thanks for reverting my edit. I have no way of proving this, obviously, but right after I posted I was like oh shoot this is part of IP- and I went to revert (after taking time to copy the text bc I'll be EC soon), but you already had. Just going to ping @Kashmiri and @ScottishFinnishRadish before anyone gets excited. JoeJShmo💌 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think they rushed to EC, which I see as gaming, then made those edits. I've posted to Redtailed wawk. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You stated perceptively a few weeks back (at AE i think) that the standard caricature of 2 POVs, pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian, was skewed, in so far as the latter position was confusing (a) support for the bozos of the Palestinian Authority with (b) support for International Law. I think this is the view entertained by most of the latter so-identified editors, but technically, other than the issue of settlements, there was no legal ground for taking so many of the systematic abuses as 'factual': they were at best POVs represented in the work of major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem etc. With the ICJ's advisory opinion yesterday, the claimed subjectivity of this POV has suffered a decided setback. It is now formally a matter of international law that what AI,HRW, and B'tselem are 'claiming' is, factually, a direct reflection of the legal lay of the land, which all nations in the world are under an obligation to underwrite and act in accordance with. So what you suggested is now endorsed as the reality of that inferno.
Of course nothing will change substantially, but at least clarity has been obtained in terms of the legality of what has been, for 57 years, dismissed or sidelined as just one partisan, indeed 'radical left' perspective. It's somewhat amusing to note that for 12 hours the New York Times (it's 6.30 a.m. here) has stubbornly relegated news of the decision to the online back pages, way way below its updated report on the Houthi drone strike in Tel Aviv. Idem with the Washington Post. Nishidani (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. By saying demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome
you are accusing my of POV pushing; of excluding data because it isn't aligned with a specific POV. You have no evidence for this, and there is considerable evidence against it. Please strike that personal attack. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I cannot believe that anybody can argue about it in good faith)
So kindly take your leave from this page.
inconvenient to the desired outcome, even though you have already been informed that the specific article you raised was excluded because it was published two months before the start of the reviewed period. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcomeis you saying that I deliberately excluded data to strengthen the argument for my desired position.
Am I right that there was a consensus over the wording in settlement articles , "illegal, blah, blah...Israel disputes this." If so, do you have a link to it, please? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nab. Could you just take a captain's (Captain Cook =look) at professor Ian Lustick's page. perhaps he'd prefer to have a proper sign-in handle, and I may have screwed up in giving the other advice. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply