Вышел 1-й том комментария Библейская Динамика на английском

Его можно приобрести здесь https://www.amazon.com/dp/1949900207

Приобретите и подарите своим англоязычным друзьям - это ваша огромная поддержка нашей деятельности!

Участник:Igorp lj/Nish+

Материал из ЕЖЕВИКИ - EJWiki.org - Академической Вики-энциклопедии по еврейским и израильским темам
Перейти к: навигация, поиск

I'm not a frequent visitor in this section, but after reading the previous and latest evidences, decided to leave my one too. So here is my own feeling about an atmosphere in IP section: it's even not the saddest thing that visiting it isn't pleasure, and sometimes - even disgusting. The saddest one is that some editors and admins :(, who has set control on access information to Wiki, harm its reliability.



E.g., for 3+ months, a very important Information in Wiki was simply absent. It's about the fact that the EU continued to apply anti-terrorism sanctions against Hamas just after of procedural decisions of the Court and is going to appeal against this decision. My attempts to change this absurd situation by Wiki tools simply failed. See also about "whitewashing Hamas".

It is clear that if to exclude "inconvenient" sources, as in the case above, or - the most of Israeli sources - in general, leaving only a few of major Israeli media against a lot of (pro) Arab / Palestinian, anti-Israeli sources and Israeli marginals & foreign agents, the picture is completely distorted.

How it works? Just applying a dual approach to the assessment of a Pro et Contra sources. Only a couple of examples (No.1) (may be continued as all in my evidence). It's sad again that from those three who replied there, no one answered in essence of my question: "why (per same criteria) they reject the "pro-Israeli" sources but support "anti-Israeli" ones?" No.2 vs No.3, No.4, etc. And it’s only a reference to someone’s opinion (what is more comfortable for those who takes now control of a source access), an argument for +- decision about a source. Yet (only one) example what same editor does use as a "proving RS":

Therefore, first of all, I'd suggest to create a group what'll check RS of all sources from both the sides.


(mainly from Nishidani)

  • As I see it was actual in 2009, as well as :
  • series of insults here
  • his reaction on my technical question was NPA only and brutal propaganda forum's lexicon instead of answer (19:49, 17 April 2015):
    • "You are, as on several other pages earlier, not understanding the points made, and engaging in a personal polemic. The connection is made in the text..." (IMHO, not in source, but...)
  • The same coarse invectives (06:59, 18 April 2015) in response to my exact quoting from his own source, p.156, p.218:
    • "I've tried to be nice and helpful. It's evident that you don't understand rules, grammar, nothing. It's pointless interacting with you. 'Palestinian citizens of Israel (subject) took to the streets to demonstrate' cannot be rephrased as 'Palestinian citizens of Israel" demonstrations,' for the simple fucking reason..."

The same such examples may be found here, here (So fast (from 11:36 to 22:28, 27 January 2015) decision?):

  • "The fact that you have the primitive idea"; "You have shown nothing, zero, zilch."

regarding so fast closing of "his" Case, etc.


(again, Nishidani as a main example)

Selective quoting & Omitting

The same is with his wp:TLDR arguments what are usually a combination of statements, slightly related to the subject of the discussion. The problem is that all they have to be checked for authenticity and / or for selective citation.

If all this isn't wp:DISRUPT, what is it?

Tnx from N




25 Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch, for the nth time 27 "Locals said..." on Ma'an news - RS or not

  • * As I see it was actual in 2009
  • Nishidani, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:09, 21 April 2009

Arbitration Requests Enforcement Search

prtv RfC

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61
    • Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints - a newsletter put out by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) 26 March 2010
    • The Huffington Post and The Guardian 31 March 2010
    • Sources for casualties relating to I/P 29 March 2010 * Jewish Virtual Library
    • Sources for casualties relating to I/P - * Jewish Virtual Library 28 March 2010
    • Reliability of Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem 29 March 2010 <=> NGO Monitor and CAMERA

40.1 IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS


DRN 09.2015

==== Summary of dispute by Nableezy ====

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A reliable source specifically links the material that Settleman objects to, using this incident as an example of a wider pattern. The material by the Israeli defense minister however isnt about this attack, he is making a general statement about most extremist right wing Jews not being settlers, but not saying that the arsonists are not settlers. The pertinent part of his statement, that the attack hurt the position of the settlers, is already included in the article. Every single other person to comment on this, with the exception of an obvious sockpuppet who hasnt commented on the talk page but only reverted in the article, has agreed that Yaalon's statement on extremist right wing Jews is not relevant to the article on the attack, and the only reason we are here is one user refuses to accept that and is insisting on "balancing" everything that they feel is negative about the settlers by something that is positive. This is just more time-wasting. nableezy - 16:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The article has two general statements 'manual of incitement' and UN stats about 'settlers violence'. When a statement of Defense Minister Yaalon from a briefing about the attack was added, it was removed because it is a 'general statement'. I can't see any reason for the difference except for personal POV.

  • A manual of incitement written by Moshe Orbach, an Israeli from Bnai Brak, entitled “Kingdom of Evil,” which provides details on how to set fire to mosques, churches and Palestinian homes, has also been mentioned in connection with the Duma attack.[1]
  • According to the UN, since the beginning of 2015 at least 120 settler attacks have been documented in West Bank, and Yesh Din statistics suggest over 92.6% of Palestinian complaints lodged with Israeli security forces never led to charges being filed.[2]


  • Ya'alon said... and mentioned that "It is necessary to know that most of those extreme right wing activists are not residents of Judea and Samaria and they definitely don't represent the settler-communities over there."[3]

In the attack Jewish extremists are suspected by most including the Israeli authorities. this makes the statistics source from Al-Jazeera not just generic but irrelevant (extremists≠settlers). The second one about 'manual of incitement' may or may not actually connected but if we allow generic information, it should be in. But Ya'alon statement was said in a briefing about investigation progress. It is generic since they don't know the identity of the attackers. Nableezy insisting on including the first two but not the last is purely based on his POV. All my request for a reasonable explanation for the difference were dodged which is why I am taking the very long route to DRN. Settleman (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what current article's revision[4] does include, noting that even for such minor edit as "immediately suspected Jews <= Jewish settlers", some editors insist ("They didn't suspect Jews, as a whole, but Jewish settlers, of course"; "sources say settlers") on settlers' blaming, despite a fact that already existed RS prove the opposite:

  • J. arsonits/extremists + "settler terrorism" @Arikat [11] NYT
  • attack/radicals/settlers/assailants [19] (Daraghmeh+)
  • terror/violence/extremists/militants [20] ("They tend to reject authority, including the mainstream settler movement leadership")
  • extremists/terrorists[21] (Dubai)
  • extremists/terrorists[22] (Harkov)

and so on:

  • the flagship of the ideological settler movement (regarding to another incident: "That same Monday night, July 27, rioting broke out at the settlement of Beit El, considered the flagship of the ideological settler movement") [20][24]
  • at least 120 settler attacks have been documented [38] (AJ based on Yesh Din's data)
  • to extend to Palestinian victims of Jewish terrorism [36]; Jewish terror[29]

Here's a POV, what is mainly represented in the current version of article.
Unfortunately, for some group of editors, such words as 'settler', an entire spectrum of the Israeli right-wing media and NGOs sound like curses. And this concerns not only the settlers. It comes to a ridiculous: for some editor, a journalist, writing for many RS isn't RS because she works in Sderot, as well as PhD (International Politics) from Australia - because he doesn't work for left media, and the third - because he is "The National board chairman of the Zionist Organization of America (so ? --Igorp lj (обсуждение)) and "a clinical professor...",
but "his" source - some anonymous & Rotem - an "Israeli activist, high-tech executive and author of the blog" - is RS. The same is for his

  • "we use sources that give facts, with linkable and verifiable sources which Rotem / Brown provide"

what isn't correct : their "facts" based mainly on +972 links itself & on a sister's Mekomit, and rarely - on B'tselem+ data.

It'd OK, if it remains as their POV only, but they work hard to prevent access to Wikipedia of an information with which they disagree. Actually, they just hurt Wiki, making it not RS when remain in it what doesn't represent a real information about what happens in Israel and in the region as a whole.

That's why I consider it necessary to return to the article not only 'Makor Rishons information, but the folowing one from Arutz Sheva's confirmed by Hebrew sources:

  • "Yaalon also said several suspects were currently being held who are believed to be linked to the attack, although their precise role in the deadly arson is unclear. He noted that the suspects are not at all connected to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - or even to the so-called "Price Tag" movement."

P.S. It's interesting what will say same editors when I add to the article the following Ben-Dror Yemini's opinion: ) :)

117 events didn’t turn Netherlands into a racist country. With us, a much smaller number of events leads to countless articles about a violent and racist society.
The nationalist-religious tribe has absorbed the majority of criticism regarding the rise of nationalistic extremism. But the attempt to connect the “price tag” (the name given to certain acts of vandalism aimed at Palestinians by Jewish nationalists) hooligans, or the ones responsible for the two aforementioned murders, to the wider religious public is tenuous.

P.P.S Nableezy's "Every single other person to comment on this ... has agreed that Yaalon's statement on extremist right wing Jews is not is relevant" - isn't correct. See my: "In fact, all sources say the same things, the only difference is what they do present, depending ... on its orientation" (23:30, 11 September 2015)

Last Nish quote with his approach to RS

Read your links. I.e.

Dr. Michael Goldblatt is the national board chairman of the Zionist Organization of America. He is a clinical professor at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. As a charter clinical fellow of the Behavior Therapy and Research Society, he is a recognized pioneer in cognitive behavior therapy.

AIJAC is an advocacy lobbyist organization.
Anat Silverman works in Sderot at the Sderot Media Centre.
Tzvi Fleischer is an 'independent researcher' working for an Israeli lobby group. His writings are generally sheer nonsense, or rather 'attitudes' rather than documented studies, which is what the 4 part series in +972 aspires to be
In striving to document facts, we use sources that give facts, with linkable and verifiable sources which Rotem/Brown provide.([5])
Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2015

And regarding to his "we use sources that give facts, with linkable and verifiable sources which Rotem/Brown provide": Uvy, their "facts" based mainly on links to the same +972 & to a sister's (?) Mekomit with a kink to +972 at a page's top, and rarely on B'tselem+ data.

несмотря на то, что источники в статье доказывают обратное.

Вот такой текущий ПОВ статьи. К сожалению, для некоторой группы редакторов, такие слова как поселенец, весь правый спектр израильских сми и НГО звучат как ругательства. И это касается не только поселенцев. Доходит до смешного: для кого-то журналист, пишущий для многих РС, плох уже тем, что живет в Сдероте, а другой, доктор мо из австралии - тем, что работает не в левом сми, а третий - "тхе national board chairman of the Zionist Organization of Америка (?) a clinical профессор", и поэтому они - не РС, а некий аноним и an Israeli activist, high-tech executive and author of the блог" - РС. (?) Что касается его "we use sources that give facts, with linkable and verifiable sources which Rotem/Brown provide": Uvy, их "facts" based mainly on links to сам +972 & to a sister's (?) Mekomit with a линк to +972 at вверху страницы, and rarely on B'tselem+ data.

И если бы это оставалось только их ПОВ, но они прилагают совместные усилия, чтобы не недопустить в Википедию информацию, с которой они не согласны. Собственно, они просто вредят Вики, делая ее недостоверным источником, когда настаивают на том, чтобы в ней не была представлена реальнаяная информация о происходящем в Израиле, и в регионе в целом.

Именного по этому, я считаю необходимым вернуть в статью, не только информацию Макор Ришон, но и - Аруц Шева, подтверждаемую ивритскими источниками.

П.С. Интересно, что скажут те же редакторы, когда я добавлю в статью след. цитату Ben-Dror Yemini ? ):) ППС Nableezyэы "Every single other person to comment on тхис ... has agreed that Yaalon's statement on extremist right wing Jews is not релевант" - не верно. См. мое : In fact, all sources say the same things, the only difference is what they do present, depending ... на (поменять!) its ориентатион" (23:30, 11 September 2015) ++ [6]

Makor Rishon + Yaalon

  • Makor Rishon Paper to Go Weekly, Publish Daily Content Online

American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who also owns Israel Hayom, bought Makor in March. Paper will now produce one weekend edition, with daily updates online. Nati Tucker Sep 15, 2014 11:44 PM read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IJBxAc84cAYJ:www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.615949+&cd=6&hl=iw&ct=clnk&gl=il + webcache.googleusercontent

  1. Jamal Kanj 'Analysis: Burned alive by Israelis,' Ma'an News Agency 13 September 2015.
  2. 'Palestinian baby burned to death in settler attack,' Al Jazeera 31 July 2015.
  3. Ya'alon: we know who are the assailants at Duma, Makor Rishon (September 11, 2015), p. 8.
  4. (last edit of 15:24, 24 September 2015‎ Pluto2012)
  5. John Brown* and Noam Rotem License to Kill: Stone-throwing while Palestinian could get you killed
  6. משדר צהריים ומוסיקה. מגישה: אסתי פרז 22.09 (33:00) +

wiki Nishidani+


  • Sigh, . .yawn, zzzz...Murder is all over the Tanakh, justified as part of God's plans for us. The Qur'an is heir to that, as is Christianity. Anyone screaming 'murder' over the Qur'an just testifies to his partisan perspective and ignorance of the foundational documents of our civilization, which endorse genocide and even infanticide (Psalm 137:Happy shall he be that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones”). This is not the place to discuss Islam.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amin_al-Husseini&curid=23263567&diff=698798246&oldid=698724075

"These were the tribals borders - Jews against Arabs, without geographical borders"

  • translate from

Quelle surprise
You have an opinion, nothing more. Ask colleagues. The fact that you have the primitive, and fatuous, idea that any forum, newspaper or media outlet that documents what happens to Palestinians is ipso facto therefore 'anti-Israel' means it is pointless discussing these issues with you. I am sorry, but that mental reflex is profoundly inane.
anti-Israeli spectacle
You both followed me here, and tagteaming is frowned on.

I don't mind being smeared really. Insults are like yoyos, they come back to whoever reels them out. I do object to anyone who cannot construe a simple set of statements about sources without making wild inferencesd about the putative motives of those who cited those sources. It's rather like a kibitzer observing a dissection of a suicide, and blaming the pathologist for his incisions

What did I do in that innocuous edit?
if you can't see Weizman stating the Galilee on p.126 then I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist. Other than this I can't help you, unless by indicating it is the 56th word in para.1 (b) This is a lead (WP:LEDE) with summary style, and (c) you apparently haven't read the thread above, where the sources amply documenting (as the body of the text illustrates) the reasons behind community settlements, and settlements generally, are provided.
Generally, I am impressed by the amount of niggling examination of details flourished in arbitration as opposed to the disattentive negligance shown in the use of sources during the process of article drafting and talk page discussion. If people learnt to use the scrutiny they display here in the work they contribute, there would be no need for arbitration. I've said enough.
That's the pity, but this is exactly what I've wrote above about Nishidani's style of "cooperation".
Somebody wants to use the formal reasons here. Ok, I simply remind: what you mentioned above is (a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124 (Nishidani, 16:49, 25 February 2015), not p.126
"Galilee" was mentioned only once - in the article's head. One may check the version before Ashtul's edit (09:44, 22 February 2015) : it not appears in version's body.
"I've said enough. This is not about me" (@Nishidani) :(

The fact that "EU sponsored" Maan as well as other anti-Israeli NGOs doesn't make it RS. What is only interesting in this example, is your silent about above mentioned trick, has been used in your edit.
I do not write about "Someone else" edits, I do write about yours ones here in "2015" article as well as in "2014" one.
Your own opinion about Israeli actions against illegal building does not give any base for their including into the article with "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" title. So I erase them.
Any way, I do not accept and even not understand your next attempt to equate terrorist attacks on "settler's cars", regular autobuses, etc. with legal Israeli actions. If nobody was killed in such attack means only that its goal hasn't been reached and does not alter its violent nature.
Can you please explain / expand for what were you meaning writing
You use again the same selective quoting what we are discussed now at your Talk page, bringing as a fact what has been written as "Locals said that..." even in Maan News - your source only. Unfortunately, you repeat the same Agitprop's trick of Maan (for some reason considered as RS by you :) - affirmative header which isn't approved by content.
Moreover: why do you add to the "violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" such administrative actions what you call as " property damage, house demolition" of illegal buildings?
This is a content dispute, presented as a behavioural problem. I don't take seriously anyone who passes over without comment the work of numerous abusive or blatantly censorious/POV-pushing editors where, and just follows me about to find something in my own edits to which they take exception as a lapse from Wikipedia's highest standards. he fact that Naftali Bennett is rumoured to have been involved in communications that led to the massacre is relevant, both to his biography and the Qana massacre page. ps. I notice that you never reply to the substance of my replies, and when I do to you, in detail, you simply suggest that it was WP:TLDR. Whatever, this is a content dispute, not a behavioural problem. My only behavioural problem here is that I waste time better spent on other projects, by editing this farcical area.
So many words, instead of simple: "Sorry (keyword), it was not my best editing". :(
Unlike you I am not going to evaluate who of us is "sillier". As for Fisk, we can and should discuss whether he is RS in this case, but not here. I only say that you may have a same as his desire to accuse Israel in something yet, but now we are not in a class of fisking, but in Wiki-pedia, and are obliged to give accurate information. The same is true with your excuses (valid?) accusations against other editors .
Here we discuss your edit only, so I remind what you did include in the article, and what - omitted:
"According to Israeli journalist Raviv Drucker reported that Bennett's radio call for support was "hysterical" and contributed to the outcome that ensued."
"Israeli journalist Raviv Drucker citing an anonimous "senior army figure" reported that Bennett's radio call for support was "hysterical" and contributed to the outcome that ensued. Bennett’s deputy during the operation called Drucker’s charges as “Vanity of vanities, nonsense, a pile of bullsh*t”. Bennet's position was also defended by other officers involved in the incident and Haaretz daily's defense analyst Amos Harel. Amiram Levin, who headed the Northern Command during the operation, said that Bennett “... demonstrated level-headedness and did not panic”.
IMHO, it was better not to include anything about this Drucker's pre-election dirty trick, and to give a complete picture, if to include. Otherwise - it's not a fair edit. Sorry

I think you are well-meaning but this is silly. I can't do everything you and others may want - this is a collegial workplace where we each contribute and, collectively, build articles. No one is expected to figure all the angles. Specifically,when I look at most pages, I see that most editors do little, or rather, put in bits of stuff they note or like, without reading the page. What was remarkable about the page in question, which I went to edit in the article on Bennett and that incident after reading about it in The Times of Israel this morning, cited in your diff, is that, reading it before editing I noted it cited Fisk minimally, ignoring most of what he said, which is a far more horrendous account of what actually happened and the mechanical nonsense spun out by the IDF in justification.
Please note I could have added dramatic accounts of bits and pieces of over a hundred bodies being picked up in body bags, of bits of kids' bodies stuck on burnt trees etc. It's there. And the text before my edit was mainly concerned to contextualize the reasons (justifications) for why Israel fired on a UN compound, and accidentally killed 106 people. I fixed that, and then added Bennett.

You complain that I was obliged to add, what you now, in garbled English (please correct it) added (getting there of course by pure chance, not following me around)

Indirect Drucker's evidence denied then Deputy of Bennett, who called them "Vanity of vanities, nonsense, a pile of bullsh*t", Haaretz daily's defense analyst Amos Harel and others . . (verb?).

I think facts are important. I laugh at the way we have reactions sections, listing the usual spokesperson claptrap of shock at some I/P news report. No one reads that crap because it is predictable and meaningless. Just as no one is interested if Bennett, in reaction, brushed off the story by mixing an inane allusion to the preacher's exclamation" הֲבֵ֤להֲבָלִים֙ " in the Book of Ecclesiastes with the manure pats one finds in a cow paddock. By all means, exercise your right to add such outbursts. I myself am waiting for serious details of Bennett's role in the incident, which may or may not emerge, i.e., field reports.

If you are worried about partial or partisan editing on that page and numerous other I/P articles, there are hundreds of editors you should worry about, not just me. Look at editors like Baatarsaikan whose silly edit to the page show she is clearly are unfamiliar with Robert Fisk, an historian with a book that goes into great detail on that incident and period, who was on the spot when the massacre occurred above him on the hills, and interviewed everyone in the UN and Fijian high command, and the survivors, that very day, within hours, and for weeks and months afterwards. As for the rest, this place is packed with lazy editors who are ignorant of everything but the concept of POV, and can't read anything except to figure out if the enemy is insulting them in this or that edit.
A new year augury is that you avoid temptations to fit the mould of that type, the partisan wikipedian who only edits in terms of what she or he thinks is the potential political fallout of any one else's contributions.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
p.s. please don't use 'refute' for 'dismiss'. Bennett 'dismissed' the report by brushing it off as a heap of shit, and laughably by using a biblical phrase 'vanity of vanities' that is meaningless in context, a sputter of evocative terms resonant of Weltschmerz, wholly inapplicable to the situation. 'Refutation' refers to a logical and factual rebuttal of, or reply to, a charge or accusation. I note several editors recently consistently ignore this simple but crucial distinction.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Fisk, this is a good, if somewhat emotive example of why some people like him and myself regard this part of our discursive universe as utterly contaminated by topsy-turvy 'logic'. Nothing makes sense in what is passed off, daily, as commonsense. But you're under no obligation of course to read it.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as RS. Moreover, in my opinion it's not "the best argument for philosemitism", rather for antisemitism.
What may be added to what is already mentioned in "B'Tselem has come under intense fire for what its critics describe as misrepresenting and distorting facts..." (at the moment only):
Your friendly neighbourhood stalking Zionist) There may be a grain of wisdom there N. I believe it was meant kindly.
Regarding to your "(Russian immigrants were raised in an imperial dictatorship..." (without any smile) as well as for the following your edit's description "Sure, but from a PA perspective, inviting an Israeli ninvestigation is npointless. They only inverstigate Arab crimes against settlers" - I have only to remind you about the wp:NOTFORUM & wp:NPOV. No discussions here for such Gideon Levy's blood libel & other such fantasies.
And about the Ma'an quality: only propaganda's example what you did decided to add to the article "On 11 August, according to a Hebron mother of 12,Jihad al-Atrash...". Let me know if you've added something from it "sexual" part 1. :)
By the way: "this edit" & info what you mentioned above should be added to the article because it doesn't differ from your such edits what you regularly add to it.
А зачем вы приводите источники, относящиеся к истории радиостанции, а не к обсуждаемых здесь новостным сайтам?
Раз вам это неизвестно, то придется вам сообщить, что вещание радиостанции Ар7 было прекращено еще в октябре 2003 после соответствующего решения суда. В какой-то степени, его преемником можно считать Galei Israel , который вышел в эфир только в конце 2010 после долгой волокиты и протестов левых.
Но мы же говорим о Ар7? :)
Ваша апелляция в Алексе тоже не способствует вашим аргументам :)
Если основываться на ней, то Ар7 - самый-самый РС :)
Ну и что касается ваших

К сожлению, ваши выражения здесь в осуждении, и , тем более, в описании правки здесь требуют напомнить, про нефорум, что и придется сделать.

Если вы не только пишите по-русски, а еще и читаете

Более того, только абсолютное меньшинство евреев выступают с такими призывами, и они просто разгоняются полицией. Можете вы привести аналогичные данные по арабам и по их официальным руководителям, скажем в ПНА, Газе, других странах?

ооформление вид разве что
Program would require Palestinian workers from the West Bank to head home at night through same IDF manned passageway through which they entered;
new edict makes use of Israeli buses cumbersome
new security edict could soon prevent Palestinian laborers, who cross the security barrier to work in Israeli communities, from returning home aboard the country’s public bus lines.
calling it tantamount to apartheid because it prevented Palestinians from using Israeli public transportation lines.

new Moshe Ya'alon's security edict hasn't start date yet may begin with a "pilot program at the Eyal crossing in Samaria". It may make cumbersome use of Israeli buses by Palestinian laborers who will have to "head home at night through same IDF manned passageway through which they entered". Left-wing of Israeli political spectre immediately attacked Ya'alon's decision calling it "tantamount to apartheid". Security sources say that the goal of edict is to “supervise the entrance into and exit out of Israeli territory, thereby decreasing the chance of terrorist attacks inside Israel.”

Если вы читаете по-русски, могу поискать для вас ссылки на то, как относятся в России к сравнениям палестинцы-партизаны.
Не забыть и не простить

Пока все это похоже на традиционное желание проарабских пропагандистов - уравнять нацистов и Израиль, а жителей Газы, Иудеи и Самарии - с жертвами Холокоста.
Если бы эти предположения были верны, и Израиль вел себя также как и нацисты, тогда мы с вами не встретились бы в Википедии, ввиду отсутствия проблемы палестинских арабов, так как их бы уже не было в границах бывшего Британского мандата.
Вы не считаете, что вы в очередной раз нарушаете Правила
Я расцениваю это ваше настойчивое заявление как очередное нарушение правил
Имхо, столь настойчивое повторение таких обвинений - очередное нарушение правил
Вы так настойчиво повторяете эти обвинения, что приходится их расценивать ка очередное нарушение правил
 I consider this your such repeatable statement as another your rule violation
I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in the "daughter" topic about what is so similar to attempt to equate Israel with Nazis :
I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in adjacent topic:
if "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" would be true
... then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Gaza problem", because Arabs would not be longer in Gaza.

 Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable sources.

К сожалению другого ответа я от вас не ждал. Подождем других мнений.
Еще вариант: добавим информацию о реакции Израиля на жертвы в Газе и наоборот.
я знаком с мнением дискин
или хотя бы сожаления
или такие требования предъявляются только к Израилю
перемирия данный
добавив информацию об убитом в последние дни 4-х летнем Даниэле
что вы сами так думаете
не смешно
Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable source



November (check NPOV since 1.11 to

  • 458-555=97
    • Ma'an News Agency - 76
    • Ynet - 11
    • JPress - 1
    • Jpost - 3
    • Guard -1
    • Amnesty - 1
    • ToI - 4