Talk:West Bank barrier/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about West Bank barrier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

First section of this article

The first section of this article goes into too much detail and an esoteric discussion about naming.

That section should be moved down to the main article. There should be an appropriate section about "naming".

I want to insert a bit of an original research into this discussion (but keep it out of the article) : The fence was something that the Israeli people demanded from their government. They wanted the terror of 2001-2002 will be stopped. It was destroying Israel.

The Israeli government objected creating a fence because it had a longstanding desire to take over the entire west bank. Demarking any border between Israel and the west bank was against government policy.

At the end, the public forced the government to build the fence. So the government tricked everyone and chooses a route not on the border but going into the west bank (in some areas).

Later, the Supreme Court has been forcing the government to change the route to minimize the affect on the Palestinian population. There are still many places that some meaningful burden is placed on the Palestinian population. Clearly any route of such barrier causes some problems. No one would want such thing in his front yard.

But the reason that the Fence/wall/barrier was built: To stop terror ! and the fact that it does that rather successfully (Number of attempts remains almost the same but number of "successful" attacks is way down) is somehow lost in this article.

Reading this article no one can tell the forest from the trees.

One more observation: I do not know if there is any other subject in the world on which so much wrong data has been published. I suggest that you all read Israeli Supreme court decision, especially section 67 to understand what I mean.

Here is the decision (not mentined yet in this article):

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm

Read section 67 and comapre it to what you read about the barrier. You will be surprized.

Also read section 116 and you will see what I talk about above.

Use of Goverment propeganda material in wikipedia

There was refrence to a propeganda material prepared by a goverment. Is it allowed to use such source on wikipedia. I don't trust goverments and especially their propeganda material . Zeq 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite ^(talk) 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)wrote

Zeq- I understand your concern, but here are my responses:

1. That paragraph in which you moved the Palestinian opinion out is mostly Israeli government statements. It is unfair of you to keep Israeli government "propaganda" and remove Palestinian "propaganda", if you consider them both to be "propaganda".

I agree that no government propaganda or any NGO propaganda (if they are agenda based and biased) should be used. We should stick to unbiased facts. I do not quote Israeli government and I suggest you do not quote as "source" Palestinian government or NGO that have an agenda. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Although the website that I referred to could have been written with a little less rhetoric, I can assure you that what it says is mostly true and not propaganda. The wall has reduced Palestinian terror in Israel, but it has not reduced Israeli terror in Palestine. The number of Israelis killed has been reduced; the number of Palestinians killed has not been reduced by the same ratio. The wall has not been built between Palestinians and Israelis; it has been built between Palestinians and other Palestinians. Come down to Qalandia checkpoint and see what I mean.

I disagree. Anyone looking at this web site can see clearly that it is basically an anti barrier PR web site. It is done by a department in the Palestinian Authority. It is simply a government controlled propaganda web site. We don';t have the time and energy to argue about every point there but I'll give an example below how wrong info is used all over the world about the subject of the wall. We here as an encyclopedia should stick to FACTS. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

3. To respond to your question: It is allowed to use 'credible (English language) sources' on Wikipedia. In almost all cases, statements issued by official bodies in any country, as well as well-circulated newspapers, are considered credible sources for Wikipedia purposes, even if what they actually say is disputable (which is why we always try to include all points of view to achieve neutrality).

We are talking about facts here. Verifiable facts. If there is ANY indication that Israel is building a fence in the Jordan valley and intended to surround the west bank - please bring it. Right now, there are no goverment plans and no work on the ground that supports that speculation. Wiki[pedia is a place for facts. Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

4. It is not neutral for you to keep the Israeli POV near the top of the article, but move the Palestinian response to the bottom. I wish you wouldn't do that. If you don't believe that the separation wall is like a cage for us, that's your opinion, but for others (like me) it is a cage. But my opinion doesn't count, there are other credible sources that say the same thing, and it's not propaganda.

It is mostly a barrier between Israel and the Palestinian areas. The Top does not include any POV nither israeli nor Palestinian. As I said my POV is that the wall route is wrong in some places (IMHO) but let us stick to facts. In places where this route harms Palestinians please say it. For example in Abu Dis it is causing major problems. Say that but avoid terms such as "cage" Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

5. I understand that you don't trust governments, I usually don't either. But neither you nor I can edit on Wikipedia based on our own opinion of things. We must edit with a neutral point of view.

I agree Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

6. If the Palestinians actually had a real 'Government', there wouldn't be much of a conflict between us anymore. The PLO is not a government, and the PA likes to think of itself as a government, but in practice it isn't. If the source that I posted bothers you because it is from the official Negotiations Affairs Department, I can easily find another non-governmental source that claims the same thing.

They have a government. Ahamed Ceria (Abu Ala) is prime minister. the NAD is part of that over all system. We should stick to Facts.

Zeq 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And the Israeli court is part of the government as well, it is a political structure. And you removed the entire paragraph about Qalqilya, as if the FACT that it is surrounded by a wall. If you want undisputed facts, don't remove the part about Qalqilya being surrounded. And the checkpoint is still there, even if they don't call it 'permanent' anymore. Go and see for yourself Ramallite ^(talk) 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, The israeli court is an independent part of the Israel. The goverment was one of the sides in this leagl battle. The court rulled for the Palestinians and against the goverment. Please read the descision before continuing to address this issue. It is a landmark decision. 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the checkpoint: It is not there and the UN sais so. 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) As for the city: It has a wall on one side (along the green line), a fence on half of the north side (along the green-line) A fence on the south side (going into the west bak) and a fence (part of it removed) alonf the north east side (going into the west bank) As clerarly seen in the BBC photo, major parts of the farmland is inside the route (i.e. on the same side of the city) Let us stick to the facts. Zeq 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite:

You do not understand how court decsion are arrived at:

There are two sides (not like the ICJ) each sides presents facts. When the court finds these facts contredicts one another it lists the claim and it lists the answer. At that point if the party that made the claim thinks the answer is wrong it give a counter answer or if it is not making any counter answer the court checks or accept the claim. This is the process. So in cases where the court quote one side and there is no counter-counter claim (i.e. an answer by the side that made the original claim) the other it accepted the answer.

I'll give you an example: Read section 67 of the court descision:

"A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city. The State adds that two open access roads now lead to the city of Qalqiliya. Part of the obstacle east of the city was dismantled. Parts of the Dugard report and the Zeigler report, according to which 6000 to 8000 residents left the city of Qalqiliya and 600 stores were closed in that city, were mentioned in the opinion. The State contends that since April 2004, approximately 90% of the stores which closed have been reopened. Regarding residents' leaving, in the State's opinion, it is very difficult to reach a clear cut conclusion on this issue. The ICJ's opinion held, on the basis of the Secretary-General's report, that as a result of the building of the wall, a 40% drop in caseload at the UN hospital in Qalqiliya had been recorded. From a graph submitted to us by the State it appears that the number of hospitalization days in 2004 is higher than that of 2002. The conclusion is that it cannot be said that the separation fence brought to a decrease in the number of hospitalized patients. The graph also shows that in 2003 there was a considerable rise in the number of beds in hospitals. In addition, a new private hospital was opened in Qalqiliya in 2003, and the Palestinian Authority also opened a hospital in 2002. In the opinion of the State, it is reasonable to assume that the opening of the new hospitals affected the caseload of the UN hospital in Qalqiliya."

In this section the court accepted these facts:

"it cannot be said that the separation fence brought to a decrease in the number of hospitalized patients."

"there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city."

If you revert properaly source material (based wikipedia policy) you are doing what is called vandalism. I accepted your right to use oure propeganda material (the document you brought from NAD makes outragous claims ssuch as the barrier did not contribute to Israelis ecurity) Fine, you want to use propeganda material use it. But DO NOT remove other people contributions which are properly sourced. Otherwise the whole colborative process can not work. Bring your propeganda, I'll bring the facts at the end we will have an article. But if you don't play by the rules....we have no way of continuing. Zeq 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nazlat Isa

Ramallite, I suugest you don't make a full of yourself. take a look at these photos:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16121 (not a crediable source but the photo shows the truth)

See what was destroyed. The NY Time description (and camera.org as a source citing it) were correct. at least this time.

Zeq 20:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

wrong information on wikipedia

Can it be that the BBC is wrong ?

Well I will try to prove that it is.

This section in wikipedia is copied from BBC:

"Qalqilya, once known as the West Bank's "fruit basket", lies within a tight loop of walled portions of the barrier (conceived as a "sniper wall" to prevent gun attacks against Israeli motorists on the nearby Trans-Israel Highway) and is cut off on three sides from the farms that supply its markets and the region's second-largest water source. Access into and out of the 40,000-inhabitant town passes through a single Israeli checkpoint. [18] "

1. I suggest you open the BBC page and look at the photo. You must enlarge it. Please do it.

Now, on this photo the Israeli highway is in the front, the wall at mid back and behind the wall (which is on the green-line BTW) is the the city of Qalqiliya. The wall turn into a fence (going into the west-bank at that point) but look carefully at the left part of the photo and you will see that the farm land is INSIDE the Palestinian side. BBC claim that the city is "cut off on three sides from the farms" is not accurate.

2. BBC further claim that "Access into and out of the 40,000-inhabitant town passes through a single Israeli checkpoint. [18]"

This is wrong info. Simply not true . I am aware that this info apear in countless websites in the world. Including some old UN reports but the recent Israeli supreme court decision addresses this issue (quoting a recent UN report):

" (d) A number of paragraphs in the opinion discussed the city of Qalqiliya. The ICJ quotes the Dugard report, according to which the city is sealed off from all sides. Residents are allowed to exit and enter through one military gate which is open from 7am to 7pm. This conclusion contradicts the Secretary-General's written statement, according to which there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city."

This is from http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm section 67 which I suggest everyone would read.

Thanks for giving the link. It is a high court opinion, the government still has not done anything about it. Once it does, then facts can be changed. Until then, we have to stick with what is on the ground now, don't you think? Besides, Palestinians think the whole barrier is illegal, moving a little bit around Qalqilya is too little too late. Ramallite ^(talk) 07:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not just an "Opinion" . It is a decision based on facts. Facts that have been verified via an adversary process: Each side presents claims, each side responds to the other side claims and the actual facts are verified by the court. This is the process in every court in the world, except that in the ICJ this was not the case. The question if the whole barrier is legal or not is addressed there, based on Int'l law and you are well advised to read it. The people who wrote it are first class and well respected around the world.

I agree that we have to "Stick with what is on the ground now". Major parts of this article will have to be changed once we remove the speculations about the future. Of course once we write about the supreme court descisions we should say what was implmented (changes to barrier route in 30 K'm near Jerusalem based on the Beit sourik decsion form July 2005) and what is not yet implmented (The Alfei menashe descion near Qalqaliya given juswt two weeks ago). We should follow up once it is implemneted. All Israeli court descisions are implmented. Zeq 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I don't know what you are trying to do but it seems that you are removing anything you personally don't like by claiming it is "propaganda" while leaving things you do like. This is called POV. Also, you have removed facts based only on your opinion (such as the Qalqilya checkpoint being removed when in fact on most days it is still there). Please stop it. Here are some articles that are not from a government. They are not pro Israeli (they call it Israel Occupation force, apartheid wall, etc) but their numbers are real. Read these before you attempt to insert your POV into this article:[1] [2] [3][4] (<--this one shows the checkpoint is still there every so often) [5][6] Ramallite ^(talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: This is not what I do. I just correct the info to be factual and cite sources for it. Your use of words like "trek" to describe the 5 K'm detour Palestinians have to do is POV. It is a detour not a terk. Your use of Propeganda material (fro, a PLO web site) is IMHO unacceptable. I don't use goverment issued propeganda and nither shouldn't you.

As to what I "like" or "dislike" I wrote above how mush I dislike the route the Israeli goverment choose for the wall (for example in Jerusalem and many other places) but I don't put my "dislikes" into the article. In the article let's stick to facts on the ground.

Keep in mind that many of what was written in the web about the barrier is incorrect and in places where the court examined it and found the correct facts I will make sure the facts (and the sources for that fact) are cited correctly. Zeq 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: many of your so-called sources like CCMEP are organizations that take a non neutral POV. They can not be used as source for facts. If you want to write about various checkpoints that have nothing to do with the wall but are eracted by Israel from time to time I think this is a great subject to write about (not in this article) and I can give you a great source to start with: http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/ochaHU0805_En.pdf and http://www.machsomwatch.org/ (their info is less up to date so the UN reports are better) I will be glad to help you write on the subject of checkpoints . I am not afraid of the truth, even the truth I do not like. 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But camera.org is neutral? ?מה אתך

Zeq, I'm not going to argue with you about sources, since we both think the others' sources are propaganda. But you are still not being consistent:

You removed that 45% of the land is now beyond the wall, and replaced it with "some". Is 45% wrong?

As far as I know it is not true. But If I am wrong please cite source. I usually trust Btselem (I also work with them) but they too have been wrong. Show the source, let's check it comapre to other sources and decide. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And the water wells also. This is not 'propaganda', this is fact, and is cited by human rights groups as well as Btselem. Go find them, because if I show you, you'll think it is propaganda. I am putting back the 45% and water well.

Wrong again, pure propeganda. It is based on the "Ziegler Report" which has been proven time and Again to have wrong and Biased info. Please see http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm section 67 sub section C. It address this issue specifically. The whole water issue (which I know many mention agaion and again has never been shown on maps that use the latest route. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "detour" is misleading and POV, and not better than 'trek', since Palestinians don't 'choose' to take that path, but are forced to.

Detour is a neutral word. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The checkpoint is still there on many (if not most) days. Do you honestly dispute that?

Yes. I wrote you. You want to write about checkpoint in west bank roads I'll help you. But the barrier checkpoint that was there was removed in 2004. The court sais so, it refer to UN documents. The UN barrier gate report no longer mention this checkpoints (but reports from 2003 do). It is dismentelled. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "Agricultural Gates" is only the POV of one side, not both. You are trying to turn the barrier into a wonderful humanitarian thing, it is not, so let's both try to be neutral. I'm trying, you keep deleting, that may be considered vandalism.

I think it is you who insert wrong non supported data. Vandalism is something else. I am trying to edit an article. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The court rejected the arguments "they cited" topography, etc. If you remove "the ruling cited", it becomes POV like it is a true fact that topography has anything to do with the route of the barrier.

I cited the rulling. It is a court . You don't like it but no one so far wrote anything against that irulling from a legal stand point. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You also removed the part about the land "above" the tunnel being accessible, and I'm putting it back. It is sourced, and the source is legitimate regardless of whether or not you like it. Furthermore, it is not refuted, nobody denies it. What is your problem with it?

OK. I will check your source. I contredicts mine but let's check. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT: The sources I use are legitimate for Wikipedia purposes, and that is enough reason to include them. If you disagree with them, you need to find an alternative source and ADD the opposite point of view. If my source says 45% of land is confiscated, and it is a valid source for Wikipedia, then it cannot be removed just because you don't like it. What you can do is say "on the other hand, the Israeli government says that only 10% of the land is behind the wall" and add that. You and I don't like governments, but we still must use them as sources because we are writing an encyclopedia, not our personal essays.

The nubers for land acroos the wall ARE UN numbers. Do you have a problem with that ? That is easy to check. Instead of citing doubtfull sources let's measure. We have maps, accurate maps don't we ? Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, you are reverting a lot of sentences that I adjusted because of (sorry) poor English. Please stop reverting them, it is just creating extra unnecessary work for me, especially as anybody else will not try to incorporate your edits into the text, they will just revert you.

You want to fix the neglish. Fine, fix the english but don't use copyedit as an excuse to insret wrong data. Zeq 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please respond to each of these before reverting me again? Is there anything left that is not factual? Before touching the article, please point out exactly what is incorrect in the article and I will help you re-word it. But the source (NAD) is legitimate for Wikipedia, even if you don't happen to agree with it. All you need to do is add a sentence such as "on the other hand" and cite your sources.

Ramallite ^(talk) 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I did source everything I wrote. You don't like the source (which is acceptable on Wikipedia), so you deleted it, but you didn't provide anything to prove that the information is false. In effect, you deleted sourced information without providing an alternative - so you have vandalized the page. You may also have broken the no original research rule as well. I am not going to touch the page for a while to give other editors the chance to respond to you. You even removed that Qalqilya is a town of 45,000 people. I'll be back on another day. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No original research any where. I source everything. But when a source like BBC is wrong I point out that looking at BBC own photo and reading a court descision that lists the facts can show that BBC is wrong. Nothing here is "original". Zeq 20:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what you sourced, I care that you deleted text that I sourced. My information was sourced, you deleted it because you don't like the source, so now everything that is left is your sourced edits but not mine, simply because you disagree with my sources even though they are valid on Wikipedia. That is called "POV pushing". Your assertion that they are "wrong" is your original research. You removed that 1- Palestinians can no longer access farms above the tunnel, 2- that 45% of their land is behind the barrier, 3- that water wells are gone, and a lot more, because you think they are wrong (that's original research), but you did not provide an alternative or proof that my source is wrong (which is POV pushing). So you have in fact gone against the NPOV rule, the No original research rule, and like I said before, vandalism, because you removed my sourced text. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to follow the editing here, but Ramallite is correct, you cannot remove properly sourced and relevant text, even if you think it is wrong. Instead, if you think it is wrong, bring other encyclopedic sources which contradict it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue is what is "properly sourced". Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Opinions are OK to include both sides.

When courts examine both sides and they reach a conclusion (during a process in which BOTH sides present their case) we can not ignore what courts ruled.

When a photo in BBC web site show that the text in the same web site is wrong, we can not ignore the photo. Zeq 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And to show how ridicules some of those "properly sourced" data is:

"The farm, land above the tunnel"

Has anyone of you ever been there? I was there as part of my work with the UN.

There is no farmland above the tunnel for the simple reason that the tunnel is under a road. Check the UN maps if you don't trust me. I bring here only sourced info but rest assure that I also know the truth from personal observation (which I do not enter into the article) 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: Is this a source we should use ? http://securityfence.mfa.gov.il/mfm/web/main/missionhome.asp?LanguageID=&Question2=&MissionID=45187&MissionID= Is everything that anyone writes on the web is considered "Fact" ? Zeq 08:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another question:

What source should we trust ?

One editor has a source claiming that 55% of the west bank is beyond the wall.

The Israeli govrement claimes 8-11%

The UN says ( see http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHABarRprt05_Full.pdf section 5 and 7 on page 3 ) between 6.7% to 10.1% of the west bank.

So Should we use the 55% number just because two editors think they are using a crediable source ?

Or should we not trust the 10% number just because the Israeli goverment says so ?

Or if we look at the map ourself and see that it is roughly 10% this would be considered "Original research"

What should we do ?

You should quote them all, and attribute the claims to the sources; that is exactly what the WP:NPOV policy demands. What you cannot do is reject some reputable sources because you consider them to be wrong, or make up your own analysis and post it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg,

Thanks for pointing out the policy.

Maybe I did not understand itr but it talks about facts and POV.

About POV (let's say if the wall is good or bad) - of course we should present both views.

But.... the policy also talks about presenting the facts.

Now, this is a very simple issue:

The wall takes a % of the wets bank land. It is a number between 0 to 100.

We have a map. We can measure.

The UN and the courts in Israel did this for us. They came up with a number.

Citing sources which give completely false information (i.e. 55% while the UN and Israeli numbers are around 10% and anyone looking at the map can see it is about 10%) is not what this policy sais. Please show me where in this policy it is required to put wrong facts into an encyclopedia. This is not what I read in this policy. Zeq 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the barrier takes ABOUT 10% of the west bank is undisputed (except for Palestinian propaganda) Both Israeli courts assert it ass well as the latest UN documents. The Un comapre this to 14% in previous route maps (prior to Feb 2005 changes that made the barrier closre to the green-line).

The issue if this 10% is justified, good or bad is off course a POV and we should present both sides.

The Policy clearly states:

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact"

Except for one problem: Nobody anywhere said that the barrier takes 55% of the West Bank. Where did you get that? And I agree, you do not understand Wikipedia policy very well, the PLO page CAN be used as a source, if there is anything disputed, you have to find another source and show that it is disputed. You CANNOT use your own research. If you take out a map and do measurements yourself, that is original research. You cannot do that. Many of your arguments are also due to language barriers. For example, it is true that 33% of the water wells of Qalqilya are behind the barrier (this is fact). The Israeli high court reasserted that Israel does not plan to confiscate them and will leave their status up to negotiations. That is also true. So they are both true: That the wells are on the other side of the wall and people from Qalqilya can't access them, AND Israel does not plan to confiscate them and will leave their status for negotiations (sorry I keep repeating myself but I'm trying to make sure you understand). Please please read the original research and NPOV policy pages carefully. And please let us help you edit, if you have complaints, post them here and we'll try to add them to the article, but the way you are writing in the article is completely against policy. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If, when you copy edit you insert your own POV (like with the detour that became trek, or with the 45% across the barrier) you are not helping a colabrotive effort. The 45% is your numebr (see above) But the issue remain:

presenting both POV can be about is something good or bad not about the size of land across the barrier which is something that anyone can check by looking at a map or reviweing good sources. Zeq 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

45% of Qalqilya's farmlands, NOT 45% of the West Bank. You are misrepresenting what I am saying, and therefore are being uncivil. Or else you are not proficient in English in which case I suggest you edit on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I also suggest that you look at maps yourself, since you keep insisting that Habla is north of Qalqilya. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

more from the sraeli court

The israeli court have done major work examining the facts about the barrier looking at from both sides.

here are few examples:

" 68. This stands out especially in the case of those parts of the ICJ's opinion dealing with Qalqiliya. On one side of the scale, the ICJ placed the severe impingement of the rights of Palestinians in Qalqiliya. Even if we remove the imprecision of these figures, the remainder is sufficient to indicate a severe impingement of their rights. On the other side of the scale, the ICJ did not place – due to the factual basis laid before it – any data regarding the security and military considerations. It was not mentioned that Qalqiliya lies two kilometers from the Israeli city of Kfar Saba; that Qalqiliya served as a passage point to Israel for suicide bomber terrorists, primarily in the years 2002-2003, for the purpose of committing terrorist attacks inside of Israel; that the Trans-Israel highway (highway 6), whose users must be protected, passes right by the city; that the majority of the fence route on the western side of the city runs on the Green Line, and part of it even within Israel; that since the fence around Qalqiliya was built – including the wall on the western side which borders upon highway 6 – terrorist infiltrations in that area have ceased. " section 68 in http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/High_Court_Fence.htm

and this is where they say the Palestinians are right:

116. And what will be the case if examination of the alternative route leads to the conclusion that the only route which provides the minimum required security is the existing route? Without it, there is no security for the Israelis. With it, there a severe injury to the fabric of life of the residents of the villages. What will the case be in such a situation ("absolute" implementation of narrow proportionality: see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 840)? That is the most difficult of the questions. We were not confronted with it in The Beit Sourik Case, since we found that there was an alternative which provides security to Israelis. How shall we solve this difficulty in the case before us? It seems to us that the time has not yet come to confront this difficulty, and the time may never come. We hope that the examination of the second of the proportionality subtests will allow the alteration of the fence route, in the spirit of our comments, so that a new route can be found, whose injury to the lives of the local residents will be much lesser than that caused by the current route. We can therefore leave the examination of the satisfaction of the third subtest open, while focusing the examination at this time upon the second condition, that is, examination of the possibility of reducing the area of the enclave.

Therefore, we turn the order nisi into an order absolute in the following way: respondents no. 1-4 must, within a reasonable period, reconsider the various alternatives for the separation fence route at Alfei Menashe, while examining security alternatives which injure the fabric of life of the residents of the villages of the enclave to a lesser extent. In this context, the alternative by which the enclave will contain only Alfei Menashe and a connecting road to Israel, while moving the existing road connecting Alfei Menashe to Israel to another location in the south of the enclave, should be examined."

106. Petitioners claim that the separation fence severely damages the ties between the enclave villages and Qalqiliya and Habla. Prior to the construction of the fence, it was possible to reach Qalqiliya within a few minutes. After construction of the fence, and resulting from the need to pass through the gates, the journey takes many hours. Moreover, a permit to pass through the gates by car is granted only to a car owner who is a resident of the enclave. Relatives and friends are not allowed to receive a permit. Most residents of the villages have no car of their own, and as a result – and due to fact that one can not be assisted by the car of a relative or friend – most residents of the villages are bound to their villages. This also causes damage – regarding the village of Arab a-Ramadin – to religious services. There is no mosque in that village. The residents of the village used to pray in the mosque in Habla, which was walking distance from the village. The fence now separates the village from the mosque. Considering the fact that there are only five cars in the village, residents of the village have no practical possibility of attending prayer on Fridays and holidays. In addition, the fence separates the residents of the villages from their relatives and friends. It is difficult to invite guests to various ceremonies (like weddings and funerals), as entry requires a permit, which is not given at all, or given only a long time after the request date.

107. Petitioners argue that the separation fence has brought financial and social destruction to the Arab residents of the Alfei Menashe enclave. It has created a cutoff between the residents and their agricultural lands and all the services necessary for normal life. Petitioners contend that "due to the construction of the fence, the lives of hundreds of people have turned into miserable lives, sentenced to a economic, social, and cultural withering" (paragraph 4 of the petition). Petitioners claim that the residents' freedom of movement, and rights to family life, health, education, equality, subsistence, and human dignity and respect have been impinged upon. These impingements are not proportionate, and legally, they are destined to be annulled.

108. Respondents recognize that the separation fence impinges upon the rights of the Arab residents of the Alfei Menashe enclave. However, respondents' position is that the general regime in practice in the seamline area, and the new arrangements regarding crossings and gates, have generally turned the injury to the Palestinians, and specifically to the residents of the villages in the enclave, into proportionate ones. On this subject, we were informed that in July 2004 the declaration was amended, so that permanent residents of the seamline areas were issued a "permanent resident card". The holder of such a card needs not hold a permit in order to enter into the seamline area or to stay in it. In order to preserve the fabric of life in the seamline area, checkpoints, allowing passage from one part of the separation fence to the other, have been established. The checkpoints are manned every day of the year, all day long. In addition, the agricultural fences have been opened, allowing farmers to pass from their place of residence to their fields. The gates are open three times a day, for regular, published periods of time. When these times are insufficient, they can be extended. The gates are open for a longer time during periods of intensive agricultural cultivation, like during the olive picking season.

bottom line, they did a good job looking at both sides of the issue. I think Wikipedia can do the same.

English proficiency

Zeq:

1. You are quoting the state's arguments to the court, not the court's findings. Please read it in Hebrew if you don't understand it in English. The words "found the claim reagrding the water issue to be "completely baseless"" are the state's arguments, not the court as you claim. Please do not misrepresent the source. The exact sentence is "The opinion quotes the Zeigler report, according to which Israel is annexing most of the western aquifer system, which supplies 51% of the water consumption of the territories, by erecting the obstacle. The State claims that this is completely baseless. It was mentioned before us that in the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement." [7]. Even if I misunderstood, it is irrelevant to the NAD's claim - see point #5 below - you are confusing two separate topics.
2. The NAD did state that the farmers were not given permits for their lands directly above the tunnel - read the source.
3. I have provided a source about the checkpoint being there, please provide a source that it is not there. I am not talking about the "permanent checkpoint", I am talking about the fact that there is a "frequently manned checkpoint".
4. I have provided another source that some of the lands cut off are among the most fertile, and I have more if you want.
5. "The court further noted that no change has occured to west bank water supply because of the barrier because "the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement."" I have no argument with that, I only stated the NAD's findings that the water wells are cut off from the city, not the political status of these wells.
6. The NAD is not part of the "Palestinian Authority foreign office".
7. You are acting in bad faith, when I am offering to help you write your edits in good English.

Ramallite ^(talk) 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, Making fun of my english will not change the facts. The court give one side and than it gives the other. If there is no counter claim the court descision is based on the answer. This is how the Israeli court system works. In places where the court rejected the answer or when a counter answer was given it is in the decision. You are not only making fun of my English proficiancy but also misrepresnting the source and you reverted properaly sourceed material. This is vandalism (what you did)

BTW, If I mis read NAD, fine correct me, but DO NOT remove properly sourced material Zeq 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall making fun of your English, that would be uncivil and I don't do that. Second, unlike you, I don't remove sourced info, I just added your part about the court's "completely baseless" thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Ramallite, this is a civilised request.

You don't agree with the court decision, fine, find published legal documents that suggest why the decision is wrong.

You don't like the barrier and you want to present NAD propeganda, fine. All sourced material accepted.

But do not remove my edits when they are properly sourced. You want to add words to explain the verdict, please do not do "original research". Find someone who will publish an opinion about this verdict and source it here.

When you do not act in a civilized way and remove properly sourced material you are commiting vandalism

This is an example of your vandalism [8]

all you did was to remove quotes which have a veryfiable source.

I suggest you play by the rules of Wikipedia, not only when they suit your POV. I accepted your right to present here the material from your propeganda organization (NAD) but I will not accept you removing partsb of the Israeli court decision which is properly sourced. Zeq 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That was an edit conflict - you pressed "save" while I was still writing and when I pressed "save" twice it accidentally got deleted. However, that whole entry is POV and I doubt other editors will accept it. But you, on the other hand, are consistently refusing to adhere to Wikipedia policy, including intentionally reverting my sourced material. You just removed my addition to your UN source about the wall being good for Palestinian movement (I added more, you deleted it), and made it very POV (and misleading). My opinion about the wall has nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia as far as NPOV is concerned. I have been trying to help you and offered many times to help you convert your ideas, but you have attacked me with your accusations, and that is uncivil. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No. I accept your material when it is properly sourced, is exactly what the source says and include none of your own POV.

I suggest you do the same. Do not remove my properly sourced material. Add what ever you want according to ploicy.

22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I added

In recent report (Aug 2005), the UN observed that the existence of the barrier "replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." On the other hand, the report also noted that "In the southern West Bank, Palestinian traffic is being increasingly channelled eastward onto the longer and inferior Route 356 and away from the more direct Route 60 to Jerusalem. Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent." [9]

And this how you reverted it:

In recent report (Aug 2005) the UN [10] had concluded that the existance of a barrier between the west-bank and Israel actually had an affect on movment within the west bank "In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." The UN reports conclude that the "easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre is likely toimprove Palestinian access to services such as education and health."

Now I really have to go - goodnight

Ramallite ^(talk) 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To User rammallite: Good night.

The quote you brought is about places "where Barrier construction is imminent." this mean that at that section the barrier construction has bot started yet . so this part the has nothing yet to do with the barrier. On the other hand I brought a quote that dierctly talked about the efects of the barrier. Zeq 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what all the issues here are, but the first version (Ramallite's) is better, and ought to be restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To Slimvitgin: If you do not know the issue, please bother to read it and understand. Otherwise, by reverting you have removed properly sourced data. I am sure it was not your intention to commit vandaliam.

It may be data you don't like. Or data you think is less for some reason but removing proprly source data is vandalism.

You want to make the article better. Please add your contributions. You can find sources that present a different POV, this is the Wikipedia way and policy. But just removing properly sourced material is vandalaim. User:Zeq 05:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zeq, I'm sorry to revert your changes again, but there are problems with them, both in terms of our polices and the writing. This has always been a sensitive topic and most edits end up being discussed quite extensively. Would you mind discussing your edits here first before putting them on the page? That would be very helpful. Also could you sign your posts, please? You can type four tildes after them like this ~~~~ to produce your name, time and date. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim,

Reverting a well sourced contribution is not the way to go. Especially when the revert go back tio a version that had many problem in it.

If you think something in my contribution is not correct Please discuss. Zeq 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit [11] introduces a lot of POV problems and problems with the English, as well as a very long quote, which should be summarized, not just reproduced. The page really can't stay as it is. Please discuss your edits here in advance so that people can help you get them on the page in a way that will make them consistent with our policies, and then they'll stick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

History and purpose

OK Slim, here I am discussing my edits.

Let's start with History and Purpose section.

The section include a lot of irelevent data.

The history of THIS incarnation of the barrier starts at September 2000.

The Israeli court has sumerized the facts. It has done so in a way that TO YOU look like it is not neutral so fine, let us take these facts and sumerize them in a NPOV way. we can make the article shorter by removing unrlevent info about the Shala commison from 1995 etc...

Let's start with the first section. Can you copy edit it so I will know how to write things in a NPOV way ?

Please make sure you read the quote that is there now from the supreme court decision. It gives the relevant facts. Zeq 19:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually Zeq, you still have a lot of problems with the "Effect on Palestinians" section that haven't been resolved, including deletion of relevant materials and incorrect usage of sources. However, I will try to address the history section right now. I am moving your addition (and shortening it significantly) to the bottom of that section, since chronologically, earlier comes first, latest comes last.

I also want to draw your attention to the Three Revert Rule, which forbids a single editor from reverting a page more than 3 times in the same 24 hours. You have reverted many more times than that already, but I am pretty sure you were not familiar with this rule. Please remember it in the future. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also pay attention to what User:John Z wrote on your page about the Israeli court, and remember that it is the Israeli court, which is only one side of this conflict, and is not considered neutral internationally. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: Excelent summary of the history. Thanks for your contribution. I think the way you captured the essence and removed dtails is something we should continue to do Zeq 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, about the court, please see my reply to John Z on his talk page. I would be very intrested to see legal sources who critisize the Supreme court decision. The fact that the court is Israeli is not the issue. The issue is applying Int'l law. The ICJ did that based on one set of data and the Supreme court based on more accurate data. That is all and it is explained in great details in the rulling itself.

If you find a legal expert who wrote a legal opinion showing that the Supreme court had mad a mistake please let me know. The supreme court have explained why the ICJ made a mistake so I would expect that if anyone wants to defend the ICJ they would write a legal brief about it. So far no one has so I guess the int'l legal community accepted the supreme court decision. This is why we should too. Zeq 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My only point is that the Israeli court is one POV, it is not internationally regarded as neutral. Also remember that the Sharon government refused to send a representative to the IJC, even though it was asked to. As for your question about a 'mistake', I really don't have any information about that, because I haven't had the time to read through the court's entire set of presentations (except for the part that the checkpoint was removed while it's still there). I have no dispute with the history section right now, although I would like to add other perspectives to the history (there are some Israeli sources - Haaretz I think - which regard the history of the wall as always having been in the back of Sharon's mind since the 1970s to take as much of the West Bank as possible) but that's another story and is a separate matter.

Can you move the section back down? Because we are going chronologically. The 'inception' of the wall was in 2000, the court was in 2004 and 2005, so the text doesn't read very well like that. It is like stating that "Israel celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 1998" before "Israel was established in 1948". Ramallite ^(talk) 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Qalqilya section

Zeq, I am going to have to revert the whole "Effects on Palestinians" section once my 24 hours are over (very late unfortunately). Here are my reasons, and I hope this time you will study them carefully:

You wrote: "The quote you brought is about places "where Barrier construction is imminent." this mean that at that section the barrier construction has bot started yet . so this part the has nothing yet to do with the barrier. On the other hand I brought a quote that dierctly talked about the efects of the barrier. Zeq 05:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"

This is not a valid argument, this article is about the barrier and this section is about the effect of the barrier on Palestinians. Clearly the UN has stated that there is an effect in the Gush Etzion region on Palestinians because of the barrier, regardless of whether it is being built, is already built, is in the planning stages of being built, or about to be demolished - there is currently an effect on the Palestinian population. Removing it is not appropriate.

- - Ramallite. This is not correct. The barrier is not built yet in Gush Etzion area and as such a section from the UN report about movment in that area has nothing to do with the barrier. So I am going to do this:

Reinsert the quote from the UN report about the barrier Remove quotes about Gush Etzion area which has nothing to do with the barrier. Zeq 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - and I'm going to put it back in because the UN says it is because of the building of the barrier. The UN report says that Palestinian traffic is being diverted because of imminent construction of the wall (and that was in August), this has everything to do with the barrier because the UN says so, not me. You cannot pick and choose only what parts of the report you like, you start something, you have to finish it. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, all Palestinian POV sources are very critical of the wall, it is very inaccurate to start the paragraph about "effects on Palestinians" that the wall is beneficial for them.

- - Ramallite, I realize that you are now discussing things from your own POV.

No - I am writing an encyclopedic entry using sources that are not my own. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You also find it hard to see facts, sourced facts which show that the barrier has a positive affect on Palestinians.

Zeq- "Positive effect" is your own POV, you cannot use it. Also, Umm al-Fahm is in Israel and is not behind the barrier, so you are distorting facts a little. If you want to talk about Umm Al-Fahm, you have to use it in context.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But this is the reality and not I am saying it but a sourced UN report. Sorry if you do not like it but that is the way it is inreality and we here can only show that.

It doesn't matter whether or not I like it, I'm not here to push POV, I'm here to make sure there's a neutral article and that nobody else is pushing their POV. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, you stated that "The UN reports conclude that the "easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre is likely toimprove Palestinian access to services such as education and health."" There is no such conclusion in the report, these are just one of many analyses, and you didn't finish that sentence: " Movement between major West Bank urban centres has not changed significantly." Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is such conclusion. I suggest you read the report. The report clearly sais that were there are checkpoints they obstruct and thus where those are removed tghis improved movment

Zeq- your UN source said that rural areas have a little less restrictions, but in Urban areas restrictions have not changed. This was all in the same sentence, but you chose one part of the sentence and removed the second part. That is POV-pushing and improper citation. I have read the report, and the sentence you quoted was one of many "analyses" that also claimed that the wall has not eased movement between urban areas. Either cite everything, or don't cite it at all. You cannot pick and choose which part of a report, or even which part of a sentence in a report, you want to add to the article.Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite: It is not my report, it is the UN report. Here is what it says:

"In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction."

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the barrier has effects which do not fit your POV ?

Zeq 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "indeed, recent UN report and map [12] show that no checkpoint exist in the east entrence to town (see the enlagment map on the left side of the document)."

I have provided a source to show that the checkpoint is still there.

- - Ramallite: The checkpoint is either there or it is not.

The UN repprt is VERY accurate, they survey the west bank all the time. I happend to work with them. The UN map show there is no such check point. You want to claim there is fine claim it You know what is the truth don't you ???? Zeq 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq- The UN report IS indeed accurate, and it shows that the checkpoint is there. I don't understand how you can show me a map of checkpoints that shows the checkpoint is still there, and then insist that it is not. THIS map that you show is not a map about checkpoints!! It is a map about the gates in the barrier. The map in THIS report (which you provided) shows the checkpoints that were there in August 2005 and another map showed the ones that were removed. If you look at the maps YOU provided, you will see that the Qalqilya checkpoint is there! So according to your source, as well as my source, the checkpoint is still there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "The Israeli court (same descision) has investigated the issue and found the claim reagrding the water issue to be "completely baseless". The court further noted that no change has occured to west bank water supply because of the barrier because "the framework of the interim agreement between Israel and the PLO, detailed arrangements regarding the water issue were stipulated. The construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the agreement.""

This is OKAY, but it has nothing to do with what was in the previous sentence. The previous sentence says that a third of the water wells are on the other side of the wall and Palestinians cannot reach them without a permit. Your text above is about something else, it is about claims that Israel intends to annex water wells behind the wall. This has NOTHING to do with annexation, this is only to do with access, that's all.

There are small other bits of information that were properly sourced, and you removed for no reason.
Ramallite ^(talk) 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that we are going to have to have input from other editors or take this to an arbitration committee. I feel that you are still being deliberately disruptive because you are insisting on using words like "positive" and other personal POV to show that the wall is actually a wonderful thing for the Palestinians, when all the sources show otherwise. You are also linking to a wrong map to make a false point when the correct map (which you also provided) shows the reality.

Please show me where the word "positive" apears in the article. If it was used it was removed long ago after John Z comments.

I feel you are disruptive . Let's take an example:

The Checkpoint in Kalkilia (Qalqiliya)

You claim it is there. You cite a source that you should not have used ( a propeganda by a PLO-NAD)

No, I don't claim it is there because I haven't been there in too long. I am using two sources (neither of which are the NAD), one of which happens to be a UN report that you provided that was released in August, to show that there is a permanent checkpoint there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the othjer side there are clear reports by the UN which say:

"The previous Barrier route had approximately 93,200 West Bank Palestinians living between the Green Line and Barrier. The reduction in population is due to an easing of the closures in Qalqiliya (population 45,800). While the city remains encircled by the Barrier, the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqiliya is not manned."

I just saw this report, which was released in March 2005. The maps of a UN report released in August 2005 show a permanent checkpoint, and the other source I provided (which is not the NAD) actually has a picture of the soldiers there taken in August 2005. I'm just going by the sources I find on the internet, I don't use OR (and I don't have any OR regarding this matter). I wish the checkpoint to be gone, I want it to be gone. But the sources you and I provided show otherwise. Also, I think you have realized that you were arguing with UN map about barrier gates earlier, not a map about the checkpoints. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And the Israeli supreme court who say:

"there is no checkpoint at the entrance to the city" (also quting a different UN report)

I included this in the article, I said that the Israeli court (which is not considered neutral by the way) accepted the state's assertion that the checkpoint has been removed. I also added the opposing POV, from the UN and an Israeli group, that it is there. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So who is disruptive ? I who bring sourced material or you who insisit to amke a point that the checkpoint is there and keep reverting to include this info in the article ?

You bring sourced material but then only pick out the sentences you like and ignore the rest. I said "disruptive' because you removed my sourced info about the Gush Etzion barrier (because you think it is irrelevant, when the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted), and you removed the second half of a sentence from the UN report that states that restrictions on movement have not eased between urban areas (and you removed that for no reason other than you don't want it to be shown). Also, I think others have pointed out to you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert lengthy quotations of your sources, you have made the article much longer by just filling it with long quotations, when I offered to help you do it in a proper way. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you DO NOT use material from NAD-PLO (read their whole report, they make absured claims such as that the barrier hurts Israeli security, leave it to the PLO to decide on israeli security) So far I avoided using material from the Israeli goverment and I will continue to do so. Israeli goverment as well as PLO are sides to this debate and we should find more neutral sources. Zeq 13:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What the NAD is saying is that when you put human beings in a cage, you are causing widespread resentment and not contributing to security, but setting the scene for more hatred and violence (which most Israeli governments have become experts at doing). But this is irrelevant right now. Both the NAD and the Israeli government are legitimate sources for purposes of this article. Even if you think they are not neutral, I think Jayjg has explained to you that you may use all of the sources to make up a neutral claim. Besides, you don't want to use the Israeli government so you use the supreme court and an organization like camera.org? I don't see a difference in neutrality there, but I don't argue with you about your sources as long as they are legitimate for Wikipedia purposes. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly biased editing

Ramallite,

You have reverted Neutral supported text and replaced in text which ONLY show what you would want the reality to be.

This is your text about the rulling and include not even a single word on the most criotical part of that rulling. (the court answer to the ICJ) This is what you wrote:

"On September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court, in response to a petition by residents of the Qalqilya region against construction of the barrier around the settlement of Alfei Menashe, ruled that the section of the barrier around the settlement must be dismantled because of its restrictive impact on the lives of Palestinian residents in the area [13]. The court conducted a comprehensive review of accounts by the IDF, Israelis architects, Palestinian petitioners, and the International Court of Justice, and ruled that the Government of Israel must find an alternative route to lessen the impact on the rights of the resident Palestinian civilians:"

Therefore, we turn the order nisi into an order absolute in the following way: (respondents) must, within a reasonable period, reconsider the various alternatives for the separation fence route at Alfei Menashe, while examining security alternatives which injure the fabric of life of the residents of the villages of the enclave to a lesser extent. In this context, the alternative by which the enclave will contain only Alfei Menashe and a connecting road to Israel, while moving the existing road connecting Alfei Menashe to Israel to another location in the south of the enclave, should be examined.

Based on such biased data I have decided to restore the more comprehnsive text. Zeq 11:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing biased - I just didn't understand that you wanted the IJC ruling to be part of it. Honestly I have no idea what you were trying to say, so again, please use this discussion page to discuss what you want to add and I'll help you add it. But you are making things impossible by changing so many things (like John told you) in improper English and then getting upset when I don't follow what your point is. I just added one of the final conclusions of the report, while you were adding random arguments made by the state to the judges. I tried to find the words of the judges themselves and added those, while you are picking and choosing only random quotations that are part of the arguments and not the final ruling (as far as I can tell). I'm only interested in the final ruling, so please clarify what the judges say about the IJC. I honestly am confused about this. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The rulling include more than just what you are intersted in. So more is included. You have ignored a well reasoned answer that the supreme court give to the ICJ. Do you think this is to be left out ? would this fit your POV ?

I understand that your POV is that only what the ICJ says but this is no way to write an encyclopedia.

Zeq 13:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You understand nothing about my POV, please stop claiming to know my POV and just stick with the article. For your information, I never read the ICJ ruling completely, and I don't really care to, and I haven't contributed to that section of the article in the past. I repeat: I do not know exactly what about the ICJ you wanted to add. Tell me here what is important, and I will add it (in the relevant section). But lengthy quotations are just disruptive. Show me exactly what the judges said about the ICJ and I will help you added it in an encyclopedic manner. The article has become too cumbersome and every night I have to spend a long time just undoing all the unencyclopedic entries that you have inserted, and I'm doing this all alone since nobody else wants to take the time to figure out what you are trying to say. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The editor Ramallite tried to justify his use of a PLO-NAD propeganda material using this sentence: "What the NAD is saying is that when you put human beings in a cage, you are causing widespread resentment and not contributing to security, but setting the scene for more hatred and violence " Now I ask you is this the kind of NPOV which should be the source for wikipedia material ? "Human being in a cage" ....... - is this what you think the barrier is ? you think it is a cage ?

That's the argument the NAD is making according to my simplified interpretation. I first heard the word "cage" from American columnist Thomas Friedman. It is very inappropriate for you to take something I wrote out of context, I was responding to your statements above by offering my interpretation of another source, not my own.

And I thought editors should not interject their own POV. Zeq 13:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, and I was responding to what you wrote above. There should be no POV in the article, but the discussion page is to hammer out differences. What I wrote about the barrier is my interpretation of what the NAD is saying, and is not part of the article. All editors naturally have their POV (otherwise we wouldn't be here), but I did not insert personal POV into the article. If you are accusing me of interjecting POV into an article because of an interpretation I responded to on a discussion page, you won't find much support for your accusation. Lastly, I don't have to justify the use of NAD, it is a valid source for Wikipedia purposes, and that's all that matters. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

maybe someone can help us

The UN checkpoint report says two facts:

"2. In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction.

4. In the southern West Bank, Palestinian traffic is being increasingly channelled eastward onto the longer and inferior Route 356 and away from the more direct Route 60 to Jerusalem. Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent."

Does anyone think that if the UN wanted to say that Palestinian traffic is diverted as a result of the barrier it could not simply wrote it ? Afeter all, when the UN wants to show caustion (like in section 2) it is clearly saying so: The barrier eased movment in some areas where the barrier has been constructed. If in section 4 above if the UN wanted to add the word "because" it would have add it. But the UN did not used that word or any other word that imply causation. What am I mis-reading here ? My claim is simple: Section 2 in the UN report is related to the barrier but section 4 does not (because it speaks of an area where barrier construction has not yet began) Zeq 13:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The editor ramallite just noted above: "the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted" I do not see the word "is causing" anywhere in the UN quote. I rest my case that ramallite added this word from his own POV. Zeq 13:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly implied. However, here is the more pressing issue: The UN report states

Further analysis of the humanitarian and socio-economic impact of this decline (of checkpoints) is ongoing, but the impact is most felt by the easing of movement between villages and between villages and the urban centre. This is likely to improve Palestinian access to services such as education and health. Movement between major West Bank urban centres has not changed significantly.

User:Zeq has included the top part of this paragraph but twice removed my inclusion of the last sentence with no justification. He further claims that this quote (minus the last sentence) is the conclusion of the report, when in fact it is one of many paragraphs under a section entitled "Analysis of closure dynamics". Ramallite ^(talk) 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I still do not see where the word "is causing" apear in the sentnce from the UN document. You said one thing and the UN says another and now you are trying to divert the issue into a 3rd sentnce in the UN document that again has nothing to do with the barrier itself. I am asking again: If there was (as ramallite claim) causation between barrier construction (that have not even started yet ! in the gush Etzion region and divertion of trafiic on route 60 on way to Jerusalem - why did not the UN sais so ? and if there is no caustion why did ramallite tried to say that there is ? In fact the UN sais the exact opposite of what Ramllite want us to think. The UN sais this on areas where the construction have already started: "Physical obstacles have also been removed in Jerusalem governorate where the Barrier is under construction." Zeq 14:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I am not "saying" anything, I am putting the sources in proper context, sources by others and not my own. Second, all these UN reports are sources that you provided, not me. If they have nothing to do with the barrier, then don't use them. If you use them, they will be presented in proper context for NPOV. Third, if you are looking for the phrase "is causing", then most of what you included should be removed since very few sources directly state the phrase "is causing". Fourth, we don't have to say that the barrier is causing the diverted traffic, all we need to say is that, according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent. That is directly from the source, without "is causing" and without "is not causing", so that the reader can make their own interpretation. A neutral source will let the reader decide what to believe, the encyclopedia can not do that for the reader. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

- - Ramallite,

Of course you are saying Here is what you wrote: "the UN says that imminent construction of the barrier is causing traffic to be diverted" This is what you call "putting in proper context" ? What you did was trying to provide justification to include a sentence that has nothing to do with barrier by saying that there is causation. The word "is causing is your addition. It does not apear in the original UN report. You further claimed that because of barrier construction traffic is diverted on route 60. But the UN sais the exact opposite: "Physical obstacles have also been removed in Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction."

I think we really need other people to look at what you tried to do here. What you tried to do is: Restrict the use of UN checkpoint information directly realted to the barrier and replaced it with other info (from the same report) from sections that have nothing to do with the barrier (these are the quotes you added about movment between urban areas not changed.

You did all this to have the paragrpah in wikipedia fit better your POV. Later, in an attempt to justify what you did, you claimed causation (by adding the word "is causing") where it actually does not exist. This is a non wiki-like behaviour. Zeq 15:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, relax. Secondly, my mistake, I won't use "is causing" but will use the "according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent" just like the UN implies. I was confused because you keep jumping around topics. Thirdly, I repeat, stop pretending like you know my POV, it is uncivil for you to keep putting words in my mouth. Fourth, I have shown above how you are the one who restricted UN checkpoint information by 1) pointing to the wrong map and 2- removing a neutralizing sentence from your own UN source. Fifth, if the sections have nothing to do with the barrier, don't use them. If you use these sections, they will have to be cited properly. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I never put words in your mouth I only quote you. So you are admiting that you used wrong words but you still want to use it.

See - you are still misrepresenting what I'm saying to you. My exact words were "we don't have to say that the barrier is causing the diverted traffic, all we need to say is that, according to the UN, Palestinian traffic has been diverted from a highway where barrier construction is imminent. That is directly from the source, without "is causing" and without "is not causing". This means that I do NOT want to use "is causing". Stop saying that I still want to use it. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts. Places were barrier construction is immenet (i.e. did not at all start) has nothing to do with this section.

This is your opinion. In my opinion, a sentence that says "Route 60 runs through the Gush Etzion block where Barrier construction is imminent." DOES have something to do with the barrier. So either you get another opinion, or we compromise, but I disagree with you, and when two people disagree, you cannot just impose your will. I take offense to that. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite, you don't even bother to read my answer, so what is the point in continuing this "discussion" Here is what I wrote to you before. If the UN wanted to imply what you wanted it to imply it would find a way to say it clearly. But the UN said The exact opposite see below what I wrote before Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand the UN clearly said this:

"In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." This is what we should use from the checkpoint report. All other info in this report is not dealing with the barrier (there are other UN reports which address that. Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, then use the other UN reports and stop using this one, because it's clearly problematic. If you keep using this one, it will have to be presented in a neutral point of view. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, we are dealing here with the effect the barrier has on Palestinians. The UN monitor many aspects of Palestinians human rights and if it choose to say that as a result of the barrier there is more ease of movement in some areas since the barrier has been constructed than we will include this info in this article. I realize you do not like that but that is only your POV. The quote stays. It is relevant and well sourced even if it does not fit your POV (I can sympetize with your wish to remove it and use other UN docs but we are not dealing here only with what fit your POV). Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting me (do you understand what I am telling you?) I did not (at least intentionally) remove any of your quotes about the UN, I added to them. You removed what I added, and now you have the nerve to tell me that "The quote stays" as if it is I who am removing quotes? I haven't even touched the article since last night (except for the footnote). I don't even know where to edit anymore, you are filling it up with too many quotations. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not point to any wrong map like you claim.

Yes you did, you used this map to argue that there is no checkpoint, when in fact this map has nothing to do with checkpoints. I could use the same link and say "this map shows that there are no cows in the West Bank" - but this is not a map about cows either. You have since realized (but not admitted to) your mistake, but now you are claiming that the real map about checkpoints, the one found in this report, is incorrect, because you work for the organization and they have forgotten to update it. This is OR for Wikipedia purposes, although I will assume good faith and accept that what you are saying is true. However, I can only go by sources I find, regardless of if the UN "forgot" to update a map or not. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No I did not. We are talking about the barrier and used the map showing barrier checkpoints. Also, I broghut several written documents that in plain English state there is no checkpoint on the road in and out of the city. Zeq 19:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC) On the other hand the map on this article is wrong (as I have pointed out before) It clearly show section in which there is no barrier as if there are. If you think UN maps are wrong or conflicting why don't provide the complete info about it. I will refer it to the UN for correction. Thank You. Zeq 17:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the quote straight from the current version of article: "however the periodic UN checkpoint report map (which show all checkpoints in the west bank) no longer show a checkpoint on that road.[14]" . This link is not a link to checkpoints on roads as you claim, it only shows the barrier and the "gates" in it. So you are still not being truthful.Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A note about maps: Please look at this map http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/maps/barrier/BrrWBN_gates0305.pdf about 3/4 down on the right it has a larger map of Kalkliya (qalqiliya) area enlarge it to 300% . here is what you will see:

There is a road going east from Qalqilya toward Abu Farda and Nabi Elias. This is the main exit road out of town No checkpoints on this road. Access is unrstricted. Now if you look to the north and south of that road you will see: Gates in the barrier (number Q5 and Q10) These gates allow who ever croses them access into the Israeli side of the wall (and into Israel) Once the barrier was completed, these gates were placed and there was no reason to have a checkpoint antwhere else. This is why the checkpoint was removed. Why is this long story ? Because it is an example: The barrier has replaced the need for internal checkpoints - this is what the UN sais in the chcek point report: "In many areas the Barrier replaced the need for closures: Movement within the northern West Bank, for example, is less restrictive where the Barrier has been constructed. Physical obstacles have also been removed in Ramallah and Jerusalem governorates where the Barrier is under construction." Hope you now understand better what goes on. The UN map sais this: "Barrier path data extracted from satellite imagery, verified with field visits Barrier gate information collected by UN field staff" i.e. Yours truely Zeq 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is all your Original Research. You provided an August 2005 UN report that shows a permanent checkpoint on the road out of Qalqilya. The "text" that the checkpoint has been removed is older than August 2005. I also provided a source with a picture of the checkpoint taken in the summer of 2005. Again, I am not deleting your text, I'm trying to add to it, you keep deleting it. THAT's not the Wikipedia way. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not "original research" it is sourced. See refrences in text. Not for Wikipedia, just between you and me: Pick the phone, call people you know in Qalqiliya and just ask them. You see, I think that we both know (or can find) the truth by using our knowledge but this would be "original research" so we don't do for the article, but make the phone call anyhow so you will know if you are trying to justify reality or fiction. nyhow, sources provided. Zeq 21:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You still have the wrong map attached to the statement about the road out of Qalqilya. Anyhow, I will do no such thing, because in order to stay neutral, I would rather not know from a resident of Qalqilya whether there is a checkpoint there or not and rely on sourced information. Incidentally, a couple of weeks ago in Al-Quds they had a picture of a checkpoint on the main road into Qalqilya. But that is in Arabic. I have a better suggestion though, the next time you go to Qalqilya for your surveys, give me your cell phone and I'll call you while you are there and you can tell me about all the checkpoints and if people with Palestinian IDs (and no UN cards) are freely able to travel :) Ramallite ^(talk) 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq - please read the article before you add more entries. The August 2005 report is already entered at the bottom of that section, you repeated a lot of it in your entry. Also, we are going chronologically, so August 2005 is the most recent and comes last. It's funny that you don't want me to use the NAD and you use the Jerusalem Post (although I don't object, I just think it's funny). Lastly, you again removed the part about the movement between urban areas - do you know how to compromise? I gave in to most of your demands and you still insist on inserting that one quote out of context. I will put it back if you don't. If the UN says that movement in rural areas has been eased because of the barrier but not between urban areas, you cannot choose one and not the other.

You should also know that if you want to keep inserting everything the UN says that makes the barrier look "good", then other editors will also be putting everything the UN says that makes the barrier look "bad" (and there is a lot more bad than good according to all the sources I've read). You are still trying to push one POV by filtering out what the UN is saying to show only those so-called "benefits". If you read your own UN sources you will see that there are a lot more pains than "benefits". If we keep doing this back and forth, the article will expand again. I'm again offering (how many times now) to help you write it, but you are insisting on just dropping lots of quotations (and incorrect English) without discussing them first. I strongly suggest that you try to be cooperative and stop making extra work for me because I'm staying up late just to clean the article after you night after night. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I'm waiting until you are done altering the article so I can clean it up. Your latest addition "although all water rights in the area are covered by exiting agreements" makes absolutely no sense. There are no existing agreements between the parties regarding water, these were supposed to be final status issues. The site you posted (this one) is an example of a future agreement drawn up by a task force, not an actual agreement. Also see my comments above regarding your filtered quotations that you are inserting. You still haven't restored the part about the barrier not relaxing any movement between urban areas. I continue to assume good faith and am also offering (for the tenth time) to help you insert whatever you want instead of you doing so by yourself in a way that I have to constantly clean it up after you. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If this site is not a crediable source it should not be used. Not heree and not in any wikipedia article.

But wait, you seem to think that this [15] is a crediable source ?

Now as far as agreements there of course agreements about water between israel and the Palestinians. Do you need me to find them for you ? start here [16] it is all in the Oslo 2 acord.

Just read it. It is all propeganda. Zeq 11:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Merge Request" box removed

I have removed the box indicating that a merger of the "Apartheid Wall" article into this one has been requested. Here is why:

The first thing a reader sees (or saw) when viewing this article on "Israeli West Bank Barrier" was a prominently displayed box referring to an "Apartheid Wall" -- clearly a POV (and in my opinion, outrageous) reference to the barrier.
Even so, as long as there was an active discussion of merging the two articles, the box may have been appropriate under the rules and standards of Wikipedia, regardless of my objections. However, that is no longer the case. The box referred to this talk page for discussion of the issue of merger, but a reading of this talk page revealed no such discussion. By going into the most recent Archive page for this talk page, I found that there was a relatively brief discussion at the end of August and beginning of September, lasting less than two weeks, over the issue of merging the articles. The last comment in that discussion was dated September 8.
Why do I care? The placement of the box gives (or gave) the claim that the barrier is an "Apartheid Wall" much more play than if the concept was discussed in the first paragraph of this article --which does not make much sense. Now that the issue of merger has become "stale," the appearance of this prominent reference to "Apartheid Wall" on the top of this article seems completely inappropriate. 6SJ7 22:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Shortening?

Ramallite, in your latest edits you have removed among other things the following text:

Palestinians have mixed reaction to the barrier. Some say that "the security fence has significantly improved their lives". and others think differently. In Umm el-Fahm a city of 42,000, northwest of Jenin, residents had complained that Palestinians casually filtering through from the territories had harassed schoolgirls, stolen cars, and even snatched laundry. Worse yet, they stamped Umm el-Fahm as a launching pad for suicide bombers. Israeli checkpoints often blocked Umm el-Fahm's streets, and border policemen patrolled the city on a regular basis, hoping to pick up illegal Palestinian workers – or terrorists. Since the barrier's completion in their areas on August 2003, the community have enjoyed a spike in both security and economic activity.[17]...

You explain this as "shortening." It seems to me that you have removed the one piece of information in that section that provides any balance to the alleged parade of horribles that some say have resulted from the barrier. The above text shows that it isn't all bad. Why shouldn't this text be restored? 6SJ7 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Many (and almost all Palestinians living behind it) seem to say so, not just some, according to everything I've read and heard. Anyway, read on, it's there, shortened and to the point. The reasons I moved it down are 1- It's a minority view according to sources and therefore shouldn't be at the top of the paragraph, and 2- It refers to Israeli-Palestinians (Arabs), not Palestinians in the West Bank who are enclosed by the barrier to whom that section primarily refers. You said "in your latest edits you have removed among other things the following text". The "among other things" part makes me wonder if there is anything else objectionable? Ramallite ^(talk) 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not only "palestinian Israelis" who benefit from the wall. Read the text about Palestinian from jenin who also benefit from it. But most of all the UN report (based on talks to many Palestinians) that say so. Why can't you understand the simple fact in the UN report: istrael set up a border and withdrow to that border line. This sure eased the life of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Zeq 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read that very last paragraph of the Jerusalem Post report that you used, and also see the example I gave you on your talk page about the house and garden. I can help explain it to you if you'd like. What I read in these reports is not what you are trying to represent in the article. I am trying to give a general interpretation of what these reports are saying, but you only pick and choose limited statements. If you think that the barrier is so beneficial, why don't you support building a barrier around Tel Aviv? I'm sure Ramat-Gan will see an economic boon! Again, most Palestinian sources do not say that the barrier is beneficial, in fact many sources call it an Apartheid Wall. The UN tries to stay neutral but overall it is saying that things are better than they were 2 years ago but things are definitely not like Denmark or Canada or any free country. If you pick and choose statements out of UN articles, other editors will also pick and choose, and the whole article will look ridiculous. The Palestinians think that "so what if Jenin is calmer they still can't freely move outside of Jenin", and yes many call it a cage. You are arguing that everybody is happy inside the cage because now the IDF does not need to be there, but it is still a cage (according to Palestinian sentiments). This is a quote that I found "Ariel Sharon keeps goats and sheep. He puts a fence around them and closes them in with a gate. He decides if they come in or go out. This is now what he is doing to us. -Palestinian from Sur Bahir" As an editor I cannot ignore all these sources and stick to one story from a right-wing Israeli newspaper that reflects a rare view, taken out of context, and place that at the TOP of the section. That would be POV-pushing. Even the Post concurs with the other reports by saying that "it's all relative". Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I reverted your changes because you're adding a lot of material at once, which is being disputed, but it's hard to keep track of it because there's so much. Also, one of the sources you're linking to looks a bit odd. Could you say here on the talk page what changes you want to make, and discuss them one by one, please? I know it's a bit frustrating, but with these sensitive topics, that's usually what how we proceed. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim, Please be specific at what is disputed. I add sources for everything I add. Which source do you consider ODD ?

If you ask me the linking to PLO_NAD material (have you read it) is what should not have been done. It is a cheap propeganda material. The material from there include such POV nonsense like "some of the most fertile". It has much worse material, just read this source and see for your self: It is propeganda. Wikipedia is not the place to promote political agenda.

As for duscussion. I have discussed here many times, many subject only ramallire responded. You want to join editing this article ? I would welcome that. Zeq 04:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ramallite: The problem is that you believe your own propeganda. The Palestinians object the barrier for many reason, but the simple person on the groud also see the effect that the calm it brought to everyone life. In a nut shell this is the story of the middle east conflict:

Simple people who want peace, but extrimists (on both sides) want to claim everything that consider "is their right" It is not a counicidense that the PLO, The Hammas, The settlers all were against the barrier. Even Sharon was against it.

All the xtrimist want is to get all the land. The settler want it all to be Israel, the PLO and Hammas want it all to be palestine. The wall has for the first time created a demarcation line on the ground. They are against the concept of creating borders. Zeq 05:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment the technical issue resolved.

we have a problem

ramallite seems to have a problem with the fact that I use UN sources. Now, I understand he is on a sort of crusade to orgenize other editors to take care of this problem. This from his talk page is quite disturbuing: "Hi Ramallite,

I got your message. Taking a look at the dispute, I feel a bit lost about what exactly is going on. Some of the changes Zeq wants to make seem dubious to me, but I'm unclear what you want me to do about it. The subject of the wall is not one which I have closely followed, so I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to really intervene. And I'm not sure what you mean about Zeq using questionable sources. Could you maybe explain again what you wanted me to do? john k 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC) " can someone explain to John K what does ramallite wants him to do ? BTW, Is there a wikipedia rule against "ganging up" by several editors ? Or is this ther way used around here to by-pass the 3RR rule ? Zeq 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, I am really getting frustrated with your behavior which I attribute to wanting to push your POV on the article while at the same time lacking enough English skills to properly settle the dispute. Let me (again) try to explain what the problems are:

1- You are taking certain, minor phrases from the UN reports or other sources and using them to paint a different picture of the effect of the barrier on Palestinians. For example, you take a story about Umm El-Fahm, an Israeli Arab town, written in the Jerusalem Post, which lies outside the barrier, and make that into a major part of the section. The Jenin story is mostly circumstantial and not directly tied to the barrier, and even then it is given too much attention. In Jenin, the Post says that it is "in part" due to the barrier. First, let us talk about those effects that are "in whole" due to the barrier, then we can add those "in part" statements if you want.

Answer: No Ramallite. This is only your POV. The barrier made improvments to millions of people on both sides of it. I don't say it. It is the UN who say it and Jerusalem post and the times and those people who are quoted by these sources. Stop making fun of my "English skills" and stop pushing your propeganda sources. Also, stop orgenizing others against my contributions.

Again, you don't know my POV, it is irrelevant to this article. There is a difference between "making fun" and voicing frustration over your refusal to cooperate. Stop misrepresenting me. It is not civil or polite. Read this. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2- It is the UN/UNRWA sources that say that the land is some of the most fertile, not just the NAD.

Answer: The quote that land outside the barreir is not good for agricultue is from UNRWA document. UNRWA is not agreat source. It is known as anti-Israeli. The fact that even in sources like UNRWA and the Un I can find info that balance the propeganda you have interduced must tell you something how far you west with your propeganda. You seem to think that if NAD say it than it must be so. Well something like "The most fertile" is clear POV (of who ever invented this propeganda) and should not be used.

UNRWA does not say the land outside is not good for agriculture, it says most of it is. I can't even find that quote in the article you used. If UNRWA is not a great source because it is "anti-Israeli", does that mean good sources are only those that are pro-Israeli? "The most fertile" is a description of a POV, if one party says that much of the land is fertile, you must find another source that says that "most of the land is not fertile" in order to express the opposing POV. That's how Wikipedia works. So far, you have not. If you think it is in that UNRWA article, please cut and paste the entire paragraph where it comes from, because it seems to be missing on the page that you linked. And use the real UNRWA page, not this "proxytool" thing. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

3- Stop complaining about the NAD, it is no less credible than the Jerusalem Post (and I never told you not to use the JP).

Answer: NADis a pure Palestinian "Hasbara" it is nothing less than propeganda. NAD-PLO that you quote from Equal in value to such settler web sites as http://www.masada2000.org/ This is the most fundemantal issue that I am trying to explain to you: You want to write an Encyclopedia, fine, you must use proper sources. Until you understand that you and I could not reach agreement. Proper sources are recent UN documents, court documents (of a court that was wilkling to look at the facts and some media sources.

NAD is an organization representing the Palestinian POV, and most of the claims quoted in this article are verified by the UN, UNRWA, or Btselem. What you must understand is that Zeq cannot determine what is a proper source and what is not. NAD is a primary official Palestinian source, and although you may disagree with it, it is allowed on Wikipedia. So is the Israeli government by the way, so don't be afraid to use it. In fact, I plan to use it to clean this article up. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

4- If you want to use the UN reports (which I am trying to use as well but you delete what I insert), do it properly, not just pick one or two sentences from a sea of information that otherwise claims that the wall is detrimental not beneficial.

Answer: I am doing that pproperly. From a UN report about checkpoints I broght a quote directly related to the barrier. You, on the other hand tried to use decit by arguing for causation where none existed. You have edmittted that above.

I admitted to that one mistake a while ago, and I corrected it in my own version. What is your point? You still haven't explained why you refuse to use your quotes in context, or to let me put them in context. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

For example, this is from the Introduction of one of your UN sources, the one about the impact of the barrier:

Nevertheless, it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier. The route inside the West Bank severs communities, people’s access to services, livelihoods and religious and cultural amenities. In addition, plans for the Barrier’s exact route and crossing points through it are often not fully revealed until days before construction commences. This has led to considerable anxiety amongst Palestinians about how their future lives will be impacted.

Answer: Exactly. It is difficult even for experts. But when they write something in uncerstiam terms it is because they know it is true. I know relaity does not fit your POV but that is too bad. Only propeganda always know everything without a shred of a doubt.

You obviously do not understand what the phrase "difficult to overstate" means. Again, stop referring to my POV, it is uncivil because I have not told you what I personally think of the barrier, only what I have read or heard from others. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that the report overall does not say the barrier is "beneficial", which is what you are trying to say it does. But you only want to use one sentence from this report, that the checkpoint at the entrance of Qalqilya is not manned. Big deal. Then you delete what I try to add from these reports. Not nice. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: It does not use the word benficial. But it sais clearly that it has eased movement in areas where it is already build or even partially built. I know it does not fit your POV. In your mind he wall is "a cage" "an aparthide" we heared it all before but that does not fit an encyclopedia.

(sigh) Yet again, you are referring to my POV, stop it please. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

5- One dubious source: you claim the sentence "land on the other side of the barrier in this area is not good for agriculture" is from here, but I can't find it in there. And why didn't you use the actual report from the UNRWA website? What is this proxytool website? Besides, the sentence says in this area, the UN and NAD says that much or most of the land is some of the most fertile, not all of it, so your adding of this source is just not encyclopedic, trying to make a point that is already there. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

6- Another irrelevant source: You claim that there are water agreements and use this site to prove it. This is not an agreement, this is a proposed agreement made up by Americans. It does not exist. If you look at the Oslo Accords, you will see that it says

Israel recognizes the Palestinian water rights in the West Bank. These will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations and settled in the Permanent Status Agreement relating to the various water resources.

Stop trying to make things up and use false sources. Besides, all the UN and NAD are saying that Palestinians in Qalqilya are cut off from their water wells and cannot get to them without a permit. That's all. You want to expand that sentence by bringing in the high court and Oslo Accords and all this extra stuff that is irrelevant to that one assertion. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: No one is saying this. There is the Oslo 2 agreements which control all water access in the west bank. Show me one place where israel took a well because it is on the "Israeli" side of the wall. You know that if this was done there would be an immidiate supreme court injunction about it. Israel is a country of law and the supreme court has changed the goverment plans many times. So if what you claimwas correct we would know about it. Zeq 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to show you that Israel "took a well" because I never claimed that. I must (yet again) ask you not to misrepresent my statements. I explained above that one of the major concerns according to Palestinian sources is that many of their water wells are now on the other side of the barrier, and Palestinians now need permits to reach them. That is all, nothing else. Your additional accusations are your own, nobody is saying that Israel annexed anything. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

7- You still are not familiar with WP policies, including proper citation and original research. For example, you just added the statement that the barrier dips into the West Bank "to distance israeli population centers from the being in close range to threats [18]". If you look at your source, it is a map that "explains Israel's preoccupation with security" and has absolutely nothing to do with the barrier nor does it mention it. You used this source to arrive at a novel conclusion about the route of the barrier, which is original research. Your use of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, as a tertiary source (not to mention high propaganda but it's ok since it's not the NAD) is not as acceptable as a primary or secondary source, and many other editors (though usually not I) would delete such a reference. See WP:Reliable Sources.

8- Finally, you are still refusing to discuss things on this page first, instead you go straight to the article and add anywhere from 3 to 8 new entries that make it hard from people (for example, John k) to follow. Your accusation above of being "on a crusade" is uncalled for and you cannot use personal attacks on WP like that. Also, again, I don't have a problem with you using UN sources because I also want to use them myself and I thank you for pointing them out, but I have a problem with the way you use them: You take only certain sentences that do not reflect the actual gist of the UN report, and then delete my entries from these same sources. I have not erased anything you added from the UN. Your false accusations are really annoying and uncalled for. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Look, you contacted someone and it was not even clear to him what is that you want to do excpet that you complained about my contribution. This is not the way to behave. It is on your talk page. Zeq 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know what is on my talk page and clearly you don't understand it. Nobody can understand what's going on here because you are making a mess. Also, do you even understand what the statement " it is difficult to overstate the humanitarian impact of the Barrier" means? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is very clear: You needed more people that would help pushing your POV. After all if it was just copyedit of my english you are very capable doing that on your own. The problem is that this article has too much POV in it with words like "most fertile" on the other hand you did a good job neutrelizing the effect terror had on israelis and you now want to remove refernces to how the barrier, by removing ther threat of terror, improve the life of all that live next to it. Of course this is done at some price to other who need to get to fields but must use gates and detours and that should be included in this article. Zeq 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not edit anything about terror against Israelis, I only shortened your very long entry about the Supreme Court ruling, and you responded that you were very happy with it (you called it excellent) and you thanked me. Now you are saying something else, and being inconsistent. All I want to do is summarize what the sources say properly, and they do not say that the barrier "improved the life of all that live next to it". While some articles describe some freedoms that are "relative" according to the "Jerusalem Post", most sources (including the good ones you showed me) claim that the barrier has had detrimental effects. You keep misrepresenting your own sources, and refusing my help to clarify them. I will just have to do it myself when I have time. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

what is NAD and is it a "crediable" source

from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=395372&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The elite Palestinian diplomatic unit against Israel is the Negotiation Affairs Department in the PLO, which leads the propaganda battle against the separation fence and the settlements.

The department recently chalked up an important accomplishment: encouraging American opposition to the separation fence. Stephanie Khoury, a Palestinian woman from Texas who works for the department, visited the White House in 2003, making a presentation to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice about the injustice of the fence. The meeting is considered a watershed moment in the campaign to make Israel change the route of the fence, which last week reached its climax in the government surrender when it announced to the High Court of Justice that it was moving the fence.

The PLO negotiations department was founded in 1994 to monitor the implementation of the Olso accords, to formulate Palestinian positions and to provide legal and media aid to the negotiating teams. It was originally headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who would eventually serve briefly as the first prime minister. He was replaced by Saeb Erekat last year. The financing came from Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Holland. It has about 20 full-time staffers and a logistical team. Its high-profile spokesmen are American Palestinians, led by Harvard law graduate Michael Terzi.

Reasoned arguments

Its Web site, www.nad-plo.org, provides information and reasoned arguments in favor of the Palestinian cause for supporters throughout the world. A cleanly styled, sophisticated site, its messages are brief and to the point, formulated for the political culture of the U.S. and Europe, rejecting violence and sensitive to human rights.

The reality depicted by the site is practically sterile. Neither terrorism nor IDF activity in the territories are mentioned. There is no effort to win sympathy with images of victims and body parts, like at the site hosted by its rival, the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The violent conflict is not mentioned, nor is the "resistance to the occupation." The narrative is different: the Palestinians are depicted as innocent victims of an Israeli policy of transfer.

According to the negotiations department, Israel has more than one goal with the fence: confiscating Palestinian lands to enable further growth of the settlements, setting political borders unilaterally, encouraging Palestinians to leave the country by making it impossible for them to make a living, denying them water and freedom of movement so that remaining in their villages or cities is impractical.

Using terms like "transfer" and "cleanse" to describe something "deep in Zionism," the site's images show the suffering of Palestinians near the fence who have been cut off from their lands and schools. This week a photograph of the tall cement wall that went up between Jerusalem and Abu Dis was added to the site. That section of the wall has the word "ghetto" scrawled as graffiti on it. The site includes descriptions of the fence's range, noting that with the "eastern fence" (yet to be approved by the government), 55 percent of the West Bank will be annexed to Israel.

The site details the Palestinian position on the issues of the permanent agreement, explaining that the Palestinians rejected the proposals at Camp David in 2000 because "it was a repackaging of the military occupation, and not its end." The PLO, says the site, favors a two-state solution, with the Green Line as the border. All the settlements, including those in the Jerusalem area, must be evacuated.

AS you recall Ramallite argued that NAD is not part of the PLO diplomatic effort and that it does not deal with propeganda. Who do you trust: haaretz or NAD and their branches ? Zeq 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Funding of NAD:

According to the DFID, UK’s funding to the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) amounted to € 13,670,000 since 1999. A written question viathe House of Lords on how the NAD has spent the money and what mechanisms were put in place to hold the NAD and the PLO leadership accountable for it has recently been deposited and is awaiting a reply • In June 1999 the UK Government approved a two-year project of technical assistance to the NAD. The Negotiations Support Project has also received continuous financial support from the Governments of Denmark, the Netherlands,Norway, and Sweden • In September 1999, the Government of Norway offered funding to the NAD tosupport the NSU, which has been renewed annually. The total amount of support

Page 4 4to the NSU since 1999 is set by the MFA at circa. 1.25 million EUR, and includessupport for advisers, the NSU's legal affairs library and project management costs of the London-based Adam Smith's International Ltd. We have learned from the Norwegian MFA that Norway ‘has not received any application from the NSU relating to financial support for the Palestinian delegation to the process underway in the ICJ.’ This seems an unlikely proposition given that NSU members appeared before the ICJ on 23rd February to present oral statements, and formed part of ‘Palestine’’s delegation to the ICJ, in a legal process they supported - even if their benefactors- Norway and the EU states- both formally opposed • In January 2000, the Government of Sweden approved another two-year assistance program to the NAD. After being asked by us to provide detailedinformation concerning funds to the NSU, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied that the file concerning the NSU was classified, and thus could not provideinformation. However, after pressure from us, the file was declassified on 12February 2004 and the Swedish Foreign Ministry communicated that for the period 1 January 2002 - 31 March 2002 the Swedish support amounted to about€ 600,000, and for the period 1 April 2002 – 31 December 2003 to € 1,244,940. The current contract ran until 31 December 2003, and was officially renewed on 10 February 2004, but only for a further three months. It did not say whether ithad funded the NSU without contract between 1 January and 9 February 2004- or why it had not extended the contract for longer as per its previous agreement. Itdid, however, say funding was targeted at the Communications and Media (PR) component of the NSU. Even though the Swedish Foreign Ministry asserts that no external monitoring on the use of funds has been carried out, it declared that itfollows the NSU’s spending of the Swedish funds ‘closely and continuously.’ Further inquiries concerning the nature of this auditing mechanism, the rationalefor extending assistance for three months only, and its support, if any, during early 2004, the reasoning behind its declassification of the data, and why it fundsthe NSU’s media unit have been submitted to the Swedish Foreign Ministry. We are currently waiting for its response • In August 2000 the Government of Denmark also started to provide assistance to the NAD, complementing existing funding commitments. Further to our inquiries,

Page 5 5the Danish Foreign Ministry declared that Danish support to the NSU is part of its ‘Programme for Support to Democracy, Good Governance, Rule of Law andHuman Rights’ (PRODEPA). The programme was started in 1998 and has a totalgrant of € 7,232,982, and is planned to run until the end of 2005. Phase I of the Danish support to the NSU ran from July 2000 to November 2002 and allocated agrant of € 669,720. Thereafter, Phase II, from 2002 until 2004, is allocating a grant of € 1,016,635. According to the NSU, this assistance has been used for theestablishment of the Communications (PR) Section of the NSU, for experts in the field of media, and for additional legal and policy expertise4. The Danish Ministryof Foreign Affairs declares that it exercises ‘on a continuous basis’ follow-up on the use of Danish development assistance to the NSU ‘in order to avoid misuse’ from the terms of the program which funds it • The UK Government, through the Department for International Development, hascommitted itself to supporting the project until 31 April 2006 with funding of just over 13 million EUR. The DFID claims it delivers funding through a contract with Adam Smith International Ltd (ASI), but that DFID maintain records of theexpenditure, whilst the funding pays for ‘technical assistance provided by international and local consultants, and the operational costs of NSU’s office.’ The DFID claims the value of the NSU continues as, following the end of formalnegotiations in January 2001, the NSU ‘broadened its role by seeking to encourage the resumption of permanent status negotiations by contributing to a variety of diplomatic peace initiatives. The project supports those in the Palestinian Authority who are committed to peace. We have no reason to doubt that all project activities have been consistent with these objectives,’ claims the DFID, despite the fact that the NSU prepared the case against the security fence in the Hague, the overall legal process of which was condemned by the EU ascounter to the formulation of an eventual peace agreement