Its obvious that you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, so I can only assume that you were "banned" (as Jay put) because you crossed the line into making personal attacks, or making points which violate Godwin's (now sacred) law banning comparisons to Nazis in internet discussion forums. That itself isnt an issue if you can make your points without sounding bigoted or incivil; the "come to your senses" and "please reconsider your own position" comments were inapproprate because our personal views are beside the point.
There is no enlightened way to take a side between competing nationalisms -- all concepts of "nationhood" are equivalent, and equally inferior to a universal concept of civility. Therefore we reserve our distinctions to those which advance civility, and discard concepts based in one particular culture or another as simply POV.
That said, I appreciate your explanation of the situation, according to your point of view. It is not a point of view which appears to be sufficiently represented (probably because people under attack -- by anything bigger than bottlerockets -- means the electricity is out and there are probably other things to worry about. Thats assuming you people can write good English in the first place. -Stevertigo
First of all, thanks for actually reading my stuffs.
Regarding my ban: I don't want to go too deeply into the details but in my understanding, I was removed from Wikipedia by POV warriors in administrative positions for not backing down when confronted with their POV. I have written a short essay to this list "Wikipedia's Administrative System: Corrupted to the core" in reaction to that. You furthermore speak of "you people" as if I was of arab descendence or had lebanese affiliation. I am not.
Our personal views are never besides the point, they are THE point. We are all influenced by our personal and badly informed opinions. We write what we believe is true into these articles of Wikipedia. But the process of coming to believe what is true and what is not is a long and complex one. And not everyone succeeds: People believe in magic, believe in ghosts, believe in deities, some believe in THE TIME CUBE, all of which has no basis in science, in my understanding.
Similiarly, one believes for example that the israeli attack on Lebanon is a righteous and just reaction to something Lebanon did. This as well is, in my personal understanding, a misjudgement, and is not covered by western humanist secular philosophy. In that particular occasion, it is not even supported by the Torah: "Eye for an Eye" exactly means that you should not bomb 60 Lebanese civilians to smitherines because some of them kidnapped 2 and killed 6 more.
So, by pretty much all objective, neutral ethical standards, the Israeli attack on Lebanon is a disproportionate injustice that will only work against Israel in the long run by rallying support for more antisemitic sentiments in the region and the entire world.
Of course you can now point out, that this is "but one POV". But unlike certain other POVs like "Israel has the right to do whatever it feels" or "Arabs are the innocent victims of Zionist supression", I believe, my POV warrants some merit by being objective without favoring one side over the other. You could call it, "neutral". Consider a judge who sentences someone for murder after his guilt has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Is that judge partial to anyone because he condemns the murderer?
The enlightened path for competing nationalism, is to reject all nationalism altogether. Behind the dehumanizing descriptions such as "Hezbollah Terrorists" or "Zionist Nazis" there are always people, that are suffering because of the stupidity of others.
But instead going ahead and justifying the israeli attacks on lebanon with small time criminals and terrorists, now that is horribly POV. I wanted to point that out, and make clear to Jay"Superturbozionistdeluxe"Jg that other people probably are more objective and neutral when it comes to judging what the title of the article should be, and that he should keep out because all he does is make Wikipedia more POV.
-- Dabljuh