The supporters of Israel can write for the enemy, but the supporters of "Palestine" simply cannot. According to Wikipedia "It is the mark of good Wikipedia editors to be able to understand and present various POV, including those they find distasteful." By that definition, there are damned few on that side today that can be considered "good Wikipedia editors" Ramallite, was a worthy advocate/adversary, that is, he fought fair. But he does not appear to be editing anymore. Today it is a battlefield. There is no way in hell that the atmosphere at Wiki will contribute to wikilove, let alone ''world'' peace. Do we really need another battleground?

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to share, not just knowledge, but understanding. It has become anything but... and one of the worst sections of it has to be in what is called the Israeli-Palestinian section. The reason it is so bad is because of the quality of the editors. No longer satisfied to try to achieve high standards of neutrality and honesty, editors attempt to meet the propaganda of one side with the propaganda of the other. But the pro-Israel side is highly under under represented in the area. There may be a lot of Israelis at Wikipedia, as some have claimed, but they are certainly not all editing historical and political articles. In the Israeli-Palestinian area, we are a mere handful against the hoards. We try to edit fairly but are faced with a wall of anti-Israel editors. Further, they are emboldened since they are so numerous, that they are quite willing to let their bias be known without fear of repercussions. [1.] For some reason or other, pro-Israel editors, generally labeled "Zionists," are immediately treated with suspicion and attacked. How is this done? Based on my investigations:

Step one) Identify the enemy (anyone who might edit in the area who has the odor of "Zionism" about him)

Step two) Intimidate him using insults and belittlement, in edit summaries and on the talk page. Revert him or her, suggesting they are a troll, or vandals.

Step three) Initiate personal contact through warnings and threats

Step four) Revert virtually everything the opponent writes, accusing him of bias, ignorance, or poor sourcing

Step five) call in your friends the troops . This is necessary because should you revert too often yourself, you may be accused of edit-warring and the plan would backfire. Canvassing must be done in a private way (emails, IRC, messaging) for the same reason. New users, however, may not be aware of these rules; and you can use the rule against them, should they openly ask some like-minded editors for help)

Step six) With the help of your friends the enemy is hammered enough to make an error, which renders him vulnerable to an administrative process.

Step seven) At the administrative process, all the friends come in and speak to how bad you are, and one or two on your side come in to speak on your behalf. Some of these friends are of course administrators as well, who while they are supposed to be fair, are sometimes frankly biased. Unbiased administrators are mostly unwilling to get involved and those who do will often be intimidated or threatened as well. So there is a very good chance that the hoards will achieve a victory here, and the enemy will at least have a black mark, get a small ban, or better yet, a large one.

Step eight) Always keep your enemy under your watch, by following him or her to virtually every page, reverting and challenging every point. Eventually the enemy will slip up, and more administrative action can be taken.

Step nine) While the enemy is topic or article banned, you insert your POV into as many of the contentious articles as possible.

Step ten) If the editor comes back after this, (it is evidence that he should have his head examined), you can accuse of edit-warring, and get another administrative action against him.

Eventually the enemy gets banned for contentious edits and you have the field to yourself! This is the situation these days. As shown by examples such as this, it is possible to delete any article that shows your cause in a bad light, or the other fella's (the I in the I-P conflict area) in a good light. This is just how it is these days.

I edited Wikipedia for a number of years, and the atmosphere now is the worst ever. Most honest warriors have given up and gone home on both sides. What is left is a handful of stalwarts and maybe one or two on their side (though frankly, not so sure about them) but in the main it is bunch of ideologues who battle people not ideas. It is fine to argue honestly, to make a real attempt to compromise to achieve neutrality. We cannot cherry-pick reality to make it fit our wishes. Using sources such as Finklestein to support a historical fact, is like asking that Amadinejad be considered an expert on the Holocaust. It is so bad there now, it is 1984 all over again.