Talk:Palestinians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive 2001-July 14, 2003

RK: I don't agree with all of Joseph's comments, but how you can describe them as "Blatant antisemitism and pro-terrorism/pro-Al Qaeda propaganda" is quite beyond me. -- SJK

---

I'd like to see a source for the following:

In any case these refugees have never been allowed to return to their homes, and properties (many homes and properties have been expropriated from the refugees, by the state of Israel).

I haven't followed this topic until recently but I do know that there are some refugee camps for Palestinians outside the area of Palestine and Israel that have been in existence for some 30 years plus now. user:Arab

Yes, that is true. Many Arab nations have virtually imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, for many years. In contrast, the State of Israel gave freedom to Jewish refugees from every Arab nation that they were expelled from. The difference in how Israel treated Jewish refugees and how Arab nations treated Arab refugees is shocking. This is why many Jews feel that the most anti-Arab discrimination comes from within the Arab world itself. RK

I thought that Israel allowed Arabs to become citizens. Ed Poor

They lived under military rule within the Green Line till 1966 (just before the Six Day War), and Arabs who fled had their property registered in the tabu (state registry) and given to others. A classic case is the village of Ikrit along the Lebanese border. Though the Israeli army asked them to leave for a few days until the area could be "cleaned up," they have not been allowed to return to their homes for over fifty years, despite promises, appeals to Israel's Supreme Court and peaceful demonstrations. Israeli Arabs that did remain in their homes are citizens, but they have long suffered from economic and social discrimination--i.e., try becoming an urban planner if you are an Arab. The situation is changing, of course, but there is still a long way to go. Danny

Israel has always allowed Arabs within Israel proper to be citizens. I am uncertain of why Danny didn't mention or realize this.

I fully realize that. I am just pointing out that there has also been discrimination and that there still is. On the other hand, there have also been vast strides forward for Israel's Arab population, which, I would go so far as to say, has more rights than the Arab population in many Arab states. Danny

This entry was vandalized by an a pro-Palestinian, who filled this entry not only with an anti-Israeli diatribe, but with a justification of terrorism against Jews. In this era of daily mass-murder suicide bombings against Jews in Israel, and mass anti-Semitic attacks against Jews all over Europe, I hope that Wikipedia community members will condemn such hatespeech. RK

I also hope that those feel that the Palestinians are oppressed are also able to express their view point without censure user:Arab

You misunderstand. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for anti-Zionist tirades. If you have historically correct information to present, and if you back it up and present it in context, please do so. We all welcome this kind of cooperation. But we should not allow these encyclopaedia entries to be used by angry people who are out to make the State of Israel look bad. This isn't a forum for anti-Israeli feeling. It is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. RK

Childish taunting removed from the entry "There was no room there for the Palestinians, Israel from the start never wanted Peace, but pieces of the land, till it was all theirs."

True or false, the situation as of March 2002 was such: A Saudi proposal of Land for Peace AND recognition by ALL arab countries was made. The day the proposal was to be made formal by the Arab League was the day the Israeli's under the command of Ariel Sharon began the invasion of the Palestinian self-rule areas. user:Arab.

I don't understand the relevence of this statement. What does that have to do with the removed quote in question? You are making illogical leaps from subject to another. Please try and keep focused. It looks like you are using an ad homenim attack Israel to "prove" that the previous unrelated quote should be restored.

In any case, as for the Saudi Arabian peace proposal, the Israelis did indeed start protecting themselves on that day by going into Palestinian areas to arrest suicide bombers and their suppliers. I am disappointed to see you ignore the fact that the Israeli incursion was a *response to the mass murder of Jewish women, men, children and babies, all by suicide bombers who had the intent of murdering civilians. Without mentioning this critical context, your critique is not only misleading, but perhaps dishonest.

Childish terrorist-incitement removed from the entry "The Zionists really started it -- it was not the Arabs who had the weapons & the training, it was the Zionists, with the Irgun & Stern gangs. Remember if Israel suffers from terrorism now, it is because she herself was founded on terror & injustice."

Further, I have removed a conspiracy-ridden statement from this entry. Someone changed the Arab statements on the cause of the Palestinian refugees to read "Zionist" statement on the cause of the refugees. I am aware that there is much conspiracy theory that exists within the Palestinian community, but such shockingly obvious lies really do not belong in an encyclopaedia. RK

This page really needs some NPOV editing. --Uriyan

---

About the Palestinian Exodus... None of the new historians see that the reason for the exodus would be that the Arab leaders called upon them to flee. Instead, they call that pure propaganda. Morris claims that it was the war that created the refugee problem, Shlaim goes further and claims that it was an organized effort to wipe out the Palestinian population. The Bir Zeit University's study also ruled out that the Arab leaders calls had any significane (if they even DID call). Anyway, the claim that 700-800.000 people would have adhered to their leaders and left their homes makes no sense (to me). The quotes used to support this theory comes from the years following the cease fire, most of them from newspapers, and I HIGHLY doubt their truthfullness. ESPECIALLY when they are contradicted by Morris and Shlaim. --BL

---

From article:

Positions of both sides regarding the state of Israel

The Palestinians oppose the claim that if they had accepted partition, they wouldn't have lost even more of their territory in the war by quoting Eamon De Valera, the president of Ireland, who declared it was impossible. To one visitor who had solicited his support for partition he replied: "I read the Old Testament many years ago. I am afraid I have forgotten many things I read; but one passage I recall clearly. It is the story of Solomon's judgement of the two women who desired the same baby. I remember how when Solomon ruled that the baby be divided the real mother screamed, "No! No! Give the baby to the other woman!" That is my answer to partition. The rightful owners of a country will never agree to partition".

Israelis would point out that the real mother in the story of Solomon's judgement preferred that her own baby be raised by the false mother just so that the baby she loved should live and thrive (which would be similar to Jewish acceptance of the partition offer, in spite of the fact that resulting Jewish state would have indefensible borders and would not include Judaism's most cherished holy sites). Therefore, De Valera should have said, "The rightful owners of a country are those that prefer to share the land they love with another, rather than subjecting it to devastation and neglect". As the Israelis claim, it was the Arab leadership's full ignoring of the existence of 600,000 Jews aspiring for statehood as much as they do, and the total refusal to share the land in any form eventually lay the ground for their own disaster, which they might have as well averted by accepting a mutually profitable peace.

---

The above is great stuff, and it should be in the Wikipedia somewhere. I just don't see how an article defining who the "Palestinians" are, is the right place. How about Zionism or anti-Zionism? --Ed Poor

I removed the following statement as it is a violation of NPOV. RK

(Keep in mind there is no such thing as a Palestinian. They always have been living in other countries and never wanted their own country except to arouse a cause from which to bring Jihad agsainst those who they do not like, whomever they may be at the time. The 'Palestinian' cause is used as an excuse by many tyrannical, despotic government to murder in cold blood innocent civilians, including harmless women and children).

Agreed. The removed text is apparently a personal opinion. While it bears some similarity to fact, the way it is written is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. The "no such thing as a Palestinian" claim is a viable concept, however, and could go somewhere if properly attributed. I seem to recall a statement by an Arab leader that the concept of Palestinian identity was made up, as a ruse or pretext to justify the replacement of Israel with an Arab-ruled Palestinian state, but the article would have to quote that statement rather than make the claim directly. --Ed Poor

Ed is absolutely correct. The original position held by the various Arab governments was, indeed, that there isn't and never was such a thing as a "Palestinian". The modern day concept of a separate national or ethinic Arab Palestinian group is a very new phenomenon, one that only came into existence in the past 40 years. This is not to deny that new ethnicities or nationalities can appear over time; after all Americans are a new people, and they didn't exist as a people before the mid 1700s. They didn't fully become a nationality in legal terms until 1776, and even then they didn't become a real nation in practice (it could be argued) until the end of America's Civil War. So the article should point out the original Arab position. Indeed needs to do so to counter the illegitimate historical revisionism that some people dishonestly use to "prove" that the Palestinians have a centuries or milennia old ethnicity. If I may attempt to defuse a flame war before it begins, note that the argurments for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza should not (ideally) be affected by understanding that the Palestinians are a new people. In fact, although I am a Zionist and thus pro-Israeli, I believe that the only tenable long-term prospect for peace involves the creation of a second Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. (One defacto Arab Palestinian state already exists in the nation of Jordan, which is 78% of the British Mandate of Palestine.) Do I think it is fair that a second Arab Palestinian state be created? No, not at all. But at this point its clear that there is no way around this issue. And frankly I don't think that the Arab peers of Palestinians have any real love for them. Their best interests in the long run are, in all likelihood, served by peacefully negotiating a truce, peace agreement, and then a final status accord with Israel, and then living in peace as neighbors. RK

---

I think the noun Palestinian is often used as shorthand for "Palestinian nationalist", i.e., a person advocating the establishment of a new Islamic or Arab state in Palestine.

Another, overlapping meaning of Palestinian is "rightful owner of the occupied Palestinian territories" with "Palestinian territories" being defined as "the lands belonging to the Palestinians" -- which seems to me a circular definition. --Ed Poor

Hmm, is "person living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel, or descendent of such a person", an accurate definition?

It's the definition I prefer above all others! However, that's not the definition of the current article, which seems intended to exclude Palestinian Jews. Citizens of Jordan are nearly all "persons living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel", but the way the news media use Palestinian seems to exclude Jordanians. --Ed Poor

Then that would be: "person living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel, or descendent of such a person, exclusive of Jordanians"

Sounds like narrowing Palestinian to mean "non-Jordanian Palestinian" -- do I understand you correctly?

I would vote for the above definition without "exclusive of Jordanians". In regard to the fact that the jordanian population consists to over 50% of Palestinian refugees the last words would appear misleading. --Elian

Elian, it sounds like you would like to add that definition to the article. If you do, to which advocacy group will you attribute the definition? (It can't just be "three like-minded contributors to Wikipedia" :-) --Ed Poor

I'll try to find out a advocacy group tomorrow - libraries are closed now. Can we attribute views to encyclopedia britannica or brockhaus (its german equivalent)? ;-) I think it would be quite enlightening to have their definitions for such issues as a base for further discussion. --Elian

"A said B about C" is my usual formulation. In the case of Britannica, unless you think they're biased, they wouldn't be an "advocate" but a "source". Something like "the EB defines Palestinians as ..." --Ed Poor

---

The changes I made today attempt to answer these questions: "What is a Palestinian? What does the noun Palestinian mean?"

I thought I would start with the meaning I encounter most in American news media.

Still to be addressed are views which presume that Palestinians are a distinct ethnic group, having discernable important differences from other Arabs. That is way out of my scope of understanding, as I am not an ethnographer or anthropologist.

And some mention must be made of the claim by Golda Meir and echoed by one or two Arab leaders that the concept of a Palestinians as a distinct people was fabricated for political purposes.

I hesitate to move quickly on this delicate question, and I welcome comprehensive discussion before and after any changes. (By the way, I rarely object if someone reverts one of my changes, provided they either (A) copy the text to talk or (B) give a reason for the reversion -- preferably both!) --Ed Poor

--- "on the other hand, numerous divisions among them persist, in language, religion and culture"

the division is mainly a religious one. Language (palestinian arabic dialect) and culture are quite similar for all. However, there are, as in every society, divisions concerning educational levels and social status. --Elian

---

I rewrote the entire article, bit by bit, and you can see what I by following the "Older versions" link. Please do so, before reverting. But don't worry, I won't fight you. I utterly refuse to engage in an edit war on this article, which is just about the most highly contentious article in Wikipedia; I want to set a good example.

Below, you will find some stuff I couldn't integrate. --Ed Poor 22:23 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

---

Palestinian Arabs

One of the most common views states that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine. This definition, then, would include:

1. Those who are citizens of Israel ("Israeli Arabs")
2. Those who live in West Bank and Gaza Strip; most are currently under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority
3. Those who live in Jordan and identify themselves as "Palestinians"; many are refugees (or descendants of refugees) from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day War. They were granted Jordanian citizenship.
4. Those who live elsewhere, in the Arab world (where many have never received a citizenship) and out of it (where many have).

Overall, there are about 4 million people belonging to groups (1) and (2); estimates indicate there are about 5 more million in groups (3) and (4).

Note that this definition excludes non-Arab residents of the British Mandate. Some writers use the term Palestinians to include all residents of the British mandate, and the term Arab Palestinians when speaking only of Arab residents.

The word Palestinian is a highly loaded term, being used in arguments and slogans implying that some or all of the British Mandate is the rightful property of Arabs rather than Jews (see Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.).

Most writers deem Palestinians to be Arabs. However, some Palestinians are members of Arab ethnic groups that stretch far beyond the borders of historic Palestine; on the other hand, numerous divisions among them persist, in language, religion and culture. However, most Palestinians believe in a common joint identity. In the opinion of many, this is enough to qualify them as a unique nationality, and by the way of romantic nationalism makes them eligible for statehood. Many others disagree with opinion (see proposals for a Palestinian state).

Palestinians are nearly all Muslim, but there are some Christians as well. A very small number of Palestinians are humanists, atheists or agnostics. Over the past few years, many Palestinian Christians have moved to Europe and North America, citing the rise of Islamic parties and accompanying intolerance and discrimination in the major cities of the West Bank (see: Palestine/Christian), including by the Palestinian Authority itself.

---

In general – it is not offensive to me. I would not dispute the neutrality of this article. I have some particular comments.

There have indeed been Jewish residents of Palestine, and some people were even issued passports listing their nationality as Palestinian. However, very few people today accept the concept of a Jewish Palestinian and would prefer to use the term Palestinian to exclude Palestinian Jews.

The PLO has a very small number jewish members. I use to know one. Some of these Jewish PLO people are quite high ranking. There are Jews, though not many who choose to live in the Occupied territories with their Palistinian neighbours, and not in settlements (excluding those who are members of the PLO. I would think that these Jews are Palistinians. They are clearly claiming that they are, and if they are in the PLO, the PLO is claiming that they are too. Are these Jews traitors? (If so – that would be really interesting.)

A great many Jews consider this tiny extremist group to indeed be "traitors". Many Jews, even some Orthodox Jews, consider this fanatical group to be anti-Semitic. See the entry on this tiny ultra-Orthodox sect, the Neturei_Karta for more details. I have heard both Orthodo and Conservative Jews refer to them as pro-terrorist and Jewish anti-Semitites. Based on their hatespeech towards other Jews that they have published, I see little difference between them and the PLO itself. RK

to see them as trators is not what I was talking about, but to define them as trators, through law. The question is whether all Jews are subject to the laws of israel, or whether they may choose to live lives apart from israel, or even in opposition to israel. Is Israel citizenship a privlidge or a duty? (Clearly some people believe that all Jews must be loyal to Jews, and that supporting the PLO does not count.) Not all Jews who have joined the PLO are members of the ultra-Orthodox sects. Some are decidedly left wing. Ok, I know of one who is. I see a certain amount of difference between the PLO and Jewish groups who oppose Israel and support the PLO based on religious grounds. The PLO has far fewer choices open it than the ultra-Orthodox sects. I would not say that Israel is any less of a terrorist nation than the PLO, and I would say that Israel is not necessary any less of a racist society than the PLO, anti-semitism or not. Karl

Israeli Arabs are not generally considered "Palestinians", as they bear Israeli citizenship. Arabs who are citizens of Jordan are also not generally considered to be Palestinians.

Israeli Arabs are not generally considered "Palestinians", as they bear Israeli citizenship. Arabs who are citizens of Jordan are also not generally considered to be Palestinians. I don’t follow the issue well enough to flatly disagree, but I’m real suspicious. I believe that Israeli Arabs ARE Palestinians in terms of personal identification. Palistinian Israeli citizens receive special (ie torture) attention in the Israli political system. This is along with inadequate funding of education, for exampel Israel considers them palistinians in a negative sense. – see amnisty international year in review (I think).

Many Israeli Arabs do consider themselves to be "Palestinians". Many Israeli Jews now also view them in this way. RK

There is a negative definition – like that Hitler created. A jew is whom I say it is – so that under Nazi law I am a Jew. Under Jewish law I am not. (Great I have a choice between racism and sexism. Ops – that wasn’t called for!) I’m not sure if this type of definition should be included – it may be impossible to make it NPOV.

I don't think that NPOV is the problem. The problem is that there isn't any one tightly defined group of people called "Palestinians", and we confuse and mislead ourselves when we try to pretend otherwise. Palestinian Arabs as a distinct nationalist certainly have never existed before 1948 at the very earliest, and one can argue that they didn't really exist before 1967. They are an emerging people in flux, and it will be a century or more before we can talk about this new group in the same definitive way that we talk about long-established nationalities. RK

And then there are the Druze… 1) they believe themselves to be Druze & Arab and Palestinian and the oppression they suffered for being Druze leading to their assimilation into Israel. The Druze also live in the occupied territories. I don’t know the numbers, but am under the impression that it is more than just a few. There are also a few Christians who choose to live in the Occupied Territories with the Palistinians.

Many Palestinian Arabs always have been Christians.

yes, but I haven't seen mention of the Druze in the article, and I suspect that they should be in there some where, with some sort of analysis on Palistinian Druze and Israli Druze. I am curious whether the Palistinian oppression of the Druze throws a curve into the identification of "Palestinian".

Re: Jordan: I understand that Jordan has allowed some palistinian refugees to settle and live there, without living in refugee camps. Would these people loose their palistinian identiy? I’m just picking at things – I don’t plan to make any changes at this time. Karl

The majority of Jordanians are ethnically identical to the Arab people in the West Bank who call themselves Palestinians. The PLO itself held, until recently, that their goal was never to make a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but rather to make a Palestinian state in all of Jordan and the West bank, Gaza and Israel. RK

I should have posted the items I was looking at before - sorry. I was originally responding to --Ed Poor. RK - do you think the article is NPOV? Karl

---

RK, you cannot say that Golda Meir's statement is not a mainstream Israeli position. After all, she was prime minister when she made it. Perhaps today, there are far fewer people who would make such a comment, but the attitude lives on and certainly has an impact on the discourse within Israeli society. For instance, a common argument used against Palestinian statehood is that there are so many other Arab states. This is, in effect, a denial of a distinctive Palestinian identity, though it is not saying it in as many words. Danny

This isn't what I meant. I understand that 30 years ago, when she said that, many Israelis felt this way, and she was probably right. The PLO themselves publicly used to admit that there was no such thing as a "Palestinian", and they repeatedly publicly admitted that they created this pseudo-nationality simply as part of the Pan-Arab effort to destroy Israel. And this fact is discussed, with quotes and references, in the appropriate article. However, none of this is why I made my edit; I edited out that claim because the writer was clearly implying that this was the mainstream Israeli view, and that is totally false. Many things have changed since then. For one, there really now is a nascent Palestinian Arab nationality developing. The writer created a historical anachronism to explain something today, which was misleading. RK

I had been under the impression that Meir's claim meant that there were no "Palestinians" per se, only "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" (and others), i.e. that those Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" do not have an exclusive claim to that name. True? Spurious? --FOo

I haven't been following the exchange above as closely as I should. But let me just add that I think the definition of the word Palestinian is crucial to any discussion of the rightness or wrongness of establishing a "Palestinian state". --Uncle Ed

This recent addition must be changed: "Advocates of the Israeli side, however, view the definition of a Palestinian as a more complex problem. The rest of the article deals with these problems. Some Israelis (and also Americans) refuse to accept the term Palestinian in general (cmp. Golda Meirs statement: "There are no Palestinians" which was interpreted in various ways), some prefer to speak of "Arab nationalists" which already implies the political goal which is commonly ascribed to the"

This is factually wrong on many levels. First (see my comments above) most Israelis do not hold this belief today. Secondly, it takes a statement that was made totally out of its context, and makes Gold Meir out to look like a pathological liar. In point of fact, if we are to be fair we must note that most Arab leaders denied the existence of any "Palestinian people" in the 1940s and 1950s, and the PLO themselves publicly admitted that they created this idea solely as part of a Pan-Arab plan against Israel. Thirdly, it is absolutely false to claim that Israelis or Jews refer to Palestinian Arabs as "Arab nationalists". That's totally out of the question; no one uses this as a euphamisim for the Palestinians, no one at all. The phrase "Arab nationalists" has a totally different meaning. Frankly, the entire paragraph looks like a modern day PLO press release, meant to deligitimize everything else in this entry. It makes fun of people who are seriously working on discussing this complex issue, and basically implies "Of course any honest person knows who Palestinians are, its only those stubborn Israelis who can't see the truth". That's just bunk. We had an entire article, and all of the article is basically dismissed as ignorant by this insertion. That is wrong. RK

I agree with you, and I appreciate your patience. Let's wait another hour or two for the new IP guy to finish stating his case, then we can:

• clean it up, bit by bit
• revert it to your last "clean" version
• or I could even protect the page

I've written to the mailing list (see here), asking for advice and/or help. --Uncle Ed

---

Rater than try to prevent biased comments, what about something like this:

Historically, the Muslim faith did not encourage countries or national identity in the same way as Christianity in the west. It seems that who is a Palestinian, and how important this is has changed over time.

It is most likely that a solution to the “Palestinian Problem” will require negations between the State of Israel, and the PLO. Both of their views on who is a Palestinian is probably biased.

Comparing the Palestinian refugee situation to other refugee cases

The Vietnamese boat people exodus from Vietnam was happening when I was in university. Shocked by the number of people affected; 1.5 to 2 million, and somewhat pleased with the Orderly Departure Program, I looked at the Palestine issue in order to understand the magniture of the boat exodus and was appalled to see estimates for the Palestinian exodus of from 9 to 15 million displaced people with no international resettlement response.

I continue to see acusations that it was the arab states responsibility to take in all the refugees, yet I cannot conceive of the effect it would have had on their economies for the bordering nations to handle 15 million refugees as the estimate which was given and the size of their own populations. Even 9 million would be crushing to the bordering nations whose populations are: Syria 18 million, Jordon 6 million, Lebanon 4 million, and more remotely Saudi Arabi 26 million

This is the extent of my investigation on the issue and I remain appalled. How accurate is the information I have presented here?

This page is an old discussion page. I've moved your post to Talk:Palestinian_people#Comparing_the_Palestinian_refugee_situation_to_other_refugee_cases. Arniep 01:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

---

Karl, thanks for your suggestion, but I seem to recall that we already tried something like that, but it didn't work. The question of how to solve the Middle East crisis is so tangled up with the definition of who a Palestinian is, that it seems best (to me) to come up with an unambiguous definition. If that is impossible, as I guess it is, then the next best thing is to list and describe the various major definitions. It is meaningless to have a series of article about "Palestinians" when the referent of that term is undefined. The news media does it, but their goals are different from the goals of an encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed

Arab vs Palestinian

from talk:Anti-Semitism

I prefer to use the term Arab in preference to the term Palestinian wherever possible. Everyone knows who the Arabs are. It's not as easy to determine who a "Palestinian" is. Sometimes there has arisen controversy over this, and the 'pedia is better off not taking sides in any controversy. One way to sidestep the issue, using neutral terminology, is to refer to "Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza say X", or "supporters of the Islamic ideal of a Palestinian state say Y". Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or anti-Semitism, who is confused about the word "Palestinian"? When people see this word on TV, the radio, the Internet or in print media, everyone knows who it refers to: Palestinian Arabs. Who else do people think it now refers to? Sure, in the past the word "palestinian" had a different meaning, but in modern every day conversation it now carries a specific meaning: Palestinian Arabs. In any case, Arabs don't all have the same government, beliefs, or tactics, and it frequently is necessary to use the terms Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, etc, in order to describe who is holding a iven position. However, I totally agree with you that sometimes people use the term "Palestinian" when "Arab" should be used, and vice-versa, and that we should all be careful about using the word most fitting for the context. RK

---

Thanks to Uriyan and RK for clearing up the definition of "Palestinian". I might take a crack at refactoring the new info I got thereby, into the beginnings of an article like Palestine, Palestinian or Palestinian homeland. Ed Poor

I would be careful with that, Ed. Once again, the problem seems to be that you want definitions with sharp boundaries: i.e., this falls within the definition; this does not. The problem is, especially with such a contentious issue as what defines a Palestinian, is that the boundaries are not so clear at all. In fact, that is what all the contention is about. Danny

Thanks for the warning; I will heed it. As a software engineer, I spend the bulk of my professional life devising tests that distinguish between various categories: there IS or IS NOT enough money in the account, etc. Perhaps it is a vain hope that such thinking might apply to politics. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002