Jump to content

User talk:Nishidani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 1 April 2009 (→One week off). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gaza Reading List

Robert L.Pollock, A Dialogue With Lebanon's Ayatollah, Wall Street Journal, 14/03/2009

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words about me, Nishidani. I truly appreciate them, and I hope to be able to continue to be viewed as both scrupulous and fair by those with whom I interact. Forgive me for dropping a link to the meta page on your user page here, but as you do not have a linked account, that was necessary to make your vote eligible. I am sorry that you feel the need to remove yourself from the project; we need more intelligent, well-spoken, level-headed, open-to-compromise editors who are able to work with people with differing opinions, not fewer. But the frustration that comes from trying to be the voice of reason in a sea of cacophonous dissension is all to real and overwhelming at times. Thank you again! -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please please please please dont. we need more knowledge here, not less. Nableezy (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani,
How young are you in real life ? (c'est une vraie question !)
Et est-ce que tu peux me dire où tu vis ?
Et enfin comment se fait il que tu parles le français ?
Ceedjee (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions that might be better asked and answered in e-mail. Avruch T 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria

I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 09:31

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhap a statistical analysis of the amount of words used to put a minority perspective forward would be useful? Along the lines of:

  • PoT; ...legal position, internationally recognised; x number of words
  • WB and GS;... common usage, internationally recognised; x number of words
  • J and S used by Israeli national extremists and religious fundamentalists/extremists; x number of words
  • Dis T used by Israeli nationalists; x number of words.

just to have a look for any undue weight that may be within the article?

PS thanks for the BtS link; I'm not sure where best to place it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to the persons who have really worked hard in that area, esp. Meteormaker. No rush, I presume. This should be approached with great clarity, no fuss, and forensically. Whatever G-Dett's mastery of lucid prose is also needed. ps I think it is well documented that Likud and the settler movement are associated with the terms' diffusion from the late 1970s, but a good many Israelis who don't share their politics or perspective, who are not extremists, have nonetheless been raised to think of that area as Judea-Samaria. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying Israel’s efforts to retain the occupied territories is the fact that it has never really considered the West Bank as occupied territory, despite its pro forma acceptance of that designation. Israelis see the Palestinian areas as ‘contested’ territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions notwithstanding. This is a view that was made explicit for the first time by Sharon in an op-ed essay published on the front page of the New York Times on 9 June 2002. The use of the biblical designations of Judea and Samaria to describe the territories, terms which were formerly employed only by the Likud but are now de rigueur for Labour Party stalwarts as well, is a reflection of a common Israeli view.

Henry Siegman...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal work section notes.

I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others.

(I) The Problem

  • An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'.
  • The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people.(d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, a kind of ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism.
  • The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created.

(2)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion.

Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth….

‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .' [1]

Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,

'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31.[2]

In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland:

‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.”

Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks:

‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’ [3]

The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name?

Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’[4]. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary.[5]. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah:

'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.'[6]

Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity [7]). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity.

John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect

‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.” [8]

The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’[9], 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’.

Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’[10]

Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that

‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’ [11]

Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora [12], the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication.[13]

Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage.[14]

Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands. [15]

Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country.[16]. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well.

The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict.

(3)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank

When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'.[17]. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:-

'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.'[18]

One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself.

Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines [19] resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country.

The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

(4)The Negev Precedent

With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' [20] Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:-

We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.[21]

Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:-

‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” [22]<

Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example.[23]

Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that,

’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’

and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:-

‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’ [24]

The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew[25] language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichmann, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew:

‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our psyche’[26]

Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal on cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache)[27]. In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances.

(5)The West Bank. History and Naming

The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl.

‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’ [28]

In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued. [29]

In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region[30] to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war.[31] The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power[32]. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank[33][34]. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy.[35]

Gideon Aran describes the achievement:

‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.' [36]

The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement.

‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.'[37]

A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term.

‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’ [38]

Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words:

‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’. [39]

An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovoked[40]invasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state[41] on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel[42]. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. [43] One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank. [44]

Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli Settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers[45] where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions'[46] Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People.

Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area.[47].

This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), [48], thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them.

(Note that, as the Arbcom review got under way, someone made this edit, on the 9th of March effectively removing evidence that the term 'West Bank' is perfectly normal in modern Hebrew usage (Hebrew: הגדה המערבית, HaGadah HaMa'aravit). 11 days have passed. No one appears to have noticed, or cared to restore the deleted fact.)

(6) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions

‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’ [49]

'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.'[50]

We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh

The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed.

In a tiff over the editing ofSusya, I reverted Ynhockey for eliding information he thought poorly sourced (from Counterpunch, though the authors are all notable scholars with a published record for studying settlements on the West Bank) concerning the Palestinian origins of that town. His response was to upload a map onto the Susya page (30/03/2009). Though his map image gives Susya as south of Hebron and, without words, within the boundaries of what an attentive reader knows to be the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank, as one runs the cursor over the map, a pop-up suggests to us the falsehood that 'Susya is located in Israel'. If one clicks on the map for details, again, one finds the pushpin map he created described as 'Southern West Bank (Judea region)'. Whether the pop-up comes from him, or, as Nableezy now tells me, is a collateral effect from the Susya web-site (?) I cannot judge. But User:Ynhockey's practice on wiki, where his cartographic gifts are acknowledged, is ambiguous. His maps are so drawn, or glossed on the Wiki Commons page that at times a false impression, or subliminal message, is conveyed to Wiki browsers. In Karameh, certainly, the occupied areas are in Israel. In Susya, the pop-up effect, whoever is responsible, should have been removed.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Genesis, ch.2, verses 19-20, with apologies for my transcription
  2. ^ For a fascinating study on both the figure of Adam in Islamic tradition, and on commentaries on this particular text specifically, see M.J.Kister, ‘Ādam: A Study of Some Legends in Tafsīr and Hadīt Literature,’ in Joel L. Kraemer (ed.) Israel Oriental Studies, Volume XIII, BRILL, 1993 pp.112-174, p.140
  3. ^ Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon, Jonathan Cape, London 1997, pp.8,615
  4. ^ George Steiner, After Babel, Oxford University Press 1975 p.58
  5. ^ Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,, vol.1, tr.Ralph Manheim, Yale UP 1955 pp.119ff.,p.122
  6. ^ Isaiah 5:11. For this and other passages, see S.J.Tambiah ’s 1968 Malinowsky lecture, "The Magical Power of Words," (the ancient Egyptians, the Semites and Sumerians all believed that “the world and its objects were created by the word of God; and the Greek doctrine of logos postulated that the soul or essence of things resided in their names (pp.182-3). My attention was drawn to this particular essay by Tambiah by Brian Vickers, Occult and scientific mentalities in the Renaissance, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p.96
  7. ^ Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origin of Nations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1986 passim
  8. ^ John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.131
  9. ^ Abbiamo fatto l'Italia. Ora si tratta di fare gli Italiani
  10. ^ Regis Stella, Imagining the Other: The Representation of the Papua New Guinean Subject, University Of Hawaiʻi Press, 2007 p.169 gives many Papuan examples. Compare his remark elsewhere in the same book, ‘In indigenous cultures . .(t)he most important means of taking control of the landscape is by naming, Naming provides the equivalent of a title deed, imbues power and identity to that which is named, gives the named place a presence, confers a reality, and allows it to be known.’ Ibid pp. 40-41
  11. ^ M. Daphne Kutzer, Empire's Children:Empire and Imperialism in Classic British Children's Books, Routledge, 2000 p.120
  12. ^ Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge University Press, 1986
  13. ^ ‘Maps are a kind of language, or social product which act as mediators between an inner mental world and an outer physical world. But they are, perhaps first and foremost, guides to the mind-set which produced them. They are, in this sense, less a representation of part of the earth’s surface than a representation of the system of cognitive mapping which produced them,’ N.Penn, “Mapping the Cape: John Barrow and the First British Occupation of the Colony, 1794-1803.” in Pretexts 4 (2) Summer 1993, pp.20-43 p.23
  14. ^ John Atchison, ‘Naming Outback Australia,’ in Actes du XVI Congrès international des sciences onomastiques, Québec, Université Laval, 16-22 August 1987, Presses Université Laval, 1987 : pp.151-162 p.154-5
  15. ^ Susan Gay Drummond, Incorporating the Familiar, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1997 p.32 .
  16. ^ Alfonso Pérez-Agote, The Social Roots of Basque Nationalism, University of Nevada Press, 2006 p.xx
  17. ^ Selwyn Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement, Yale University Press, 2003 p.152
  18. ^ Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape:The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2000 pp.12-13 cf.'Suffused with the sense that “it is impossible for a present-day Hebrew map not to identify by name the places of Hebrew settlement mentioned in the Bible and in post-biblical Hebrew literature,” they set about identifying these sites and putting them on “Hebrew maps,” which they placed opposite the official Mandatory maps.’
  19. ^ Cf.Bruce Chatwin, The Songlines, Jonathan Cape, London 1987
  20. ^ Benvenisti, ibid, p.19
  21. ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, op.cit.p.14. The Arabic names were also found ‘morose’ and ‘offensive’ . As one member put it: ‘Many of the names are offensive in their gloomy and morose meanings, which reflect the powerlessness of the nomads and their self-denigration in the face of the harshness of nature’ (ibid.p.17). On the committee see also his memoir, Meron Benvenisti, Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2007 p.72.
  22. ^ Benvenisti, ibid. p.17, p.18
  23. ^ ‘The name of the Ramon Crater, for example, perhaps the most dramatic geological formation in the Negev, “is derived from the Hebrew adjective ram (meaning elevated), “states an Israeli guidebook. The fact that its name in Arabic was Wadi Rumman (Pomegranate Arroyo), . . was not considered worthy of mention’ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.19
  24. ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.161, p.162.
  25. ^ cf.Shalom Spiegel, Hebrew Reborn,, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 1930, Meridian Book reprint 1962. Shalom Spiegel was Sam Spiegel's more distinguished and erudite brother.
  26. ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words, ibid p.140
  27. ^ Theodor Adorno, Minima moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben (1951), in Rolf Tiedemann (ed.) Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.4, Suhrkamp, 1980 p.123
  28. ^ Paul Francis Diehl, A Road Map to War, Vanderbilt University Press, 1999, pp.15-16.
  29. ^ 'The term West Bank was forced onto the international lexicon only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948'. Binyamin Netanyahu, A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations, Warner Books, (1993) 2000 p.20. Netanyahu's dislike of the term (and his faulty memory for dates), is mirrored by the Palestinian poet, Mourid Barghouti, evidence if ever of the neutrality of the term: cf.‘I did not realize what it meant to be a refugee until I became one myself. When the Israeli army occupied Deir Ghassanah and the whole eastern part of Palestine in 1967, the news bulletins began to speak of the occupation of the Israeli defense forces of the West Bank. The pollution of language is no more obvious than when concocting this term: West Bank. West of what? Bank of what? The reference here is to the west bank of the River Jordan, not to historical Palestine. If the reference were to Palestine they would have used the term eastern parts of Palestine. The west bank of the river is a geographical location, not a country, not a homeland. The battle for language becomes the battle for the land. The destruction of one leads to the destruction of the other. When Palestine disappears as a word, it disappears as a state, as a country and as a homeland. The name of Palestine itself had to vanish. . .The Israeli leaders, practicing their conviction that the whole land of Palestine belongs to them would concretize the myth and give my country yet another biblical name: Judea and Samaria, and give our villages and towns and cities Hebrew names. But call it the West Bank or call its Judea and Samaria, the fact remains that these territories are occupied. No problem! The Israeli governments, whether right or left or a combination of both, would simply drop the term occupied and say the Territories! Brilliant! I am a Palestinian, but my homeland is the Territories! What is happening here? By a single word they redefine an entire nation and delete history.’ Mourid Barghouti, 'The Servants of War and their Language', in International parliament of Writers, Autodafe, Seven Stories Press, 2003 pp.139-147 pp140-1
  30. ^ Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992 p. 41.
  31. ^ Ran HaCohen, 'Influence of the Middle East Peace Process on the Hebrew Language' (1992), reprinted in Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, Walter de Gruyter, 1997, pp.385-414, p.397.
  32. ^ Shlomo Gazit, Trapped Fools: Thirty Years of Israeli Policy in the Territories, Routledge, 2003 p. 162
  33. ^ 'The terms “occupied territory” or “West Bank” were forbidden in news reports.'Ian S. Lustick, 'The Riddle of Nationalism: The Dialectic of Religion and Nationalism in the Middle East', Logos, Vol.1, No.3, Summer 2002 pp.18-44, p.38(check. I'm citing from memory)
  34. ^ 'Begin was happy to castigate the media and the intelligentsia for their views, real and imaginary, and their use of politically incorrect language. Israeli television was now instructed to use “Judea and Samaria’ for the administered territories, annexation became ‘incorporation’ and the Green Line suddenly disappeared from maps of Israel and the West Bank'. Colin Shindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2008 p.174
  35. ^ 'The successful gaining of the popular acceptance of these terms was a prelude to gaining popular acceptance of the government’s settlement policies'.Myron J. Aronoff, Israeli Visions and Divisions: Cultural Change and Political Conflict, Transaction Publishers, 1991. p. 10.
  36. ^ Gideon Aran, 'Jewish Zionist Fundamentalism: The Block of the Faithful in Israel (Gush Enumin),', in American Academy of Arts and Sciences, University of Chicago Press, 1994 pp.265-344, p.291, p.337
  37. ^ Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: a critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy, University of Michigan Press, 2006 p.441
  38. ^ William B.Quandt, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, Brookings Institution Press, 2001, rev.ed.2001 p.130
  39. ^ William B.Quandt, Peace process, ibid. p.134. This was then accompanied by a formal note to Begin (September 22,1978), it which it was registered that ‘(A) In each paragraph of the Agreed Framework Document the expressions “Palestinians” or “Palestinian People” are being and will be construed and understood by you as “Palestinian Arabs”. (B)In each paragraph in which the expression “West Bank” appears, it is being, and will be, understood by the Government of Israel as Judea and Samaria.’ William B. Quandt, Camp David: peacemaking and politics, Brookings Institution Press, 1986 p.387
  40. ^ Howard Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897,Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd.ed. 2001 p.469
  41. ^ Rex Brynen, Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon, Westview Press, Boulder, 1990 p.2
  42. ^ James Ron, Frontiers and ghettos: state violence in Serbia and Israel, University of California Press, 2003 p.180. Decoded, the statement means, 'invading Lebanon secures the West Bank for Israel and thus achieves the Biblical borders set forth more or less in the Tanakh's account of the early kingdoms'
  43. ^ Eric J. Schmertz, Natalie Datlof, Alexej Ugrinsky, President Reagan and the world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997 p.44.
  44. ^ See Uri Bar-Joseph, Israel's National Security Towards the 21st Century, Routledge, 2001 p.185
  45. ^ Numbers, 32:18
  46. ^ David C. Jacobson, Does David still play before you? Israeli poetry and the Bible, Wayne State University Press, 1997 p.50
  47. ^ Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 1998 p.14
  48. ^ Nigel Craig Parsons,The Politics of the Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to Al-Aqsa, Routledge, 2005 p.299
  49. ^ John Brian Harley, David Woodward, The History of Cartography: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, Humana Press, 1987 p.506, cited Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid.p.13
  50. ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.13

references

there are just some references that are too good not to include: (Hebrew: הגדה המערבית, HaGadah HaMa'aravit)Dishon (1973) Dishon Record 1968 Published by Shiloah Institute (later the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies) ISBN 0470216115 p 441

I have a list of books published by the Israeli government from 1967 to 1969 which show the drift in usage, from 'West Bank' to 'Judea and Samaria', and will add them presently to a note, Ashley. One would prefer to access and read these things in the original. I'm only half way through the book of Genesis, and a third through a textbook on modern Hebrew, in my studies, to be able to do this. This is a long haul.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon 1948

Hello,
I gathered the information I had here.
So, Lebanon would not have participated at all... Soldiers would have been allowed to "leave" the army and fight with the ALA or the Syrians and 300 Muslim volunteers would have been taken the opportuny...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked that page, and closely read that section before even getting into the argument, Ceedjee.

L'historiographie traditionnelle prend en compte les 3000 hommes des forces libanaises dans les armées arabes. Benny Morris parle quant à lui d'une « poignée » d'hommes.Dans les faits, quelques jours avant l'entrée des forces arabes en Palestine, les Libanais annoncent qu'ils ne participeront pas aux opérations ce qui oblige les Syriens et les Irakiens à revoir leurs plans[39]. Ben Gourion aurait obtenu en juin 1947 du gouvernement maronite libanais de ne pas intervenir dans les combats pour quelques milliers de livres[40] et certains chiites libanais auraient émis des réserves quant à une intervention[39]. L'armée libanaise se déploie le long de la route côtière, côté libanais et les commandants chrétiens autorisent 300 volontaires à rejoindre l'Armée de libération arabe ou les Syriens[39]

That puts to shame the dreadful contortions we have on the corresponding page here. Wiki should pay you a stipend to get the 1948 English articles done. They are models of clarity and fairness by someone who admits to a certain learning on one side, and yet never allows that to block his reading of the best academic sources. I didn't ask you to comment, because that would have sounded like canvassing. I hope Ian's note, and my own, on further sources can prove useful in nuancing some details on this and a few other pages over at the Fr.wiki. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting find about the June '47 financial arrangement with Lebanon. I don't think I've read that before, but Gelber is certainly a reliable source. Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I've had the same problem in finding a reliable map of the area, but will continue looking. I have Hughes' chapter, but will follow up the Barak and Ma’ayan material, which I haven't seen at all. BTW if you wrote the splendidly articulate essay on appropriative naming above you should turn it into an article. Ian Pitchford (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of drafting it when I realised a few days into the Arbcom review, that all we would get is long threads and countercharges, and that, within the wiki system, since mastery of rules and numbers is what determines content on I/P articles, not commitment to studying all the best sources available, the issue would not, in all likelihood, be resolved satisfactorily. So, it's just a set of notes for the record, for anyone interested, to leave a trace that makes clear that it is a pure fiction, or pretence, that this is just a content issue between two opposed parties, and not, which it most obviously is, an organised attempt by one party to pass off a sectarian, unilateral political programme within Israel's annexationalist camp as a valid alternative toponomastic set of terms for an invaded, and foreign piece of land. I suppose I'd better finish it. I don't know of anywhere else in wiki where a minority nationalist view by one party is given equal weight with neutral international usage, while the other nationalist party is neither represented, nor its alternative terminology alluded to. Disgraceful really.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago my PhD supevisor convinced me that "power lies with the person who defines the situation or the question" and I've been sensitive to these situations ever since. Definitional issues are key in many disciplines, but particuarly in the historiography of the I/P conflict. I've added your excellent essay to my personal scrapbook to make sure I have access to it in the future. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


But there is an alternative...I do believe that during the early camp David discussions it was resolved by a hand shake...The Palestinians would stop using the term Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Israeli delegation would stop referring to Judea and Samaria...The two terms are in effect the opposite and equivalent...to have NPOV West Bank is the preferred neutral term but if Judea and Samaria is used then Occupied Palestinian Territory must also be used as Judea and Samaria (Occupied Palestinian Territory) so that the two terms are then seen as synonymous and equal...I sure a bot could go round including the (Occupied Palestinian Territory) at the relevant points...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put that as a proposal on the Arbcom proposals talk page, providing a RS, and see how the others think? The problem of course is that 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' is the juridical name for it in the ICJ decision of 2004, whereas 'Judea and Samaria' is an annexationist expression shared by one cultural and political group within Israel. But it's worth venturing.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a slight modification of such a proposal might be in order. Add 'a term used by expansionist settlers and right wing politicians in Israel' with the ref for that, to each mention of J/S, and add 'used by the UN, ICRC, ICJ, . . . .' to oPt alongside J/S. Just putting them out there like the usage of the terms is the same is misleading. Nableezy (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with potential usage over 700 pages, and compromises mean writing everywhere awkward variations of . . in the area of Samaria, as settlers call it, or the northern West Bank as international usage says, or in the Jenin or Tulkarm governorate, as Palestinians. . . It stands out like dog's balls that this would be, stylistically, stupid. And that one simply ought to use 'in the northern/southern West Bank', except on a few articles dealing specifically with Judea and Samaria together as an administrative district, or biblical areas. Still, in a week or two, it will probably be back to chaos.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right, it would be stylistically stupid, but better stylistically stupid than just the plain stupid 'Samaria region of the West Bank'. I think if people are going to demand these names be used then they should be properly defined where they are used. Nableezy (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have to laugh

look at this. I have been wiping tears from my eyes over this one (laughing not crying). Some of the excuses for removing material are lame but this takes the biscuit. Removed for being accurate and well sourced, so it doesn't belong in the Israel-Palestine conflict article. is the rest of the article of such poor quality that accurate referenced work stands out?..this one is too good to keep to myself...I haven't enjoyed myself as much since someone challenged the fact that the Gaza port in Rimal being in Rimal...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, now you know that NoCal100 is only there to get you banned again. Are you a masochist. That page is protected as a last redoubt of bad scholarship. If you check in sequence its citations and sources, they are nearly all wrong. The ref to Arafat's biography by Hart p.152 (from memory) simply does not say what it is supposed to say, for example. NoCal100, Canadian Monkey and, I'm afraid GHcool as well, are not going to let you edit, so why edit it? They will revert you. It's a waste of time. You were right on Judah Magnes, you were right on the fact that dissent from the Yishuv acceptance was not limited to the commies and Lehi, but they want that text as it stands. You fuck up my not listening to sensible criticism at times, as when told you broke WP:Undue Weight (GHcool's call was correct). Let'em have it. It's crap, and would require concentrated work by several editors for a week, even without obstruction to fix, and no one is going to assist you there. I'll drop just one note, and then leave the farce.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your last comment

You are absolutely right, as you were when you pointed out that Judaization also affects seculars in the city. Do you have some sources I can access discussing those issues? I think they would make a valuable addition to the article. Hope you are doing well my friend and thanks for your input. Tiamuttalk 17:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's such a huge subject actually, I feel a little overwhelmed. Unfortunately, I have no access to a library here (Nazareth does not have one). I'll try to find what I can on those sources online. But at least you have reminded me of a great deal of things that have happened that are worth mentioning there. I am resisting the inclusion of "allegations" or "alleged" in the article now. Not one source uses that terminology. I do not want to see this article go the way of Israeli apartheid where weasal words made it into the article title for a time. It's a well-known process/project/policy/concept referred to in hundreds of RS's. I don't want to war over it with anyone, but I can already see that once it survives deletion, it's going to ravaged by the same people who wished it away. Unfortunate that more people couldn't take Dweller's advice on WP:BALANCE to heart. I know I'm have a tendency to push the stick my way, but I don't mind people pushing it back. What I do mind is them trying to break the stick into millions of tiny pieces. Oh well. Wikipedia. Warmest regards, Tiamuttalk 18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Adminship

So sorry for my late reply ya sayyed Nishidani. Thanks for the congrats. And nonsense, I don't think your vote would have had a negative affect on the turnout. Keep up your good work in quality edits! Admin or not, WP Palestine is a priority, so I'll continue to contribute. I might not be as active as usual for the next week though (Spring break here in Florida!). Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

susya

I am not sure your accusation of Ynhockney putting that caption on the image is correct, it looks like the description is just generated by using the infobox_kibbutz class. Nableezy (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nab, sorry, Nablokov ameer (lynx-eyes). I haven't the foggiest notion of how these effects are created. I've dropped a clarification under my workshop note. I am extremely reluctant to get into this area of accusations, find it distasteful. There are however many problems with these maps. I'll just stick to my work page.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and he just changed the description of the map in the template to at least say 'and the Palestinian territories' Nableezy (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm bewildered by that change. The cursor now yields, after Ynhockey's new edit, the pop-up 'Susya is located in Israel and the Palestinian Territories'. Susya is not located in Israel. To respond in this way and maintain that fiction or untruth is a matter of some gravity. I'll keep watching.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with how the map is set up. Look at Template:Location_map_Israel_south_wb. The map itself does contain areas in Israel so it could conceivably be used for towns on the Israeli side of the recognized border. A simple solution would be to make a duplicate file, one to use for Israeli municipalities and one for ones in the West Bank. Nableezy (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But an editor, esp. with technical expertise, who introduces such things should clear the ambiguity. Susya is not in Israel, nor in Judah, and to leave it as though it were, is not only negligent, but ideologically convenient. Omission to act is culpable, in my view. I've had to make some 'nasty' edits against Palestinians because sources required it at times.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too was looking at Susya today and thought how inappropriate to have an Israeli coloured village banner on the village article before they've evicted the last Palestinian....as to the other, you know me take the bull by the horns and worry about the blood loss later...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop -- dialogue with Malcolm Schosha

I'm in agreement with what you said about Jayjg, so if you feel that it would be useful for someone to back you up in your conversation with Malcolm Schosha, I'd be happy to do it. My opinion is that Jayjg interprets and applies the rules in an indiosyncratic, self-serving, biased and non-commonsensical manner. For starters, if he was unbiased and balanced, he wouldn't be at the heart of attempts to represent Judea and Samaria as neutral names for areas of the West Bank and, furthermore, ridiculously misrepresenting sources to try to justify doing so. Has anybody ever challenged Jayjg as to whether he is in effect a professional Wikipedia editor? If he is, I think that it is obvious that he shouldn't have access to the privileges which he does. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks pal, but I think conversations are best one on one, and in any case, there, there is no conversation. Several editors are too emotionally committed to a political cause (one or two pro-Palestinians included) to be functional in the encyclopedia. It's nothing personal (penis envy was the suggestion, in psychoanalytical terms) with Jayjg. He's a very talented editor, when not editing in the I/P area. Nothing will be done in all probability. One writes for the record. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week off

Your account is blocked for one week for this edit. We do not allow taunting, teasing, attacking or harassing other editors (even when those editors blocked for 1 year). Jehochman Talk 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, make it a lifetime sentence. *** ******, and learn to read. That, for the record, was a last ditch attempt to get a very good, committed wikipedian off the wildly punitive sanction you handed out, and that was in the air. If you had checked my and AK's page for the history of our interactions, you would have understood the comic gentle wistful tone I use with him, as a semi-mentor, to remonstrate with him and get him to drop his bad habits. But this capsd it. Writing, only to be misread, editing, only to be reverted by someone who hasn't read sources, is far too fatiguing. Perhaps you've done me a favour, even if it is April 1 Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&oldid=281078621"