Talk:Ouze Merham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I understand the external references correctly, the "Ouze Merham" quote did not come from Amos Oz's book, but it it completely fabricated. It was another quote that was taken from a fictional character by Oz and attributed to Sharon, not this. This is poorly written and I can't believe a writer like Oz would write anything like this. If I am correct, this article ought to be deleted.--Doron 06:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the article is combining two fake quote stories. Tried to fix up this new article a bit, but shouldn't try to edit when tired. I'll fix the article to say something consistent with the sources. It was created by Ta bu shi da yu to have a place to debunk the quote on Wikipedia.--John Z 06:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done some work fixing it up. Please let me know what you all think. As far as being deleted, "Ouze Merham" gets 1,540 Google hits; it's a very popular hoax quote, and notable for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well written. Shouldn't this be included in a more general article, though? Something like "Anti-Israeli hoaxes"?--Doron 23:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article specifically talks about anti-Sharon false quotes. Perhaps it could be re-structured and re-named that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I would keep this article as is, and perhaps create a category, menu and list of anti-Israeli hoaxes. The most famous of course is the alleged massacre in Jenin, but there are many others, among them false quotations. gidonb 16:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The "alleged" massacre in Jenin is certainly not an "anti-Israeli hoax". The word "massacre" is arguably an exaggeration; but even the Israeli army accepts that the attack on the Jenin refugee camp resulted in the deaths of 14 civilians among the 52 Palestinians killed. Just how many deaths does gidonb think it takes to justify describing an event as a massacre?RolandR 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello RolandR, thank you for asking. This has nothing to do with POV. I can refer you to our article massacre or any other mainstream dictionary definition. The massacre among hundreds or thousands of civilians as alleged at the time by the PLO and PA (and taken over especially by the European press) is recognized as an anti-Israeli hoax. In fact, the Hamas and military branches of the PLO (who were told to shut up for a while) are tactically right that the warfare on the Palestinian side was very effective, resulting in an exceptionally "good" ratio of casualties for their standards. I, however, claim that every Palestinian and Israeli causality is one too many, even when this is definitely not by the standards of Wikipedia and all inquiry commissions a massacre. gidonb 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, you refer me to the wikipedia article on massacre. Well, I looked at it, and it makes the point -- which of course I accept -- that the decision to use the term is often a political one. The article also notes that in Guatemala, the human rights commission accepted a death toll of at least five as characterising a massacre; while in Colombia, the figure used is six. Since, even by official Israeli army figures, the number of civilians killed was fourteen, the assault on Jenin must surely count as a massacre. Had Israel not prevented the UN fact-finding mission from entering Jenin, we might have a better idea what actually happened.

I'm not questioning the characterisation of the "Ouze Merham" quote as an "anti-Israel hoax". As an anti-Zionist activist, I have frequently pointed out to my colleagues that this is clearly a fictitious statement. The Amos Oz quote is probably a genuine statement, though not by Sharon. I've seen it attributed more credibly to Motta Gur, for instance. But these inventions or misattributions are completely different from the verifiable events of the assault on Jenin. In my opinion, if you try to tie this to the alleged Sharon quotes, you are more likely to give undeserved credence to the quotes than to disprove the Jenin massacre. RolandR 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We know exactly what happened in Jenin, as other fact-finding commissions (and the press) were there right after the fighting and disproved the hoax but documented the civilian (and non-civilian) casualties of the warfare and the damage to property. Unfortunate that you would skip our definition and any other mainstream dictionary definition of massacre to select a totally irrelevant detail in our article. OK, so you attribute the same hoaxes to different people. I hope you will grow over it one day. Nothing beats the truth and on the long run it is always better to adjust one's opinions to reality than reality to opinions. Even if some temporary discomfort is involved. gidonb 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Roland Rance, so it is a statement by an unspecified private individual and not by Ariel Sharon or by Motta Gur, whose names were besmeared by such hoaxes? Just for the record, my problem is not with your anti-Zionist opinions but with your lack of intellectual integrity as evident from our short exchange above. Anti-Zionism, Pro-Zionism, Post-Zionism and Pre-Zionism - all realities are complex and there is something to be said for all opinions. A plurality of ideologies provokes thought, promotes policy debate and ideally disproves antisemitic theories, that all Jews share the same opinions. One of my great-grandfathers was a famous anti-zionist. He was a very conscious and truthful man. It were your personal treats that bothered me. gidonb 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What "personal threats" are you referring to? Where is my "lack of intellectual integrity"? I argue, like you do, that the "Ouze Merham" quote is a crude fabrication. Like you, I reject the identification of Oz's interviewee as Sharon; though, unlike you, I accept that it was a genuine interview with a real person, and not a literary invention.

Our significant difference is that you deny that the Israeli attack on Jenin can be classified as a massacre, while I argue that it indeed can be so classified. This is certainly an important argument; the fact that we hold differing views does not justify your assertion that I have made personal threats and lack intellectual integrity. Why not argue the issues, rather than my alleged personality? RolandR 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any nominally neutral outside body (including the UN report, Human Rights groups, etc.) which has characterized the events in Jenin as a massacre. The descriptions tend to show a "pitched battle", if anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted... it debunks a NN hoax

I don't agree that it should be deleted. The rumour unfortunately has been widely circulated on the internet, and is believed by many. In a Google search on "Ouze Merham" this article -- in which people with widely differing views on the ME conflict agree that the "interview" is a fiction" -- comes at the top of the list. So Wikipedia is being widely consulted, and we are fulfilling our responsibility and doing a service to all who are seeking to understand the conflict.RolandR 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that this fictitious interview was allegedly broadcast on Kol Israel, since I can find no source which claims this. I suspect that Jaakobou is confusing this with another apocryphal statement attributed to Sharon, "We control America". This was allegedly broadcast by Kol Israel, which denies this. RolandR 14:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

RolandR, you had good intentions, apparently i've made a blatant mistake about the kol israel part - but - i have added more information regarding hatespeech and also wikified the article, would have been much more or an honest edit not to revert it blatently like that, but to only remove the Kol Israel part.. i'll fix the kol israel problem - and hope that in the future you will not remove large chunks from wikipedia just because you find one small factual error. with respect -

Jaakobou 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 2006

We indeed know what happened at Jenin - Israel blocked the UN (completely) and other groups (mostly) from doing any form of investigation. The reports didn't deny there'd been mass killings, only that the confirmed numbers didn't suggest that's what there'd been. (But many more than the 5 dead in the Boston massacre, of course).

One group did better than most, [1], the Jenin Inquiry, a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway

........ bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August.

........ People saw tanks and bulldozers run over bodies repeatedly in the process of bulldozing homes and moving around, sifting bodies into pieces and scattering them in the rubble. This has made it difficult to identify exactly how many have been killed.

........ members of Jenin Inquiry viewed many such partially decomposed bodies and severed, decomposing body parts in homes and in the streets of the camp.

PalestineRemembered 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever -- the comment you were replying to was 9 months old, and Jenin has a very tangential relevance to the subject of this article, at best. Furthermore, you seem to be trying to be "more royalist than the king" and "more Catholic than the Pope". Try not to find any excuse to cut-and-paste generic propaganda rants to Wikipedia articles and talk pages, please. Thank you. AnonMoos 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I note your apparent disinterest in the observations of outside observers. I note your apparent enthusiasm for accepting the word of an army with a dreadful reputation for carrying out a brutal occupation, and killing international observers.

PalestineRemembered 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for records' NPOV, Palestinain Fatach investigation put the palestinian death toll at 56 (most fighting israel) while israel lost 23 fighers.. seems to qualify as a battle rather than a masscare... also note that once the palestinian side resigned their militant attempt, the fighting was over and people were arrested and not killed. Jaakobou 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

OMFG! How can you WikiZionists say that a person is completely fictitious without even a single quote to any authority?!

RolandR, you "removed the statement that this fictitious interview was allegedly broadcast on Kol Israel" because you could "find no source which claims this." Where is the source that Ouze Merham is fictitious other than Wikipedia?

And why do you guys keep citing Zionist sources as authority? CAMERA? You can't be serious (and you are not going to be taken seriously by referencing articles written by those with a political agenda as claiming that their assertions are historical truth).

Wikipedia discredits itself by advocating the Zionist cause (this is only one post among many). You people are a joke. -- 14:39, 5 February 2007 anonymous IP 151.200.14.189

Whatever, dude -- the burden would appear to be rather on those who claim that Ouze Merham was a real individual to present the slightest valid documentary proof that he ever existed. The failure to do so speaks for itself. AnonMoos 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, "dude," the burden is always on the person making the assertion, which in this case is the assertion that Ouze Merham is fictional. And by the way, it is impossible to prove a negative, so neither you nor anyone else can logically prove that someone never existed. Period.

I fixed the article to require citations for bald assertions of unsupported fact.-- 5 February 2007 anonymous IP 151.200.14.189

Sorry Charlie, but you don't get to be a general in the Israeli army without leaving a substantial public paper trail. What's his date of birth? When did he first enter the IDF? What was the first unit he commanded? What action did he see in the various wars? To prove that "Ouze Merham" is not a pure hoax, those who advocate his reality would have to present such evidence -- but they have never presented any documentation of this nature. AnonMoos 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist Sources

How is an email from a Zionist Jew valid authority? If I work for an organization and email someone claiming that the holocaust never happened, does that make my claim true? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.189 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).