :) Thanks for your concern about us all. Tiamut 16:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have to join those who reject such idea. I understand it was conceived in a good faith, but this utopia is built on so many idealistic assumptions and crutches, there is no way it would ever work. If the Jewish people learned anything as a result of their experience of the last millennia, it is that they need their own state. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Amoruso:

You say that the this proposal is a beautiful utopia. I like the "beautiful" part; after all part of Middle Eastern culture is the appreciation of beauty. Beauty reflects balance and balance reflects justice. Did you know that the Qur'an says that "God is beauty"?

But I don't like the "utopia" part. I am an engineer and care about things working well. So let me defend my opinion that such a solution will work.

1. Peoples' aspirations.

As far as I can see the Jewish aspiration in rough priority order are:

• That Jews may live in the state of Israel in peace and security.
• That the state of Israel be both democratic and Jewish (aka the demographic problem).
• That Jews may settle in all Eretz Israel, and that current settlers may stay.
• That the capital city of the state of Israel be a united Jerusalem.
• That Israel's security not be threatened by an Arab army 15 km from the see in the midst of Israel.

As far as I can see the Palestinian aspiration in rough priority order are:

• That a truly sovereign Palestinian state be created in all of the West Bank and Gaza.
• That Jerusalem be the capital city of that state.
• That Palestinians who left or were driven from their homes in the Arab-Israeli conflict may have the right to return.
• That Palestinians' human rights not be violated anywhere they have lived for centuries.

I think it's clear that the Federation proposed fulfills both peoples' fundamental aspirations. Some Jews would rather have all Arabs disappear to the east of the Jordan river, and some Palestinians would rather have the state of Israel itself disappear, but neither pipe dream is going to happen and only the completely unrealistic people of both sides can believe otherwise. At least the vast majority of both peoples' will see their fundamental aspirations satisfied, and this fact is of fundamental importance for this proposal’s chances of success.

2. How stable and practical the proposed solution is:

• As we saw above it has very good foundations, because indeed both peoples' aspirations are fulfilled.
• No painful changes are required; indeed there is no need for population transfers or for lines that separate families.
• Almost exclusively positive changes. Both Jews and Palestinians living both to the west and the east of the green line will see positive changes, (and it seems to me that especially Israelis and Palestinians living in the West Bank will see the most positive changes).
• No political leader who works in this process will be branded a traitor because the plan will be contingent on the approval of the absolute majority of both peoples in a referendum.
• Such a plan will engender enormous good will in the international community both towards Israelis and Palestinians. The US, the EU, and the rich Arab countries would probably underwrite most of the costs. The EU would also give much practical advice about how to create the Federal bureaucracy.
• The entire process will be overseen by the international community and both parties will do their best to play fair. There may be some hotheaded people on both sides, but both sides will see that these people be restrained.
• Palestinian hatred and Jewish contempt runs deep. Especially the people living in the West Bank are very polarized. But in many ways they will also be the biggest winners. Also the entire process will not conclude overnight but will take several years, so that these winnings would be contingent on the process working.

In short, both peoples win and therefore as far as it is practically possible this proposal can work.

3. The worst case scenarios

What’s the worse that can happen from Israel’s point of view? That Palestinians take advantage of their freedoms and multiply the terrorist attacks against Israelis. In that case Israeli army simply rolls back and brings the situation to the current status quo. With the difference that the international community’s opinion would now be much more positive towards Israel. So Israel has a built-in security valve.

What’s the worse that can happen from the Palestinians’ point of view? That Israel, after signing all the papers, would in praxis derail the process by finding ways to deny Palestinian rights some way or other. In this case though Palestinians will get a huge boost in the public opinion of the international community. Israel cannot survive without the goodwill of the international community, and Palestinians will have to trust that the international community can and will pressure Israel into fulfilling its obligations.

I personally judge both scenarios above to be very unlikely. The process will take place under the close supervision of the international community (they are paying most of the bills anyway), and both peoples will have much to win if the plan works and much to lose if the plan fails.

4. What's the alternative?

From Israel's point of view an alternative would be for Israel to unilaterally impose the kind of two-state solution it sees fit: We take this piece out of the West Bank, wall you out, limit what your government can do, and so on. And why not? Israel has nothing to fear militarily from the Arabs, the US is a longtime and steadfast supporter, and the EU is toothless and spineless and carries a history that will keep them from doing something that actually hurts us. With time Palestinians and Arabs in general will get used to the situation, the international community will get bored discussing the injustice done to the Palestinians, and we shall be able to keep terrorism in check to some level we can live with. As for our Arabs one way or the other we will see that their number does not grow beyond its current level; we can live with them too. - Well, I see so many risky assumptions here especially long-term that I don't know where to begin. But even if that alternative would work long term I fail to see where it does serve Israel's interests better.

As for the Arabs they certainly cannot unilaterally impose a solution on Israel, at least not in the foreseeable future. So only alternatives that Israel may accept are realistic, and the one it seems to me that comes closer is the recent 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. But the proposal for a Federation both serves Palestinians better and is more likely to be accepted by Israel I think. Dianelos 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Our discussion

As far as I can see the Palestinian aspiration in rough priority order are:

That a truly sovereign Palestinian state be created in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

You're wrong (IMO). This is not the aspiration of the Palestinian people. It's a make-up aspiration. The aspiration today is what Hamas represents and it has little to do with a Palestinian political entity. It has more to do with the need to have Islamic rule over as much territory and people as possible. Israel is in the HEART of the islamic world and just like Ahmadinijad doesn't want Israel here, HAMAS doesn't want Israel here. They don't want a "Zionist entity" in the middle of the Islamic world. If there's something that connects Shia hizballah and Sunni hamas is this hatred, and they won't stop. It's really what I think leaves the gap between what you think is possible and what I see. You don't see the will of Hamas and Hizballah , which have immense support of millions, to blank out Israel from the maps entirely. The idea of any partition or any sharing of the land in one political form or another is laughable to them, it's a western concept with they loathe, which they will show nothing but contempt to. There is a real clash of civilizations here, not like one in the EU but one which is rooted in deep beliefs of jihad and what's right, and how men and women should behave in the world. This whole idea of finding a solution to something like this, or equating people's miseries and misfortunes, and thinking that both sides have simply some extremists and that we all are human beings that want a place under the sun... and we all live under the same moon and walk under the same stars, and why can't we just live happily together ?? well we can't it will never ever work and the only solution must be based on heavy security and power at the end of the day - a federation won't be able to do that unless will be signed by a minority palestinian ruler which won't be democratic like you wished. As to the photo, this wasn't simply a horror photo. Yes, there are horror photos of children being shelled, as were in WW2 German childern dying in horror and Nazi commiting horrors, but there was a difference and a difference here. I'm not simply talking about the horror of war etc, I'm talking about the mentality which brings persons to spoon someone's brains out, you understand the difference ? It's the mentality which trampedes over burning american and Israeli flags with swastikas while firing multiple shots into the air and yelling "itbach al yahud". It's not something you'll see in Israel or anywhere in the Western world. And that my friend can't be changed. Amoruso 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, your whole arugment is based on stereotyping that casts Arabs and Muslims as inherently homocidal. It is so offensive. I mean I could quote Beitar fans who yell "Death to the Arabs" everytime the Arab Sakhnin team plays them, and post pictures of Palestinian children blown to bits by one-ton bombs dropped by the Israeli airforce, and then form the same conclusions you have (in reverse, of course). But I don't. Because I don't think that it is constructive or accurate to take the most violent and racist actions of either side to paint all members of that community in the darkest light possible. As a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, of Christian parentage, married to a Muslim, wholly agnostic (both he and I) and yet firmly committed to a one state solution, my very existence challenges your very narrow interpretation of the Arab and Muslim community. Yes, I have a problem with Zionism, because I don't believe in any ideology that accords preferential rights to one group of people over another of the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, or any other defining characteristic. I fight against those who support the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in Palestine just as strongly as I fight against those who support the maintenance of a Jewish state. There are many of us, both Palestinian and Israeli, who see religiously and ethnically defined states as outdated and woefully inadequate in addressing the needs of all citizens, individually and collectively. There are definitely better models. The world is not black and white as you make it out to be. I would advise you to stop making excuses for your rejection of a perfectly plausible solution based of a mischaracterization of your "enemy". Explain why you yourself do not like the idea without resorting to putting the blame on a stereotyped "other". Tiamut 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut you're entitled to your opinion. I never implied that Muslims are inherhently evil or something like that. Most of course are perfectly fine educated people. So being married to a muslim is not of consequence since there are Jews married to muslim too, indeed there are muslims serving the IDF proudly. But There is also no denial of the clash of civilizations between fanatic islamic behaviour and the western world values. This fanatic behaviour is presented by groups like Hizballah and Hamas. The strong support for Hamas (over 80% in elections) and the rallies I mentioned shows the problem and why a peaceful solution will not work unfortunately. I find the comparison to ultras football chants (that are actually quite rare) quite weak, some will say childish. I think closing one's eyes to the true reality of the clash of civilizations above is the core of the problem. It was also the mistake of Shimon Peres who thought we were on a verge of a "new middle east" later criticized for this remark (and book). Amoruso 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Re: your desire to remove the UN, EU, G8 + al Jazeera sourcing, unfortunately I was correct on this matter. See the latest diff. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Israelis do not live in peace and security 60 years after the creation of Israel. Why is that?

You asked -> Israelis do not live in peace and security 60 years after the creation of Israel. Why is that?

And the reason is simple - the first Zionists arrived in Palestine 125 years ago, with their guns, determined to seize the land of others and ethnically cleanse the rightful owners.<reference>

Why didn't Israelis get away with it in 1948, when they might have done? Answer - because they continued to aggressively pursue the expansion that the Zionists always dreamed of.<reference>

Top Zionists are no longer say they want "from the Nile to the Euphrates"<reference> - but that appears to be what they want, and there's going to be mass suffering in the whole region until they're stopped and there's regime change.

But the good news is that time is running out for Israel, the writing is on the wall.<reference> The apartheid and ethnic cleansing regime was built with guns and the fear of guns, best guess at the moment is that rockets and the fear of rockets will see it crumble.

If you don't believe me, check out how many children of prominent Israelis are choosing to leave. Both of Olmert's sons, for starters. Descendants of many of the early Zionists, including the families of former Israeli prime ministers David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Rabin. <reference> Israel is not going to survive this loss of confidence.

PalestineRemembered 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice summary of Plantinga's review

Hello and thanks for the nice summary of Plantinga's review you added to The God Delusion. --Merzul 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:High level view of FROG.gif

Thank you for uploading File:High level view of FROG.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hedge fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harbinger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Janeray.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Janeray.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Methodological Naturalism Article

You mentioned that you felt there should be a methodological naturalism article independent of the Philosophical Naturalism article. I tend to agree, so I've started a draft of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philocentric/methodological_naturalism Feel free to edit it as you'd like. I'll wait a few weeks before submitting it. Philocentric (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dianelos. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dianelos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dianelos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)