User talk:Gabi S./Archive

Hi Gabi. Just wanted to say that I saw your edits to User:Ramallite's user page and I thought I'd mention that mostly people's user pages are for them to use as they see fit, and as a result it's not conventional to edit on someone else's one. It'd be more usual to make any comments about it on User_talk:Ramallite. Just a heads-up! Palmiro | Talk 17:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

--Gabi S. 07:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GabiS - don't worry about putting the comments on the wrong page, you didn't know and no need to apologize. You wanted my responses, so here they are:

Answer: Checkpoints and restrictions on movement were set up immediately after the start of the first intifada in 1987, as soon as the first sign for the desire for Palestinian freedom appeared, and seven years before the first suicide bombing.

This is somewhat true. But there were countless terrorist attacks on Israeli population. The 1968 massacre in Shuk Machane Yehooda, using a refrigerator full of bombs, comes to mind.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than the other way around. Of course there were some attacks before the intifada, every country that has a conflict can expect some attacks. But the United States, for example, didn't seal off Oklahoma after the Oklahoma city bombings. Spain did not seal off the Basque region, and Israel didn't demolish Yigal Amir's home. But this 'collective punishment' regime that was in place for the most part before there were ever suicide attacks inside Israel actually backfired because it radicalized the majority of the population.

Answer: Again, I may be called Palestinian or Donaldduckian, it doesn't change the fact that I and my ancestors lived on the land of Palestine, and nothing justifies taking away basic human rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen of the world regardless of what I am called.

Yes, but since Jewish ancestors also lived on the land of Palestine, and political actions since 1900 or so seemed to favor the Jews, we must find some way to accommodate both people here.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, couldn't agree more. The current conventional thinking is a two state solution. But I see Israel as making that impossible. It actually thinks it can dictate the terms of the Palestinian state without negotiation, which is insane. Plus, if you look at the route of the barrier, the 'fingers' of intertwined territory and the mosaic of intertwined Palestinians and Israelis in Jerusalem, it's very hard to see how a two-state solution that is viable can emerge.

Zionists must answer for themselves if it is conceivable to remain both occupiers over another people while at the same time remain true to the Zionist ideals of the the Chalutsim.

You touch on a sensitive subject. However, I just would mention that "a land without a people for a people without a land" never caught on with Jews. I don't know who invented it, but it was never tought at schools or regarded as a truism rather than a false slogan.

--Gabi S. 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you refer to it as a 'sensitive subject' if only because I didn't realize that this issue is something Israelis are even aware of, let alone calling it a 'sensitive subject'. But I am relieved somewhat. My only worry is that when Israelis realize slowly what the actual dilemma is, they may decide to solve it through means such as active expulsion of Palestinians. Passive expulsion has been going on for the last 4 decades, i.e. making the situation unbearable enough so that those who can leave do leave, plus creating fences/cages so that Palestinians are forced to move and concentrate in and around major cities (so-called cantonization). There are many many more examples of this which are beyond the scope of this conversation, but it is a real worry for us.

Ramallite ^(talk) 16:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address these issues some day... Unfortunately I'm a bit busy at this stage.--Gabi S. 14:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi, what you called a "racist" edit was not, perhaps your English isn't good enough to understand sarchasm. Those who "own" the Rachel Correy article have taken the position that no pro Israeli/pro Western/pro Jewish source, however well credentialled or respected, may be be utilized on an "arab" or "muslim" page - now THAT is racism. My Judenfreit warning was an attempt to make the owners realize just how racist their position reallly becomes. I think they know how racist they really are because they took done that posting almost immediately from a TALK PAGE, something that is almost never done. Gabi, I assume you are Isaeili, but you haven't learned a basic rule of life - bigots and haters can't be reasoned with, anymore than you could have reasoned with Arafat or Eichman - such people are evil to their core, and will be so whatever reason, fairness and objectivity you bring to the table. Cheers Incorrect 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a vigilante. I try to fix things where I see fit, and only now I've seen the Rachel Corrie article. It is a little biased, I think, and I will fix it some day. But it does not deserve your comments, which I saw as antisemitic. Yes, I am an Israeli, but it's irrelevant. Watch your language.

--Gabi S. 14:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi, how is it possible you completely ignored my point: articles such as RC and other Palestinian sites take the position that NO ARTICLE SITING A PRO ISRAELI SOURCE (e.g. pro Jewish papers, etc.) MAY BE UTILIZED ON THAT SITE - why isn't that bigotry of the worst kind?Incorrect 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabi - thanks for your note. Whatever the motives of the person who left the nasty note, a tone like that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I'm sorry about not getting around to answering your question sooner, I've had limited time and been battling some other concerns. About the PLO offices, I'm not sure how to go about that (or if its even worth it) because:

• The State of Palestine article already lists the countries that recognized the state proclaimed in 1988, and such recognition by definition means that there is entitlement to an embassy.
• The countries that did not recognize the state still have a PLO representative office, but there are too few countries (I think France only) that has some sort of in-between level office (Palestine General Delegation or something like that). If this information is indeed noteworthy, which page would it go on?
• Most importantly: These embassies or offices do not carry out any functions of a really embassy, nor do they represent the State of Palestine, but rather the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. In other words, the actual State of Palestine thing is irrelevant right now and is just a memory of a declaration that went nowhere. Therefore, the host country deals with them in matters pertaining either to the PLO or to the Palestinian authority, but not to the imaginary state, which means that the existence of the 'embassy' or 'office' or whatever it is does not really constitute evidence of support for the state, at any level, since the state does not really exist.
• Finally, keep in mind that these embassies or offices cannot do things like issue Palestinian passports or ID cards or provide consular services. Israel is in control of final issuance of passports, and part of the Oslo accords is that the Palestinian Authority can not have any say over foreign relations (like have a 'foreign minister', although that has recently been ignored). So what you end up having is an imaginary body that would be in charge of its own affairs and could maintain an embassy, but it doesn't exist, and on the other hand a distinct body (the PA) that does enjoy international recognition but has no power or ability to handle its own affairs. So what exactly do these 'embassies' or 'offices' represent? Other than maintaining relations with host government officials (having coffee with some high-ranking person), who knows?

Also, you said that I have quite a few unanswered questions on my page - I usually tend to answer directly on the inquirer's own talk page and not on my own.

Thanks, Ramallite ^(talk) 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]