User talk:Daniel575/Archive2

Do you think we can remove that rediculous, doctored quote yet? Also, if you need a source for most Orthodox Jews, at least in Jerusalem, being anti Zionists, the book, "Guardian of Jerusalem," has great information. It even has a voting record from the mandate period showing anti-Zionist voters, who were only male, outnumbered zionists, male and female, 10 to 1, or something similar. Also, in Uman, the Satmar kloiz had Moshe Braun, the talmid muvhak of Moshe Ber Bek, as shlizch tzibor mussaf ROsh Hashanah and a speaker motzei rosh hashanah, so we just need to wait for an article about it to pop up somewher put the cherem nonsense to bed. [shia1] 88.155.104.53 07:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in its entirety. What a Chillul Hashem... - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, time to archive the talkpage. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a way it is a huge chillul Hashem. On the other hand, the Satmar Rov did most definitely hold that it is a big mitzvah to make it known amongst the umos ha'olam that we are not Zionists. It is too bad that there is no non-NK, more Satmar-like website oriented on the umos ha'olam (jewsagainstzionism.com is mainly directed to yidden). NK are extremists. They may be right in a few things, but they are not the way to go. Concerning it being a chillul Hashem, I think opinions vary. It all depends on the way in which it is brought. The danger is that of people using it to justify (violent) opposition against Zionists - and basically against all Jews except those who renounce Zionism - by pointing at NK and saying "see, we love Jews, we just hate Zionists!" That is antisemitism and there is a big danger in such things. Yes, I hate Zionism and (real) Zionists - but I do not believe that the umos ha'olam have any right to intervene in such issues. It is our internal Jewish issue and we will handle it amongst ourselves, we most definitely don't need the goyim to help us out in how to handle our own troubles. --Daniel575 15:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was pretty low, even for him -- Avi 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so indeed. Deserves a heavy punishment if you ask me. --Daniel575 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an edit as vandalsim when it clearly isn't is a form of vandalsim. I'm sorry but I refuse to play your silly little game.--Oiboy77 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were MSN Messenger, this would be my response: *-) . Known as, 'rolleye'. Do you really believe what you are saying here? Come on. Are you that stupid? Committing plain vandalism and then denying it is vandalism? With all due respect, there is only one thing I can say, and that is, "get lost." --Daniel575 18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]]--Oiboy77 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say with this? Yes, Avi added the 'unsigned' note. That doesn't mean that he wrote it?! Just what are you trying to prove? --Daniel575 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tish with Tish (Hasidic celebration) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy12201986 (talk • contribs)

You're right, thanks. Didn't see that page. Will get to work on it. --Daniel575 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todah rabah. Being vegetarian does help with kashrut, doesn't it... --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, makes my kitchen a lot easier - and cheaper! Happy to help out some. --Daniel575 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

איך אתה קורא לעצמך יהודי ועוד גר בארץ ישראל? איך תסביר לי? על אנשים כמוך נאמר בתנ"ך "מחריבייך ומהרסייך יצאו ממך"

חתיכת כלב —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.210.40 (talk • contribs)

English translation by Daniel575 (may not be 100% accurate, since neither is my knowledge of the treife loshen (impure language)): "How can you call yourself a Jew, a ger, living in Eretz Yisroel? How will you explain this to me? In the Tenach it says about people like you, "you shall destroy from amongst yourselves the destroyers and the poisonous persons", you piece of dog.

For those interested in knowing, this is apparently some kind of Zionist scolding tirade against me for not being a Zionist and for conforming to the views held by the Rebbes of Satmar, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Rabbi Elazar Shach, the dayanim of the Edah HaChareidis and some others. I'm not deleting this, it can stay here as a nice monument to how Zionists treat those who disagree with them. Those interested might want to read the article on Jacob Israel de Haan also, to see what Zionists are capable of when it comes to proper Orthodox Jews who rightfully oppose them. --Daniel575 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, the fella meant the other Pshat in posuk according to drush, מהרסיך ומחריביך ממך יצאו that your destroyers and your razers will come from within you. However, he misqouted and misspelt the posuk which is a shaila of אל תשכן באהלך עולה, which chazal tell us means someone who has a ספר שאינו מוגה. Cockneyite 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, A translation of the original statement would be: "How can you call yourself a Jew, and say that you live in Israel? How would you justify it? It is told in the Tanach of your kind, "Only destruction will come out of you".

Filthy dog. (No translation from this, but it's a insult, to say the least).

You may find the article Terrorists of Pakistani origin interesting. It may be deleted soon in perhaps a few hours.

If you have any views on having such articles on Wikipedia, please do share them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terrorists_of_Pakistani_origin

--Robcotton 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "totally disputed" notice to the condemnation section, based on your comments and those of the subsequent anonymous contributor. Any clarification you could provide on this matter would be very much appreciated.

Thank you, CJCurrie 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the same, could you point me in the direction of any public-domain sources documenting the division between Hirsch's followers and opponents? I'm inclined to accept your comments here, but the anon's recent comments suggest a different interpretation. CJCurrie 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I am a freak for standardization!! It drive me nuts to see two different systems. AD/BC are as much a part of the Gregorian Calender as the fact that this is 16 August 2006. I don't understand why. If you don't think these should be used, then please don't use the Gregorian calender.

--Jorbian 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notations of years are in the Gregorian calender, yes? This is a secular encyclopedia, but the Gregorian calender has it's roots in Christianity. You cannot escape this. I want this encyclopedia, if it is to use the Gregorian calender, to use it correctly. I want it to all be correct. Unless, you can come up with something other then the birth of Jesus Christ that marks the begining of the common era, you are making yourself look silly. Untill some other event that changed the world into a common era is marked, it is just silly. Tell me what significant event, happened between 10 "BCE" and 10 "AD" that changed the world who's effects are still felt today. --Jorbian 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by terrorist. I am abiding by Wikipedia rules and corresponding with others on the dicussio board. Your use of the term is inappropriate.

Furthermore, I cannot understand why you support Neturei Karta people. Maybe you sympathize for them because they are misguided. However, because they call themselves Talmidei Chachomim--sometimes adding "esteemed"--they must be revealed for who and what they truly are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs)

I did not call them terrorists, I was stating facts regarding their religious observance in American and inappropriate usage of talmudical scholars. Because this is an encyplopedia of information, these facts should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)

Then please bring sources. You are showing a very strong Litvishe bias and you seem to be about as flexible as the average Bnei Braknik. Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia. We do not censor like the Yated Neeman does, we bring factual and verifiable information. If you can bring me a reliable source proving that NK members indeed committed chillul shabbos in Manhattan, it changes things. So far, I am forbidden from believing that information. It is loshon hora. Daniel575 | (talk)

I appreciate your attempts at sincerity: However these remarks say motzi shem rah not only about ehrlich Jews living in Bnei Brak, but about all those from Lita as well. Its truly upsetting to see how one can on the one hand show compassion to those who are michallel shabbos, and on the other hand, malign all Litvaks.

I apologize for mentioning terorist as opposed to pro hezbollah rallies. Its the same thing, everyone knows it, but becauseI respect Wikipedia's rules, I will be more careful. I appreciate your views in this regard.

My view toward Neturei Karta is true and balanced. The problem is there are two NKs. One is the Jerusalem version which continues in Rav Blau's tradition, and the other does not. My views are limited to the latter group. My remarks regarding them are true. The fact they desecrated the Shabbos has been mentioned in several blogs. The one I clearly remember is the blog, Dov Bear. If you search for Neturei Karta, I believe you will find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)

You are again accusing innocent yiddden of being mechalel shabbos, without any evidence. A blog is not evidence. Anyone can write a blog. The fact that they are 'Nazis' and 'antisemites' has also been mentioned in several blogs. And please finally learn to sign your comments with 4 tildes. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast - I hoped the prod would work --Trödel 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would be better, neater way of doing it. I think the outcome is pretty clear anyway. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enclosed the blog cite under the Medrash Shmuel discussion by accident. Sorry DavidCharlesII 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it, thanks! --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And have fun with the sig. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna start an article on a tree in Siberia and see how long it takes before it gets AfDed? :D Dev920 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist... but i'm off for a while. --Daniel575 | (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this one should be deleted as well. (See the Discussion. :-) --Dennette 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreceated. --Dennette 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Daniel575, I would like to apply your words above (under #What a Chillul Hashem):

The danger is that of people using it to justify (violent) opposition against Zionists - and basically against all Jews except those who renounce Zionism...

to another situation, namely the issue of incorporating quotes like "under the influence of the yetzer hora" and "have poisonous opinions" into Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. From where I see it, as a "Torah" Jew (whatever that means) who prefers consensus and achdus and has a cautiously optimistic, slightly positive feeling about this whole Sanhedrin business, but is basically neutral, repeating vile epithets about almost any Jew is uncalled for and could lead to future abuses by people distorting and taking those words out of context.

For example, just how farfetched do you really think it would be that some rasha would say that "Rav Ploni even admitted that Rav Almoni was trying to poison other Jews", citing your quotation, as justifying claims of the old water-poisoning libel? People will go to all kinds of lengths to make their verkachte opinions seem like they're supported by others, and your quotes could be used in just such a fashion. -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that these are the official opinions of Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkovits, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman and other gedolim. The quite about 'influence of the yetzer hora' is from Rav Shach. Such things are not wild allegiations thrown around, but serious statements by serious gedolim, which makes a big difference. It isn't me accusing Ariel of having poisonous opinions - it's the Litvishe gedolim doing so. I am merely repeating their words, my opinion is not important. And for what it matters, I consider the chassidishe gedoilim to be more important. My own rav is Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ulman of the Badatz. His opinion on the issue is also clear. Hope this clarifies it. Also, see the new article Temple Institute that I wrote yesterday, which includes a summary of the negative controversies surrounding the Institute. Perhaps you want to write some positive things about them. I am not the person to write positively about them. However, what I wrote, even though it is negative, is all factual and accurate, so please don't delete it, rather add new positive material to balance it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that The US, EU, UN, G8, and all major media sources (AP, Reuters, AFP etc) do not have it in their interests to paint Hezbollah (a political faction in lebanon, who happens to take arms when their country is invaded) as a terrorist organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwizard09 (talk • contribs)

No, I do not. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why would all those organizations fail to report the truth? -- Webwizard09

Please find an Arabic forum to spread your idiotic hallucinations, not Wikipedia. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to congrat you for some of the nice work you've been doing on articles like the temple mount and many more. I was very impressed. Amoruso 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We have a lot more to do. I think dividing articles on Jewish topics in 'pro' and 'contra' sections is a very smart thing to do, because it basically eliminates all POV concerns. Especially regarding the Temple Mount it's only a matter of hours until some Kahanist shows up and tries to convince you that almost all rabbis permit going on the Temple Mount and that those who forbid are only a tiny minority (which is basically what the previous version implied). Let's continue! --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm in favour (very strong even) of going up to the Temple Mount and building the Temple on it. That is why even though I understand you probably hold different opinions entirely (on this issue), I think your editing of the article was very fair and balanced. You are correct that this is the best way to portray the section. It is actually one of the best versions I've seen in terms of objectivity and I was geniunely impressed. You are the perfect editor in the sense you aim to really write balanced articles and not voice opinions only. Amoruso 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So why not propose me for adminship? Well, in a few months anyway. When Yossiea and Historian2 also agree. (See Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin.) And yes... I do think I'm pretty good in being neutral. Thanks again! --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it's the truth, you'll make a good admin for sure. Wow, thanks for the link for the Sanhedrin article. That one is pretty heated I see . :-) Amoruso 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. It's a friggin war out there. I'm giving it some rest until after shabbat, to let everything - including myself - cool down a little. It's a little annoying that there is no place for 'common sense' on Wikipedia. Even I violate the rules now and then in that sense: for example, I have no real source saying that Rav Eliashiv etc (the Haredi gedolim mentioned in the Temple Mount article as forbidding one to go up there) oppose it, other than the Yated links that say "modern halachic opinions forbid it" etc. It's just common sense, common knowledge that all Ashkenazi Haredi gedolim (with the exception of the Lubavitcher Rebbe??? I have to verify that with some Lubavitchers I know) that it is absolutely totally forbidden to go up. So I just wrote down a few big Ashkenazi Haredi names. By the way, I did participate once in the Erev Rosh Chodesh Sivuv Shearim.... Because I am opposed to the Israeli gov't forbidding Jews from entering the Temple Mount. Of course the gov't should allow us to enter. The fact that I won't enter is purely halachic, it has nothing to do with the state. Most Chareidim are angry with the state for forbidding Jews from entering. There are quite a lot of Yated articles about this. Anyway, I'm going to sleep soon. --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help with the Brisker Template, I'm willing to work on it with you. Contact me on my talk page. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the personal attacks. It never is helpful to point out to idiots that they are being idiots. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I de-prodded Donald Nicholl and tagged it for cleanup. From what I can tell Google has heard of him and his book Heaven, so he's on the border of WP:BIO. Feel free to nominate it for deletion, though; like I said, the subject's barely notable, if at all. szyslak (t, c, e) 12:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2], please make sure to make one change at a time for the ease of tracking with detailed edit summaries, esp. when doing something potentially controversial. E.g., "removed paragraph about X because defamatory and Y and unsourced", or something of the same sort. Thanks a lot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not sure what the point is of your message to me, but usually insulting people is not an effective method of fostering understanding. I have no opinion on the Sanhedrin, modern or otherwise. Consider this your final warning for making personal attacks. Further attacks on me or anyone else will result in a block. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks.

• [3]
• [4]

Wikibofh_(talk) 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

אם יש לסמוך על הזכרון שלי, הרב מסטמר כותב על זה בעל הגאולה ועל התמורה באזור אות ע

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Orthodox_Rabbinical_Biography_Collaboration_of_the_Week#Time_to_modify_rules.3F JJ211219 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for the new nominations for Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. There are many new nominations and more votes would help seperate the good nominations from the bad nominations.

Please continue to contribute to the wikipage. I tried to word things that both a "scoffer" and a "believer" could read the page and just come away with facts. I don't think the purpose of the wikipage is prove or disprove, only to fairly represent what they claim and what people are saying about it. If you have more facts to add, it would be helpful. --Historian2 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that edit and I will no longer make updates withought extensive and thorough research into it. Again my apologies, I was not "lying".Matt. P 08:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel, please assume good faith; accusing other editors of lying, when they could simply be mistaken, is a classic example of not making such an assumption. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are from both Israel and New Zealand. You may be interested in Israel-New Zealand relations.

Also, I could really use some support in opposing merging Israel-Venezuela relations into (nothingness) Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez. Anything you can add to Israel-Venezuela relations, Israel-New Zealand relations, and Israel-Japan relations would be very appreciated. Respectfully, Republitarian 17:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... woops.. hahaha :) Republitarian 18:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the oppose vote. Your support in this matter is valued. Respectfully, Republitarian 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you have reverted my edits on Israel - I tried to give unbiased reports. Also I corrected misspelling but you have reverted this too (unless you spell ceasfire cresfire). Johnbibby 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot. Just so you know, i moved it to a sandbox, link from my page. Amoruso 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your moves and comments. Are you saying we should avoid "massacre" as a biased and prefer "incident" as a neutral one? For many readers, the term Massacre implies a deliberate, premeditated (and ethically illegitimate) act.

If so, that sounds like a good idea. For example, I moved No Gun Ri massacre to No Gun Ri tragedy for similar reasons. --Uncle Ed 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to the agreed-to name. Glad to still see you editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for R' Yosef Sholom, please exercise extreme care when moving between two equally valid renditions of hebrew. Do not, DO NOT, for example, move Shabbat to Shabbos. As to Y.S.E., I will agree bedieved, since he is Litvish and it's appropriate to render in his dialect. But really, either is fine, and we don't want to be unproductive - just make many redirects. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So go write an explanation of this on talk please. When's the chasuna? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that onlysimchas link has become broken, and I can't even find the message I left there - everything was deleted. What's going on? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh... what the hell does "Engaged but in doubt" mean? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the same person who edits the Neturei Karta bio (for whatever reason the other fellow does it). I have no way of telling who it is, because literally hundreds of people could be using it. DavidCharlesII 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sequence of events

hi, concerning that intro I wanted to delete... thank you.

During the 1920s, Zionists tried to buy the Western Wall ---> what does that mean ? they tried to BUY it ? that' why i wanted to delete it... please do, this is an incitement made by the editor who justifies the whole thing.

— the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, considered the most sacred site in the Jewish faith.

---> the most sacred site is the temple itself, correct ? so that should be changed. I see you changed it, if you think it's clear enough.

Muslims claimed that they had a right to the site, which also forms part of the plaza known as the Noble Sanctuary (al-Haram al-Sherif الحرم الشريف) from which Muhammad ascended to heaven in the Muslim tradition. Thus, there was an atmosphere of distrust on the part of Muslims fearing a Zionist take-over of the most important site in Judaism, which comprises only a small outer section of the third holiest site in Islam.^[1] Amoruso 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> this is wrong too... the Al Aqsa mosque is where Muhammed ascended according to tradition. The plaza is meaningless - there wasn't even a plaza at the time. a zionist takeover should alteast be in brackets or something as it's ridicilous. Amoruso 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the same person who edits the Neturei Karta bio (for whatever reason the other fellow does it). I have no way of telling who it is, because literally hundreds of people could be using it. DavidCharlesII 19:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

BS"D

I noticed on your user page you have The acronym for Bisyasa D'shamyoh in hebrew. How do you get that. --Shaul avrom 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can just copy it with ctrl-c and ctrl-v. I have a bilingual keyboard (Israeli). Wikipedia handles Hebrew letters just fine! --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I am concerned that you are making statements that are either untrue or not verified. Simply, you cannot possibly verify that most Orthodox Jews in 1945-1948 were anti-Zionist. Since you can't verify it, you can't state it on an article. I am specifically concerned about your repeated personal attacks. Telling me to "stop bitching" is not proper behavior here on Wikipedia. (In an unrelated aside, it is improper behavior for a frum Yid as well). This is your first warning on the subject. If this repeatedly becomes a problem, you will be reported.--Meshulam 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then report me now, you silly. You are plain lying. Everybody knows the vast majority of Orthodox Judaism has always been and still is opposed to Zionism. Anyone pretending otherwise is a plain liar. You can complain all you want, but this does not change the facts. As for those who argue that most Jews nowadays are not Zionists: those who claim such are Zionists themselves. They claim this based on the fact that the Zionist State has 6 million Jews of whom only 600,000 are Chareidim. From that they deduct that 5,4 million are Zionists. WRONG. We are talking about ORTHODOX JEWS here. 20% of Israel is shomer shabbos. 12% are Chareidi. 8% are Dati Leumi. It's a proven fact and it's totally obvious wherever you go in Israel: the Chareidim far outnumber the Dati Leumi. Remember we are talking about Orthodox Jews, not about Jews.--Daniel575 | (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Orthodox Judaism was, is, and will always reject the dirty Zionist ideology, and their founders, the heretical Jew-haters Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann and the likes, may their names and memories be destroyed from history. They are cursed, the Zionists are cursed and im yirtzeh Hashem they will be completely defeated soon.

They are traitors, informers, they are worse than the Christians, worse than the Karaites, Sadducees, worse than the followers of Shabsai Tzvi, worse than the Reform.

Three times a day we pray that they should be destroyed. Not that they should repent, no, we pray that they should be destroyed.

The best of the goyim will be turned into our enemies, and all troubles in the world, for the cursed Zionists are the root of all evil and the source of all impurity in the world.

It is the worst idolatry of all idolatries that exist in the entire world.

Now, if you have any criticism of the above, please adress it to the Ohr Somayach and the Chofetz Chaim, to Reb Velvel Soloveitchik, to the Chazon Ish, to the Satmar Rov, to Rav Shach, and a few others, because they are the ones whose opinion I am repeating here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of this condemnation is unnecessary, and irrelevant. The question is whether any of these things that you have alleged are verifiable. The answer is no. They are your (emphatic) opinion. But that's not enough for them to be included in a Wikipedia article. --Meshulam 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you posted in a number of places that you were defending against "the Zionists" (apparently a reference to me). Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to respond to these personal attacks, but I wanted to clarify that all I was doing was upholding wikipedia policy. Contrary to your assertion, I did not claim that most Orthodox Jews in 1948 were Zionists. That would be as unverifiable as your claim that most Jews in 1948 were anti-Zionists. My personal ideologies are just that: my personal ideologies. When I wear my Wikipedia hat, I do my best to uphold Wikipedia policy, and to contribute to articles where my knowledge can be of use. You may notice that I have contributed to the article on R' Aharon Roth, who you have repeatedly referred to in defending your claim that most Orthodox Jews in 1948 were anti-Zionist. None of my edits over there were "Zionist propaganda," "Zionist slander" or "lies," for which I should "perish immediately." Similarly here. (Though whether I should "perish immediately," as you have asserted, for trying to uphold Wikipedia policy is perhaps better left in God's hands than in your own.)--Meshulam 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last revert of the NK article was your 3rd in a 24 hour period. You are close to violating the Three Revert Rule. Your next will be reported.--Meshulam 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So have you. I am not allowing lies to be spread on Wikipedia by Zionists. I am telling you now that all of your activity is neged haTorah. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending the cursed Zionists. By joining them in your deeds, you become like them, may they be erased from the world --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: This is Wikipedia and not a Haredi yeshiva and while in that context your comments may be understood by those who deal with these things, out here on Wikipedia you cannot and may NOT "curse" or "erase" ANYONE in any which way. Kindly do a "cheshbon hanefesh" as to why you want to be on Wikipedia and act like a real mentsch. Your views are important but you have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia, we all have to - no matter what we think we would like to blurt out in the heat of the moment. Be well and a Kesiva VeChasima Tova. IZAK 09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just made your 4th revert on the Edah Charedis article. Your next one will be reported.--Meshulam 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you've violated the 3RR rule on Neturei Karta and have been blocked for 24 hours. You've also been making serious personal attacks, and you're likely to be blocked for longer if they continue. Please take the time out to calm down and review our content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. We're not here to add The Truth to Wikipedia; we just repeat what reliable sources have published, right or wrong. Life here will be easier for you if you stick to the policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed your edit summaries, and they are totally unacceptable. You must ensure that you exercize restraint in the future. Thanks. El_C 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you're committing wikisuicide. You know these edits won't be tolerated and if you continue, you'll be blocked for sure. If you want to leave, then leave; there's no need to force others to push you out. I hope you'll decide to stay, however, and edit within NPOV, V, and NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a hand on Peace be upon him. Will need some help there. Plain facts: 1) Hebrew is older than Arabic; 2) Judaism is older than Islam; 3) Islam most likely copied this practice from Judaism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could also make Peace be upon him a disambig and create Peace be upon him in Islam and Peace be upon him in Judaism. What do you think of that? --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both you and Historian2 for 24 hours for a three revert rule violation on Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Please do not edit war over articles - instead take such issues to talk page discussions or determine if there is a consensus for keeping such material included or not. Also, your personal attack on him is uncalled for and is innapropriate. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as well. This is a simple content dispute, and we must remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot and work to avoid edit wars. Instead, getting a third party's opinion on whether or not such information should be included or not would be much more productive than edit warring. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je zit dus niet enkel op wikiversity zie ik... heb je daar een bericht achtergelaten!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel,

I am really not sure about the entire workings of this talk system but I am trying to learn. Sorry about the signature business at the bottom of the cardiology page!

I would like to be named as a collaborator with the School of Medicine project, But again I am unsure how to do this. Also I would like to introduce myself to you and everybody else but again I'm not sure how to modify my profile (if there is such a thing).

Firsyly, I am an Electronics Engineer and an Instructor, I teach Radio and Navigational Aids to technicians and engineers who maintain the airspace over Australia.

I have a Diploma in Human Biology, Electronics Engineering and Writing and Editing (which is why I thought I'd like to try my hand at improving some Medical information). As I ststed above I teach as well. I have many years of experience in Diagnostic Medical Imaging especially MRI and Nuclear Medicine. One day I would LOVE to become a Doctor (but that is highly unlikely to happen!)

Kind regards to you and Shalom Alechem (if that's how you say it!)

Read-write-services 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your kind words, I am planning to stick around the wikipedia community for a long time. I’ve seen some of your edits and I like your careful and non confrontational approach. Palestine48 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about the vote to delete. I responded to the page. I agree that vote is inappropriate and uncalled for; it is a POV attempt to remove something that some find very embarrassing. ZaydHammoudeh 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS"D

Ah Guten Yor, und shonoh tovoh sikoseivu v'sichosemu

--Shaul avrom 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please come and join WikiProject Israel. Your contributions would be appreciated. --יהושועEric 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get your medications. This accusation is making me sick. I have no idea who Danezra is. You have a very big mental problem if you start seeing ghosts, which you apparently do. Most probably Danezra lives 7000 km away from here, somewhere in the US. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel you should take a lot of credit, if it hadn't been for your comments, I wouldn't have written anything about the Sanhedrin. I don't like wikipedia and I have less than no time to spend on this, but it is your POV attitude that keeps me going. --Historian2 08:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Danezra. This is ridiculous. It is you who is writing from a POV, not me. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you are not Danezra.--Historian2 08:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. And the mere thought of being suspected of such a thing is disgusting. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the facts on this matter speak for themselves:

Fact #1: Propaganda materials from thesanhedrin.org (the website of this controversial organization) are constantly flowing to wikipedia, promoting and giving undue weight to a specific POV. historian2 is reponsible for this propaganda. I would say that about 90% of the "modern attempts" article constains materials that were originally generated by the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org.

Fact #2: The writing style of historian is amazingly similar to that of the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org, and this is clear to anyone who has taken the time to review the posts of the "sanhedrin webmaster" in their forum (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/forums/)

Fact #3: The "sanhedrin webmaster" also claims to be a historian (see http://www.thesanhedrin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=191, where he explains that his background is history, not dayanus). --Danezra 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest you make an effort to be more civil to your fellow Wikipedians? I am concerned about your remarks, where you called several admins 'idiots'. I think if you calmed down, avoided aggressive editing tactics and were more polite, you would be a more effective editor. Addhoc 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not aware of the things going on. I am one of the most polite editors on Wikipedia and have very good relations with the vast majority of administrators. You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. The only issue is that Historian2 keeps lying, twisting the truth to make it fit his weird POV, and accusing me of 'threatening' him and even worse things. I am not interested in your slanderous accusations and I see no reason to give any other response. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have raised a RfC in regard to incivility and personal attacks on your part. If you have a look at your RfC, there is a section where you can repond. Addhoc 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I am a Palestinian living in Israel, with Israeli citizenship. I was born and raised in North America and moved here after falling in love with and marrying a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship. I am working through my identity issues and trying to get to know my fellow citizens. I guess my initial note was a little hostile, but it was hard for me to go the page on Saffuriya, a town that many of my friends are refugees from, see that it is being proposed for merger with Tzippori, and that all of this is flagged under this Israel Wikiproject group. (hence, my off the cuff "annexing pages" remark) I feel like the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects should be merged so that they can both bring balance to one another, and that goes for both the virtual and actual realms. In any case, these thoughts might be very offensive to you and if so, I am sorry, it's not my intention. It would be good to remain friendly, one-to-one, politics aside. Our futures inevitably involve one another, however remotely. Tiamut 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're right. I agree with you. Let's be friends. And also, I agree that there should at least be a close cooperation between the Israel and Palestine Wikiprojects. We are, after all, both oriented on creating (and making) articles NPOV. There shouldn't be any reason why we can't all work together. Some Palestinian input on Jerusalem would be nice, about specific Palestinian buildings and culture of Jerusalem, for example. And sorry for my harsh reaction at first: your initial comment didn't come across quite the way it should - I interpreted it as a POV troublemaker. Let's face the future in a more positive way! --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, regarding your reply on the RfC- RfCs can be productive and help editors improve and in any event deliberate non-cooperation will not gain sympathy from uninvolved users who look into the RfC. To use what may be a bad analogy, Yom HaKippurim may be over but Hoshanah Rabbah hasn't arrived yet. There is still time for you to look at the RfC, make a serious response if you think one is needed and to look at what people say there and attempt to learn and improve from it. JoshuaZ 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what is said consists of plain lies. Also, Historian2 and Meshulam are themselves extremely dictatorial and do not allow any criticism. Both consider their word to be holy. Further, Nixer's complaints is totally ridiculous (I told the guy he was making a fool out of himself because he keeps insisting on moving Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea), see Talk:Sanhedrin). That guy simply is making a fool of himself. I don't consider that 'RfC' to be worth another minute of my time; I'd rather spend my time making constructive edits. And if you check, the dispute with Historian2 now centers on his claim that an anonymous internet forum with 6 members consistutes a valid source and a relevant subject for Wikipedia (see Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin, discussion about the 'Rambamist / Yemenite' section). --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked you might notice that those aren't the only editors expressing concern at this point. JoshuaZ 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by dictatorial, he means that I seek consensus and tend to be vindicated by the democratic process when he (Daniel575) himself is trying to peddle his own POV... --Meshulam 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but Bobby T is an alumnus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry potter7 (talk • contribs)

Just as a note, I blocked the above user for 24 hours for edit warring. Cowman109^Talk 00:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danie/l, heb jij nou een idee hoe ik moet inloggen? bedankt en tot Maandag, b"H. MM

Hoi, kijk bovenaan rechts op ieder wikipedia-scherm. Daar staat 'login/register' ofzo. Daar kan je inloggen of registreren. Klik dan meteen de 'wachtwoord opslaan' optie aan, dan blijf je voorgoed ingelogd totdat je rechtsboven op 'log out' klikt. A giten moied! --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en werkze. MauritsvZ 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6nuy5ESsLw hehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments about Nixer. However, I was reading the article talk page and found you saying "WTF. Nixer, please take a hike and do some research before you make a total idiot/fool out of yourself, which is what you are doing with this 'proposal'." Unless there's some past history between you I don't know about (and probably even then) this seems to me to be a far-from-ideal way of putting your point across. If Nixer is trolling getting angry at him will only make him come back for more. Regards, The Land 17:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The move that he was proposing was totally ridiculous, as everyone else also said. Someone else compared it with moving President of the United States to Argon (United States). By proposing such ridicilous moves, of which you know that everyone else will oppose you and that they will not be carried out, you make a fool out of yourself. That's just a fact, not an insult. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that your choice of words helped the situation? The Land 17:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't make any difference. To me, it's pretty obvious that he only did this in order to get a fistfight. He wants a fistfight, well, that's a ****** (selfcensure) fistfight he'll get. I happened to be in a bad mood. Let's not make that a big deal, shall we? It's quite obvious what he was up to, with his history. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but your recent suggestion that "we will go to war tomorrow" is highly uncivil and unnecessary. Elizmr 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that we are going to enter a serious discussion on the talk page. I apologize for the slightly inconvenient choice of words (especially due to other circumstances). It wasn't meant as an attack. My apologies. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here is what you wrote:

"rv Zionist vandalism. it is a well known fact that the Zionists horribly mistreated Mizrachi and Sefardi Jews. if you revert again, we go to war tomorrow... I don't have time for this now."

I made a good faith edit, and you reverted with the attack comment: "zionist vandalism", you previously had reverted someone's request for a cite substituting your opinion that a cite wasn't necessary:

"rv to Airwalk451 - that is one of the most well known blamages in Zionist history. google. I don't have time for it now, but to deny this is crazy. want a source? www.google.com)"

And then you threatened me with an edit war. While I appreciate your apology, if this wasn't an attack I don't know what is. I honestly think you need to clean up your act. Elizmr 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel: Are you fully aware about the importance of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575 ? as it is a very serious matter and it may adversely effect your future presence and contributions on Wikipedia. FYI I have place the following comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel575#Outside view by IZAK: Thanks. IZAK 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments: My first comment is in response to User:Daniel575's refusal to co-operate with this Wikipedia:Requests for comment, something bordering on "contempt of court" and an insult to the broader Wikipedia community which is giving him the golden chance to defend himself up-front-and-center here. It is a serious matter and I urge him and anyone who can influence him positively, for his sake, to co-operate fully here and state his case as comprehensively as he can without attacking anyone. He needs to specify the context of his disputed behavior, a brief apology of misunderstanding would be good no doubt according to all, and to answer all the citations made against him by others. My second comment is that User:Daniel575 does have good information and writing skills to add to articles relating to Jews and Judaism and to Haredi Judaism in particular. He is something of a self-annointed "firebrand" or "zealot" (kanoi in Hebrew) whose bark is worse than his bite, but nevertheless while patience has been extended to him, he in turn must find a way of working within "the system" at Wikipedia. (A similar situation may be when a Haredi Jew drives on the roads anywhere together with the rest of the non-Jewish world, while he may not like the surrounding cultures, he is nevertheless obligated and expected and must abide by the rules of the road.) IZAK 09:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments regarding Arabs are very biggoted. You are being reported for abuse. You should see wikipedia's policy on civilty.68.84.56.191 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very afraid. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I came here to comment on your communication style and I noticed that I am not the first one. Please remember that talk pages may stay here for years/decades/centuries and you, as well as others associated with you in any way, could be judged by your today's behavior. I'd like to see more responsibility. Political disagreements should not lead to namecalling and incivility. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said anything wrong? Are you talking about Wikinews, where I am intentionally not being very polite to an administrator who called for Israel to be destroyed and annihalated? Or to the things at the 'Zionism' article? Nothing wrong there, as far as I can see. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it ended up being the birth pangs of Haredi anti-Zionism, a long overdue entry. Tewfik^Talk 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you condone printing Lashon Harah in the New Square article? Your sin is to big to bear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.24.48 (talk • contribs) .

See your talk page. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [5] please stay polite and avoid personal attacks. While I agree with the sentiments expressed, expressing them is both unproductive and against Wikipedia policy. Thanks. JoshuaZ 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see ANY single impolite word there??? That is a VERY normal and VERY polite comment, especially considering the fact that the user has put a curse on a fellow Wikipedian (Kotzker), accused me (above) of 'a big sin' and vandalized a page ten times. I do not see ANY impoliteness anywhere. I demand an immediate apology. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to apologize. I simply asked you to remain calm. "I can tell you that if all Skverrer chassidim are like you, I will make sure to never in my life come close to New Square and avoid all Skverrer shuls" is neither calm nor polite. No matter what other behavior someone else engages in, personal attacks are not acceptable. This is true regardless of what they have said. I am aware of the anon's comments; if he anon continues to make personal attacks, I will direct him to WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prevw, are my doing it right? ... i dispute your view that it doasn't need a cleanup. we should resolve the dispute in the talk page. i made one main point, that they are not a sect. This point needs to carry on through the thread.

i also dont know what the other link of a list of all sorts of random things was... the only thing on the list i have anything to do with was 'renetto'

c

ill look through you first note about taking up space, didnt get it when i glossed over your message.

i didnt tag the kabbalah centre.

i did tag neturei karta, i think it needs a cleanup, quite plain and simple.

adding a tag duz skew the page format, yes... its suposed to, to draw people's attention to the need to clean up. if you dont agree it needs a cleanup then we need to talk about that.

can we?

As a Haridi living is Israel, do you receive goverment aid, as many other Haridim do?

No, I do not. Not a single cent. I work for my money, as many other Haredim do. And by the way, if you don't like it, I suggest that you motivate secular Israeli employers to hire Haredim. Plenty of Haredim are looking for work but are not getting any jobs, because employers prefer seculars. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good to know, I ask because there are many Haridim, and non Haridim, that take advantage of the government's misplaced funds.

Dear Daniel:

You are right. As my own language is Spanish I always edit all my editions in English as "minor edit". In this particular case it should be a "major edit". I am sorry.

In this article Category:Discrimination may be better than Category:Racism. I also agree with you.

The issue in question is confusing, since both concepts have similarities. You can see as examples:

Zionism and racism – Discrimination

Chosen People

Zionism and racism - UN resolutions

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Desmond Tutu - Views on Israel, Jews, and Judaism

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel

And Jimmy Carter's book: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid".

Actually Religious Zionism seems to be quite controversial in the Modern World as Marxist Atheism and Islamic or Christian fundamentalism are.

So allow me, my dear friend, to salute together with you the heroes of Humanist tolerance as: Count Folke Bernadotte and General Yitzhak Rabin.

Best regards. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no award for that, but I did win the Esperanza User Page Award with that design. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I was indeed going to block him for personal attacks (he was in danger of violating WP:3RR anyhow), but RadioKirk beat me to it, as I was talking with him about this on MSN at the same time. Personal attacks against an admin -- not too smart. haha -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on the talk page? BhaiSaab wants to get this article about a convert from Islam to Judaism deleted. You might be in a good position to comment. Arrow740 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very puzzled you should write: "I am against the Zionists, Amoruso. But on religious grounds only. I am an Israeli and a Jew, and I am a realist. On religious grounds I am strongly anti-Zionist".

Have you come across material like this? Claiming that the Zionists set out to make it impossible for peaceful, religious Jews to live side by side with Arabs? (as is alleged to have caused the 1929 Hebron massacre):

"A threat from within" (sub-titled "Jewish Opposition to Zionism") by Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History, University of Montreal. Published in French 2004, translated 2006.

p136 ......... Accusations of the utmost gravity are brought against the Zionists, who are considered to be more dangerous than the Karaites or the followers of Sabbatai Tevi, for they threaten to turn the Jews away from the straight path and corrupt their souls.

The memoirs of a German general attached to the Ottoman troops in Palestine during World War I present a point of view distant from intra-Jewish polemics:

How curious that the war has brought about an upsurge in the struggle between the Zionists and the non-Zionists, a battle that has turned ugly and done little to further the interests of Jews in general. The non-Zionists, that is to say those Jews who had no political objectives and who belonged to the Orthodox current, at the time the preponderant majority in Palestine. The Zionists residing there represented no more than 5 percent of the population, but were very active and fanatical, and terrorized the non-Zionists. During the war, the non-Zionists attempted to free themselves from the Zionist terror with the aid of the Turks. They rightly feared that the activities of the Zionists would destroy their good relations that prevailed amongst long-time Jewish residents in Palestine and the Arabs (Von Kressenstein).

PalestineRemembered 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (I can't work out whether you should reply in here, or on my Talk-Page! If you respond on your page here, please post me a reminder on my page).[reply]

Very interesting, thankyou. I'm not sure I can claim to be NPOV (and chose my name in order not to deceive anyone!). But one of the things I've come to believe (looking in from outside!) is that Israel's time is running out.

And your examples tend to indicate another reason why this is the case ..... the IDF is used (according to the refuseniks) to ".... fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people".

If the Israeli security forces beat Palestinians with impunity, then they'll seek the same impunity to do it to you - and by the sound of it, they've succeeded. Police violence on demonstrators is something that's pretty much disappeared in the "Western world". I cannot imagine it was ever a factor in the "democratic Israel" your parents remember.

And of course, it's not just violence against your own kind, there is (by the sound of it) a deep and corrosive wish to label others as "not of our kind". That's part of the reason South Africa collapsed. White youngsters didn't only flee to avoid spending 2 years serving side by side with brutal soldiers, they fled because they realised their society thrived on discrimination, and it really wasn't a very nice to live, even if you were young and white.

There was more in that new book I quoted that I found striking ..... (note, this guy lives in Canada and speaks French, but I'm pretty sure he's a genuine Judaic scholar!):

p 17. ............... Most Jews who came to Israel from the lands of Islam found these concepts and realities alien to them. Their ......... history was far less marked by violence and persecution that that of the Jews of Christian Europe.

p.43 ............... the anti-Zionists continue to publish eyewitness accounts of the neighborly relations between Jews and Muslims in all the countries of the Middle East, including the Holy Land. They accuse the Zionists of having provoked anti-Jewish riots, both by their overt aggressiveness in Palestine and by their covert activities in several Arab countries.

p.43 ............. non-Ashkenazi parents, mostly from the Islamic countries, were often forced to allow the state to take charge of their children. As a policy, it contributed to secularization, but it also contributed to the delinquency that flourished amid conditions of poverty and family disintegration.

p45 ......... The new Israeli identity's opposition to Jewish tradition is amply documented ............. The Israeli press regularly reports incidents of anti-religious hostility. In one such case, the pupils of a secular high school, having completed their final - and obligatory - examination on the Torah stacked up their copies in the schoolyard and set them afire, to the delight of all present.

PalestineRemembered 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now what you were talking about Daniel, why you have to be in support of Israel, especially when certain people try to exploit it for their agenda. I hope you're not dragged to that obvious agenda. Cheers. Amoruso 11:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace to you. Believe me when I say that I fear you will have to look long and hard for a brother of any faith who unhesitatingly rejects anti-Semitism and condemns such criminal brainwashing as holocaust denial with the certainty I bring to these obligations. Whoever you come up with after such a search, and I fear you may not come up with many, I will place my commitment to truth-telling and brotherhood next to him (or her) any day. My (half) sister is Jewish, my beloved stepmother is Jewish. I have taken serious heat for speaking up against anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia (!) so, believe me, you can expect me to continue that habit here! I realize you are perhaps skeptical about this, and I don't think I can blame you for that skepticism, given current events. So I say this: Try me. Watch my edits. See if you can find a single, solitary example of anti-Semitism in anything I have ever done here. Peace to you again, and the blessings of the One God, King of the Universe, BYT 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Daniel575, did you intend to revert over my edit on Zionism to change the "a researcher" wording to "David Hirsch" when you did this revert? (→Netscott) 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS"D

http://members.lycos.nl/jodentegenzionisme/

--Shaul avrom 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S, Respond on my talk page please, Thanks)[reply]