Talk:Israel/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Origins of Judaism/Christianity

Adam, I don't agree with the removal of "Israel was the birthplace of Judaism in the 10th century BCE or earlier and of Christianity at the beginning of the 1st century CE," on the grounds, as you wrote, that this isn't an article about religion, because this is one of the most notable things about Israel (well, the most notable). The article on Athens similarly says in the first paragraph: "Ancient Athens was a powerful city-state and renowned center of learning," even though it's not an article about ancient Athens or centers of learning, but again, it's what Athens is most notable for; and Egypt notes in the first paragraph that "Egypt is famous for its ancient civilization and some of the world's most stunning ancient monuments ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Athens and Egypt both have continuous histories, so an overview article rightly talks (briefly) about their ancient pasts. This article is about the State of Israel, which was founded in 1948. Some historical background is relevant, but events 2000 years ago and more are not. Of course the Jews' earlier history in the area is relevant to the founding of the State of Israel, but that belongs in the history section, not in the opening section. The origins of Christianity have nothing to do with the topic at all since Israel is not a Christian country. Adam 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, even the article about the United States mentions ancient civilizations.--Doron 15:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Adam, I'm not sure how Athens can be said to have a continuous history, though I'm also not sure how you'd define discontinuous. The article is called Israel, and it's about the state, that piece of land, and the history, and the most notable things about it should be in the intro. That two of the world's major religions were founded there is one of the most notable things. Israel not being a Christian country is also neither here nor there. Athens is no longer a center of learning. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think what Adam MAY be trying to say is 1- It wasn't called "Israel" during a lot of the periods of time when these religions were founded (at least not by all who lived in the land such as the Romans), and/or 2) what encompassed "Israel" during those times is not necessarily the territory that forms the "State of Israel" now. What do people think about a statement along the lines of "The territory/land on which Israel was founded was the birthplace of etc etc etc"? Ramallite (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that there has been a town called Athens on its present site continuously since ancient times, so its entire history can be discussed at the one article. There has not been a country called Israel continuously since ancient times. This article is not about the Jewish kingdoms of ancient times, nor is it about the history of Judaism or the Jews (let alone Christianity). It is about the modern state of Israel. If I go to Turkey, I do not expect to find a history of the Hittites or Pergamum, even though those states existed on the territory of what is now Turkey. Adam 00:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, Turkey seems to be an exception. Many countries had seen civilizations replacing each other through conquest and migration, and it's quite reasonable to mention earlier civilizations of a country even if they are not directly related to the state that resides in it. Most country articles in Wikipedia do so, see United States, Hungary, England, Australia, Sweden, and so on.--Doron 07:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
As for your argument about the actual birthplace of Christianity, I'm pretty sure Jesus did not confine himself to the West Bank, I gather he spent much of his time in the Galilee.--Doron 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is one of continuity. England and Sweden have a historical continuity going back to the early Middle Ages, Hungary since whenever the Magyars arrived (in the 9th centuty, I think). But there is no continuity between the ancient Jewish kingdoms and the modern State of Israel. For 1,200 years that territory was Arab Palestine, and for centuries before that it was Byzantine, Roman or Greek. That, after all, is the whole point of Zionism - the re-establishment of a Jewish state. This means that the "History of Israel" is not the complete history of the piece of land now occupied by Israel - that is fact a POV position, since it asserts that Israel has in some mystical way "always been there". Some Jews may well believe that, and I am not here to argue with them, but Wikipedia cannot adopt that position. The History of Israel, properly defined, begins in 1948, and even for legitimate background can only go back to the founding of the Zionist movement. Therefore, the origins of Judaism and Christianity are not part of the history of Israel. The fact that the Ancient Hebrews lived there is of course a relevant fact, because it explains why Israel is where it is and not in Uganda or Birobidjan. Adam 08:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That's all very fine, but again, it is common practice to mention earlier civilizations in articles about countries even if they are not directly related to the present-day state. Thus, the history of the United States starts with the "migration of people from Asia across the Bering Sea", even though they are unrelated to the present-day American civilization (and in fact were replaced by it), Egypt is "famous for its ancient civilization" and Tunisia had the "famous Phoenician city of Carthage" and later became known as "the bread basket of the Roman Empire", even though these are both unrelated to modern Egypt and Tunisia, respectively, in the same way that ancient Israel is (presumably) unrelated to modern Israel. Historical continuity (if indeed there is such thing) is besides the point -- when discussing the history of a country, it is common practice to briefly mention its "pre-history" as well, especially when it is so noteworthy as in this case.--Doron 09:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I also favor Ramallite's proposal. Many if not most of today's states are recent creations. Show me a continuity in Poland, a country which was split numerous times and even moved, but its intro says "The Polish state was formed over 1,000 years ago..." There is no evidence that the continuity of Jewish presence in the land was interrupted, and wherever Jews lived or wandered, they kept "BaShana haBaa B'Yerushalaim", and that is fact, not POV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is grossly POV, but clearly I am in a minority on this point so I won't argue about it further. Adam 11:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to stir the pot a little, the article on India has, in the opening section, the statement "Four major world religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism have originated from India." OTOH, the article on the United States does not mention it being the birthplace of Mormonism. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam here. While India or Poland have not always been states, they have always been India and Poland. Saying that Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. originated from India is clearly referring to India as a geographical entity of long standing. Israel is not a geographical entity of long standing. In fact, until 1948, that area had not been called "Israel" since the 8th century BC! And the area that was called Israel in the 8th century BC was not at all the same as the area called Israel today. The main center of the ancient Kingdom of Israel was in the northern part of what is now the West Bank ("Samaria" to the Revisionists). Much of the rest of the kingdom was in what is now Jordan. The only substantial part of ancient Israel that is in the present day state is Galilee. So saying that "Israel" was the birthplace of Christianity just seems wrong. (Plus, the key events of Christianity took place in old Jerusalem, which is not considered to be part of the current State of Israel by most people outside Israel). It's fine to talk about earlier history in the history section, but I don't see why it should be discussed in the intro. john k 15:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: More (most?) scholars believe that it is more likely that Persia was the actual 'birthplace' of Judaism. Also, I was not raised to believe the bible stories so for me it isn't difficult to acknowledge that the probable birthplace of Christianity was Rome, and not Jerusalem. --saxet 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While Judaism as it came to be codified during the Exile and a bit after may have originated in Babylon (not Persia), this was simply a further development of an already existing religious movement. I think most scholars would agree that the so-called JE elements of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers; most of Deuteronomy; most of the Deuteronomistic History (that is to say, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings); parts of Isaiah and Jeremiah; and most of Hosea, Amos, and Nahum, at least, originated in the Divided Kingdoms before the Exile - some parts may be older. Some scholars would dispute this - I have seen people arguing that the Hebrew Bible is barely older than the Dead Sea Scrolls - but I am quite dubious that they are anywhere near a majority. As to Christianity, whatever the historicity of Jesus, it most certainly did not arise in Rome, but somewhere in the Roman East. The genuine Epistles of Paul are certainly first century documents, and indicate an origin for Christianity in the Judaean area. The Gospels and Acts are somewhat later, but are still near enough in time that it's hard to see how a Roman religion would come so quickly to be associated with the Jews. john k 07:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I care little about the scriptures when I'm talking about origins of either Judaism or Christianity. I know that Paul found his non-Jewish god on the way to Damascus but I'm a secular Jew. I was forced to read the Torah as a kid and have studied NT and other books a bit in later years. After studying philosophical theology I appreciate that there is other sources of knowledge than what's been written down and preserved by Rabbis and priests. I believe that Wikipedia should rely less on the scriptures and more on academic papers, that deals more with the history of language, shared rites, trade, architecture, name of gods, semiotics etc. Judaism was a 'work in progress' for quite some time, a religion almost always 'start' before the 'designated starting point' that is later preached. There's a lot of infighting in the academic world over where Judaism originated; Mesopotamia, Babylon, Sumer, or even India - almost no one with credibility claims it was in the geographic area that today constitutes Israel. One thing is certian, Judaism is probably older than both detractors and supporters have previously thought.
To say that the birthplace of Christianity is Rome may be sacrireligious, but since there were so many competing 'pre-Christian' schools spread out in Egypt, Judea, Syria, Greece, etc, that later 'merged' together in Rome to form what we now know as Christianity you would either have to credit Rome or say that the birthplace was the general area of Northern Africa, the Middle East and Southern Europe. --saxet 09:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
This looks contradictory to me. Judaism has roots all over the place which makes them the birthplaec of Judaism, yet Christianity's birthplace is where all the bits came together, i.e., Rome? (I must say, by the way, that several Eastern Orthodox churches may passionately dispute Rome as birthplace of Christianity). Anyway, as far as I know, Judaism does not associate itself to any earlier relogion, so in that sense, Judaism originated in Palestine -- anything predating the Israelite period is not considered "Judaism" by Judaism. But if you're looking for earlier roots, you may as well say Judaism originated in Africa, where we all originate. I have to admit I'm no scholar on the subject, so would you kindly provide some reference indicating that the prevailing theory on the origins of Judaism and Christianity is that they are indeed where you claim they are?--Doron 14:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I figured you would ask. What I wrote earlier was extremely simplified, and so will this paragraph be (due to the topic). You say that "anything predating the Israelite period is not considered "Judaism" by Judaism". Yes, of course you will have Rabbis saying that, just like you will have priests saying that Christianity started when Mary got impregnated by the Holy Spirit. I understand that most orthodox believers of any religion will be reluctant to accept academic research that contradicts their beliefs. According to the scrolls the family of the Hebrew patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) had its chief seat in Harran (Turkey) but later migrated to the geographic area that now constitutes Lebanon/Israel. According to Academia the tribal structure and belief systems of this particular Israelite culture can be traced to somewhere in the Mesopotamia region. What's undisputed is that Judaism did not begin on a primitive level and it did not originate out of Israel. Moses' covenants from ehye asher YHWH, was a significant new chapter in Judaism, but not the first.
Christianity, unlike Judaism, didn't have a long continuing history, and it has more historic records detailing its beginning. Many scholars is of the idea that Jesus and his followers regarded themselves as Jews who operated within the Judaic faith. The followers/heretics scattered and formed different congregations, often at odds with each other. I realize that it is problematic to say that Rome was the birthplace of Christianity, but it was in Rome (Bishop Clement of Rome, and onwards) where the different movements, together with Roman cults (Mithras, etc) and Greek philosophy was incorporated into what would form the basics of Christianity.
Encyclopædia Britannica is always a good source in my opinion. --saxet 08:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (secular, not an atheist)
If you don't mind, I'd like to make sure I understand. I can easily see Judaism and Christianity having some sort of evolutional phase (I never considered the mythological story as historical fact anyway), but are you sure these phases of "proto-Judaism" and "proto-Christianity" are commonly regarded as actually part of Judaism and Christianity? Is that where the line is commonly drawn by scholars? Humans, I gather, originated from apes, yet it would be incorrect to say that those apes were humans. I'm not even sure there's concensus amongst scholars about from which stage onwards they were considered "humans". So if I understand you correctly, you claim that most scholars claim that there were Jews in Mesopotamia, Persia or even India before they migrated to the Levant, while the various movements predating Clement are not considered Christian. Is that correct?--Doron 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You can't really compare the 'evolution' of Christianity to the 'evolution' of Judaism. Christianity's early history resembles (in these respects) Islam, while the development of Judaism could be compared to the development of Buddhism.
Theologians and historians alike agree that Christianity is no older than 2005 years, I think that there isn't many historians who thinks that the religion is younger than 1705 years. As for exactly where and when it became a religion will probably always be up for debate. Before year xxx there was Christian cults/sects that would later form Christianity (i.e. a somewhat coherent belief system). I wouldn't put the idea of Rome as a birthplace in a Wikipedia article because the theory is a bit simplistic and doesn't take certain aspects into consideration. I would however argue that it was in Rome where much came together.
Judaism is completely different, nothing came together when the Israelite culture migrated to the Lebanon/Israel area, all the basic features was already there. The faith was centered around law, rituals, etc that had a continuing history going way back in time. The Hebrew patriarchs were not part of a cult, they had inherited the Judaic faith, a structured system of religious beliefs, from their forefathers. And coming Jewish generations did not drastically alter the faith in such a way to constitute a new religion. I don't think there's a consensus among scholars exactly when the early Israelite tribes became Jews (I'm pretty sure it was after the ape period). Some say the Judaic faith is 5000 years old, while others say 4000 years. I think most agree that there were Jews in Mesopotamia, but just how Jewish they were is up for debate. I wouldn't mind though if someone with more knowledge than me would correct me if I'm mistaken about anything. --saxet 01:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The articles about Judaism, Jewish history seem to contradict this. Those articles seem to imply that the origins of Judaism and Christianity are indeed the Levant. If they are incorrect in that respect, I suggest you correct them first and see if it sticks.--Doron 07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
When it comes to verifiability I trust Encyclopædia Britannica (and other credible reference literature) over Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestion though but nah, I'm allright, if you and the others here want to believe that I doubt there's anything I can say or do that would make a difference. --saxet 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but completely irrelevant. Wherever Judaism and Christianity originated, they did not originate in the State of Israel, which is the topic of this article. I will continue to delete any statements about this matter in the opening section. The reference to Judaism is relevant to the History section, and that is why I will move it to. The reference to Christianity has no relevance whatever. Adam 02:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Map problem

The map shown in the article's "Geography" section includes the Golan Heights as part of Israel proper. This is contrary to the internationally accepted boundaries of Israel. I'm going to look for a map that excludes the Golan Heights, hopefully one that indicates the dispute (is there even a dispute? The Golan Heights article notes that the Israeli government has denied that its laws regarding the territory amount to annexation.). Marsden 11:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Found this map: CIA map. It indicates the GH as "Israeli occupied." Does anyone know if CIA documents are public domain? Will look for latest Israeli government pronouncements re: GH. Marsden 11:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what happened in Gaza and the WB, the Golan Heights were annexed by Israel after 1967, and I personally have seen a lot of maps include it but not the WB or GS... I don't know the UN position on that but I would leave it as it is. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
UN Position is that it's occupied territory. I'm going to change the map; I encourage you to insert some language about Israel's position. I wasn't able (at least not with the energy I was willing to put into it) to find a position on GH on the Israeli government website. Marsden 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

US government materials are all public domain. At any rate, Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem is akin to Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. It is unrecognized by any other country, and a map purporting to show "Israel" should distinguish between the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, on the one hand, and Israel proper on the other. john k 15:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks John! Marsden 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that Israel has annexed the Golan. It has extended Israeli law to the Golan, but I don't think it claims it is part of Israel. Adam 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam is correct, Israel has all but officially annexed the Golan Heights, but has never officially done so.Gator1 14:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what Israel officially has or hasn't claimed. The article shouldn't describe Israel from an Israeli (right-wing) POV, but rather from a global. The UN position (and the U.S., EU, etc) is that GH is occupied territory. Israel, officially, doesn't have nuclear weapons, but all reliable encyclopedias and reports disregards that as there is plenty of evidence that Israel's official position is contrary to the reality of the situation. --saxet 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be, but to treat the West Bank just like the Golan Heights (on a map) ignores the legal and political realities. They are simply not the same, so a map should, at least in some way, distinguish between their legal/political status. The Golan Heights is not, officially, a part of Israel, but it is more a part of the country than the West Bank...that's just reality, whether the rest of the world the EU the UN blah blah blah recognize it or not.

Oh and equating Israeli with right wing? Unnecessary slam and cheapshot...YES...yes it was. Tell the Labor Party that its right wing. lol. That YOUR POV showing there. ;)

Right-wing was not to equate with Israeli but to separate from my Jewish Israeli siblings (and left-wing Israeli who abhor the bs propaganda). I don't hide my POV, read my comment under the section title 'This version'. Believe however that Wiki articles should be NPOV. If you're presenting a minority view you should present it as such and not write it as undisputable fact and then say whatever the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant. --saxet 02:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I never said that the rest of the world should be ignored, I don't know where you got that, but ok. I'm reverting the page one more time, because the language I'm reverting to was the ORIGINAL language in the article. If YOU want to change it then YOU need to discuss it, the burden is on you as the changer. Also, where do you get off calling it in "bad faith?" What the heck is that suppose to mean? That's a pretty serious accusation, please don't tell me you just threw that around to try and intimidate me. Assume good faith remember? Please tell me you had a real good reason for saying that other than that I simply disagreed with you.

Look, YOU made changes to the article that need to be discussed first, so until they are and a consensus is reached the articleshould simply remain the way it was. That's how it works here. Feel free to back up your chages with citations, I'm actually very interested to know what the law is in Israel. I know very little about it. I really invite you to open up a discussion first. Seriously.Gator1 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, anyone can edit Wikipedia. No approval need to be sought. If you revert my edits for no other reason than that you felt I should have asked your permission you're acting in bad faith. You should assume good faith regarding my edits and if you have any questions you can ask me on the talkpage. I edited a sentence that said that the Palestinian government refused to dismantle its terrorist groups. Not even Sharon believes that Abbas operates terroristgroups. Why did you revert my edit? Do you honestly believe that cheap propaganda like that belong in Wikipedia? --saxet 03:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not the definition of bad fautrh, my good friend and I never assumed bad faith on your part, you're the one doing that remember? You should just explain yourself in the talk page and provide some support for substantial edits like that with some citation, the burden is on you not everyone else. I also never at least intentionally (it may been there without me seeing it I can admit that I screwed up) removed a sentence that said that the Palestinian government refused to dismantle its terrorist groups. That doesn't sound familiar to me at all. If that was the case I apologize, that's not an accurate statement. But you might be thinking of someone else on that one.

Oops, look like someone beat me to it. Good. I didn't want to get into an edit war tonight. lol.Gator1 02:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole issue will be more easily resolved if editors actually cite sources. For example, Freedom House gives Israel the highest rating for political rights, and religious freedom, and the equivalent of India or Brazil for civil rights. [1]. Our opinions as editors are not what is relevant, please cite references to move discussion forward. Otherwise, inevitable revert wars result. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Good, you are correct.Gator1 02:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I provide sources from United Nations, CIA, EU, Harvard, Oxford, Dalai Lama. If Goodoldpolonius2 wants me to I can throw in Desmond Tutu for good measure. Freedom House just doesn't measure up. Look, no one benefits if this article continues to be cheap propaganda. It doesn't win any minds, it alienates. Let's describe reality instead. --saxet 03:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good faith / Bad faith

"In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens)."

This sentence is not only dishonest but also dumb. Blacks in America also had full political and civic equality in the 1950s (in most respect, discounting a few laws that favoured whites). That's the dishonest part. The dumb part is this is the very flawed logic (Do you still have 'full' when you take away from 'full'?) and poor usage of words.

"For over 3,000 years, Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland"

Really? Quite a generalization. Wittgenstein didn't. The nomadic Jewish tribes of Babylonia didn't. Kabbala followers who believe the Land of Israel isn’t a geographic location doesn’t. And countless others.

"…cannot be restrated until the Palestinian government dismantles its terrorist groups."

The Palestinian government has terrorist groups? According to whom? What kind of Wiki:NPOV is this?

"Throughout the centuries the size of Jewish population in the land fluctuated with the population in the region of the present day Israel, numbering approximately 20-25,000 in 1881 of a total population of 470,000."

Dishonest, an average reader will read this and believe there have always been a substantial Jewish population in Israel. Why was 1881 chosen, why not 1000 or 1500 or 1800 or maybe 1850? --saxet 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Some valid points there, although the analogy with Blacks in the US is a very weak one. Blacks in the Southern US in the 1950s did not have civic or political equality. They couldn't vote, to state the most obvious point. Israeli Arabs can and do vote. Are there segregated bus-stops and hotels in Israel? I don't think so. It is true that not all Jews considered Israel to be their homeland. The reference to the PA being responsible for terrorist groups is obviously wrong. Adam 03:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Blacks in the U.S. had full civic and political equality (except voting, segregated bus-stops etc).
What an astonishing statement. Haven't you heard of segregation? Miscegenation laws? Lynching? What do you think the civil rights movement was about? Adam 11:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not only astonishing, it's also a dishonest and stupid statement. That's was the point. I sought to illuminate how dishonest your sentence about Israeli Arab equality was. --saxet 14:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can Israeli Arabs vote for Hamas or any other of the popular political organisations? Or is the voting stuff just a show with no real significance.
They vote for the parties of their choice, usually Arab nationalists or communists. Adam 11:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any (credible) source that says that Israeli Arabs can vote for the political entities that they want to have represent them? --saxet 19:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobody in Israel can vote for the political entities they want to have represent them, we can only vote for registered parties. And that is mandated by Israeli law.--Doron 14:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
So if political organizations that Israeli Arabs view as 'looking after them' aren't allowed to register as political parties, can you still say that Isreli Arabs are not discriminated against in terms of voting rights? (The blacks in apartheid era South Africa had certain voting rights, ANC was however not allowed to become a political party.) --saxet 19:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
In Israel, a party can be disqualified, in theory, if it either supports armed struggle against the state or it undermines Israel's democratic and Jewish nature. In practice, this happened only twice in Israel's history - in 1965 a socialist party associated with the al-Ard movement, and in 1988 Kahane's Kach party. As for your question -- it would be discrimination if either by law, or in practice, Arab-supported parties were disqualified and Jewish-supported parties were not. I know of no evidence that this is the case at present. And I do not recall Hamas ever applying to qualify for general elections in Israel, nor do I think they would be very popular in Israel.--Doron 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. In Israel, it is a matter of law that everyone must vote for a registered party that they hate - or is it is the law that all political parties must have absolutely no public support whatsoever? Why would this law be necessary, isn't it automatic? Sounds a lot like the USA, but maybe an even more advanced democracy!  :-)John Z 17:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
They can hate or like the party they're voting for, either way, it has to be a registered party or their vote won't count. I personally know very few people that are perfectly happy with the party they vote for, and they're all fools or senile or both.--Doron 18:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

--saxet 14:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Are there segregated schools, roads, workplaces in Israel? Yes.
  • Yes, it is true that most Jews throughout history have not considered the geographical area that is now Israel their homeland.
  • If the reference was obviously wrong and I changed it, how come three different people changed it back within seconds/minutes?
--saxet 03:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are segregated, but roads and workplaces are not (although they are in the Occupied Territories)
Also segregated are: the miliary, government agencies, housing projects, and even some public restrooms. --saxet 14:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
In theory, there has been a mild positive discrimination policy in governmental bodies recently, although its effect is questionable. Note that Oscar Abu Razek, an Israeli Palestinian, is the director general of the Israel Ministry of the Interior. And I would like to hear more about your claim that there are segregated public restrooms in Israel.--Doron 14:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever had a Palestinian friend, I mean, outside the office and not counting the local restaurant owner who is friendly to everyone? If you have they would tell you. Me and my 'Muslim looking' Palestinian friend had an experience last spring - I walked in to the restroom, when he tried to enter a security guard pushed him back and told him that the restroom was out of function, all while other people passed them by to enter. I realize this is just anecdotal evidence so I wouldn't put it in the article. Nevertheless, very few (countries, institutes, faculties, agencies, etc) doubt that segregation (that violates basic human rights) of Palestinians in Israel exist. Do you? --saxet 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There sure is discrimination in Israel in many areas, and I'm sure your friend has a hard time. However, segregation is institutionalized discrimination, which is a far cry from the instance of racism you have enountered. Had there been segregation, the security guard would have told your friend the restroom was for Jews only or something of the sort, and not make up an excuse. The guard was racist, perhaps the person who ran the place was racist, and there are a lot of racist people in Israel, but segregation is when it is made official policy. And there are plenty of discriminating official policies in Israel without you needing to make them up, but there most certainly is no policy of segregation in public restrooms. Being a young guy with a beard, I get hassled a lot by security guards myself, I can tell you they are not always the most enlightened or intelligent people in the world.--Doron 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that my usage of the word segregation in regard to public restrooms was less fortunate. I do however believe that institutionalized discrimination exist in many areas that Israeli Jews are not aware of, that even if certain facilities doesn't have a 'No Arabs' sign, the standard practice of military and civilian security is to keep the Palestinians out.
You are absolutely right.--Doron 07:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
But as you say, there is plenty of discriminating official policies in Israel, segregated schools, military, etc etc etc. So for the article to state that Israeli Arabs enjoy full political and civic equality, when in actuality the situation more resemble an apartheid system, is less than honest. No? (and being able to vote doesn't mean that equality has been achieved) --saxet 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
How about just being accurate? Describe how there is de facto discrimination despite de jure equality. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, there is not, however, any de jure equality. --saxet 00:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Should there be an article about Equality in Israel? Such an article may draw some heat, but I think it can pull through if it is well-balanced. That's where such info should go.--Doron 07:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, we can have a Segregation in Israel article, but that doesn't mean that this article shouldn't mention (compare/contrast) the legal status of Israeli Arabs in Israel, the domestic turmoil. It's one of the defining characteristics of the nation of Israel, and a very noteworthy 'topic' of international concern. --saxet 09:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Official discrimination: how about the fact (I was shocked) that only orthodox Jewish weddings are recognised as marriages officially.
  • Hamas is not a registered party in Israel, so nobody can vote for them in Israel. Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis in particular, can vote for any registered party they like, although Hamas would probably have been banned in Israel for a number of reasons (not all of which are particularly democratic).--Doron 10:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Appeasment

In 1939 the British gave in to Arab pressure and abandoned the idea of a Jewish national homeland, as part of a policy of appeasment favored by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Is it a fact that the British abandoned the idea of a Jewish national homeland as part of a policy of appeasment?--Doron 11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No. That is a very silly statement and should be deleted. Adam 11:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This entire article should be reworked. Last week I discovered that a CIA map had been photoshopped (references to occupied territories removed) and was used in several Israel related articles. People who see that map assumes that it really is CIA, and not original research on the part of an editor. I pointed this out and User:Humus sapiens acknowledged that it was dishonest, but he also encouraged the photoshop artist on User_talk:Roeeyaron#Altered image to go ahead and manipulate the image. My personal POV is that propaganda always backfires. One of the admins working on this article (not Humus sapiens or Roeeyaron) is a registered member of Ha'ihud Ha'Leumi, that's allright - the problem is that he (along with a group of likeminded editors here) are distorting reality to such a degree that no one that reads these articles will take them seriously. I care about Israel, I have (Jewish) family there but the growing fascism is contrary to everything that is great with the Jewish culture. This article will get cleaned up sooner or later, let's make it sooner. --saxet 14:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a personal attack but I am going to assume good faith for now. Perhaps you misunderstood my comments in User_talk:Roeeyaron#Altered image. As a matter of fact I strongly warned him against silently altering images. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I probably misunderstood your comments and I apologize if you felt what I wrote was a personal attack. I read "Create a new image, get another or edit this one but please do it openly. In this particular case, I would make a copy of that image, provide a link to its origin and explain the changes and the reasons" which I (mistakenly then) thought was an encouragement to manipulate the CIA image. I guess that I also was surprised that you created that image, Roeeyaron shortly after photoshopped it, yet you didice the changes until I, a few weeks (?) later, pointed out the dishonesty. --saxet 10:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Lovely. Now you quote me out of context. I said: "if the image is presented as coming from a particular source, it should not be doctored." Yes, I updated that image with no alterations but didn't add it to my watchlist. Remember, "propaganda always backfires"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but what made me write that I felt you encouraged Roeeyaron was the two sentences included above. Since I understood those two sentences to be contrary to the lead-in sentence you just included I first thought that you were either a bit confused or that you just included the first sentence to keep your back clear from possible charges of vandalism. I assumed good faith and didn't report the alteration of the image. If I made any wrong assumptions regarding your motives I apologize. It does, propaganda always backfires while views, opinions and ideas lives on. --saxet 10:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu

Does Desmond Tutu's opinion belong in the introduction to the article about Israel? In what capacity does he state his opinion -- is he a reputable authority on the human rights situation in Israel?--Doron 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer Amnesty International? --saxet 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe it's his moral, not his academic or professional authority, that's being invoked here. But no, the entire "human rights" thing doesn't belong in the introduction at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Desmond Tutu is a self important anti-zionist leftist, his opinion is in no way relavent. Klonimus 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, if Tutu fits your definition of a self important anti-zionist, then 99.9% of the world (including 50% of Israeli Jews) are self important anti-zionists. That would mean your opinions represents such a small minority that they needn't even be considered. --saxet 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't kid yourself, less than 10% of Israeli jews voted for anti-zionist parties. Desmond Tutu remains a leftist useful idiot, all the same. Klonimus 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I have an uncle who says that anyone who is left of Kahane is a leftist anti-zionist idiot. --saxet 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I wish he were right.--Doron 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter. Both the Freedom House and the Desmond Tutu sentences aren't really appropriate for the introduction, anyway. It's best to have things in an intro that aren't arguments. So I yanked 'em. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. "It is official policy to preserve Israel as a Jewish state in both an ethnic and a religious sense." is sufficient for the introduction. The article should however go into more detail regarding the segregation of Israeli Arabs. --saxet 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be rewritten, but it will be near impossible under Wikipedia's present rule to achieve a stable, factual and NPOV article because it is attracts so many POV editors (from both sides) and is constantly being fought over. I might have a try when I am feeling masochistic. Adam 05:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering that you pushed for the sentence "Israeli Arabs enjoy full political and civic equality in Israel" to be included in the introduction, I sincerely doubt that if you rewrote the article I would find the result factual and NPOV. After looking at your history, it's kind of hard to assume good faith regarding your self-proclaimed position as an unbiased voice of reason. As I've said, this and all the other Israel-Palestine related articles will get cleaned up from the ludicrous rightwing pro-Israeli POV that saturates all the pages, it's only a matter of time. Propaganda always backfires. Ten years ago my Jewish friends were angry with me for not being 'loyal enough' in regard to Israel, today most of them have nothing but contempt for the Israeli Jews that are fundamentalists. --saxet 10:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong views one way or the other on this issue, unlike most people who edit on Israel-related articles. I support Israel's right to exist and to defend itself against terrorism. I also support a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank. For every editor who thinks Wikipedia has a "ludicrous rightwing pro-Israeli POV," there is an editor who thinks Wikipedia is ludicrously left-wing and anti-Israel. Every time I edit on this subject I get called (a) an anti-Semite and (b) an Israeli agent, so I conclude I am more or less on the right track. Adam 11:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If you say so. BTW, Ariel Sharon also support a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank so I guess he, just like you, is unbiased. Go figure. --saxet 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sharon is Prime Minister of Israel and has never claimed to be unbiased. In any case he is not a Wikipedia editor (as far as I know). Adam 12:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. :) --saxet 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Borders of Israel

Alright, so recently there seems to be a disagreement about the borders of Israel... so put your opinions here and play nice. Sasquatcht|c 04:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The real dispute is, are Israel's attempted annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights legitmate? Neither of these, however, affect whether or not Israel has borders along the Gaza Strip or the West Bank; the East Jerusalem matter might move the position of the West Bank border, but no nation -- not even Israel -- claims all of the West Bank for Israel. And no nation -- not even Israel -- claims even a stitch of the Gaza Strip for Israel. Marsden 05:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess this is whole Taiwan/China, Palestine/Israel territory issue. I would tend to support that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are independant from the government of Israel and thus should not be considered part of the state of Israel... would like to hear more opinions. Sasquatcht|c 05:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should be about what the article says, not about the whole issue. This is not a chatroom. Adam 05:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel only has legal borders with Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan - you could maybe argue there are borders with Syria too. israel cannot have borders with west bank and Gaza strip because there have been no negotations to decide what those borders should be and no peace agreements which show their paths. - John.

  • Syria is a recognised state and its borders are also recognised and so far as I know undisputed. Every country in the world except Israel recognises the Golan as being within Syria - and even Israel has not explicity rejected this by fornally annexing it. Therefore Israel has a border with Syria, and that border runs where it ran before 1967.
  • Israel's borders with the West Bank and Gaza have no legal status, because the West Bank and Gaza are not a state or part of any other state. They were part of the UN Mandated Territory of Palestine until 1948, when they were assigned by the UN to a Palestinian state which never came into existence because the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan. They then became terra nullius (nobody's land). Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, but this was recognised only by the UK, and in any case Jordan renounced its rights to the territory in 1988. Egypt did not annex Gaza, so it also remains terra nullius. The pre-1967 Israeli borders with these territories were only ceasefires line and not international frontiers.
  • One could, if one wanted, argue that Israel is the only successor state to pre-1948 Palestine and thus owns these territories by right of vacation and conquest, but I don't think Israel has ever actually argued that. This is, however, presumably the grounds on which Israel has annexed East Jerusalem, although I haven't seen the argument put.
  • It follows from this that the border between Israel and any future Palestinian state will be entirely a matter for negotiation, and that the pre-1967 "border" will have no standing in those negotiations.

Adam 08:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What the article says in the sentence in question should be about the physical dimensions of Israel, not about the prospects of future negotiations. To omit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank from the sentence gives the impression that Israel ends only where Egypt and Jordan begin. (That Israel is the "only successor state ..." is a pretty remarkable statement from someone who had just protested that the discussion should not be about the whole issue, Adam.) We do not need to know where exactly the borders between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and Israel are for the purpose of the sentence; we only need to know that they are there. I'm pretty confident that no legal claim has ever been made that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank should disappear, and Israel should acquire all of their territory; Israel certainly has never made this claim. Why should an article in Wikipedia implicitly make this assertion? Marsden 15:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should the article explicitly assert that Israel has borders with the Gaza Strip and West Bank when it does not? an incorrect explicit assertion is obviously worse to have in an article than your claim that there is some implicit assertion in it. John McW 18:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

is there no-one who can answer this question? John McW 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel does have borders with the West Bank, but they are not "international borders". Israeli law does not apply to most of the West Bank (except E. Jerusalem) and one could argue that the line where Israeli law stops being applied and military law starts is in fact a 'border'. Many official government maps do not include the WB, although some do. In any case, Israel does not regard the WB officially as part of its territory, otherwise I'd have an Israeli ID card myself and there would be no such thing as checkpoints and closures. I'm still confused as to what's the point of having this argument anyway. Ramallite (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The argument that Israel does not have a border with the West Bank and Gaza seems to be based on a very narrow interpretation of the word "border" to mean "a line drawn on a map," and to a very particular interpretation of the green line as not being a border. As Ramallite points out, the Green Line (with the exception of East Jerusalem, which has been annexed) does form a sort of border between the State of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Whether or not the exact state of the final border will be a matter for negotiation, the basic fact is that at present, the Gaza Strip and the vast majority of the West Bank (again accepting East Jerusalem) are not considered by anyone to form part of the State of Israel. Whether or not they form part of any other state, it seems clear that the State of Israel does border on them, and I fail to see what harm is to be done by listing them as bordering on Israel. john k 06:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • That's not true, many people think that the Gaza Strip and West Bank, are inalienable parts of the State of Israel. Other people take the position that Gaza is not, but that the West Bank is inalienable. Klonimus 04:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
They may think whatever they like, but the fact is that Israel does not claim sovereignty over these territories.--Doron 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Occupied vs captured/controlled/etc

I notice a lot of editors here prefer to use other words than 'occupied' to describe the occupied territories. I suggest we use the correct word 'occupied' and then include a sentence along the lines of "However, some Israeli Jews do not consider the territories to be occupied but...".

Why the word 'occupied' should be used in Wikipedia articles is because: United Nations uses it, Amnesty International uses it, U.S. Department of State uses it, the CIA uses it, the Human Rights Watch uses it, Reuters uses it, and so forth. --saxet 23:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Aside from any other issue your change is completely grammatically incorrect; you can't "occupy" the West Bank from Jordan, you can only "capture" it from Jordan. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Then we can fix the grammar issue, but agree on that the word 'occupied' should be used. --saxet 23:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious, why is it "completely gramatically incorrect"? Many edu, gov, com sites phrase it that way. --saxet 23:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There is of course absolutely no need for "occupy" to have an indirect object; I occupy the chair I am sitting in, but I do it from no one. Marsden 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
So is Gaza still "occupied" as the article says? I read a news item that Israel declared the Gaza-Israel border an "international boundary".24.64.166.191 06:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Capital

The CIA World Factbook [2], source of the much disputed map in this same page proclaims the capital to be Jerusalem.

Let's try to keep politics out of this wherever possible. The footnote makes very clear the world's position on Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And if I remember correctly, the US hasn't made a statement either way.

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes when you "try to keep politics out" you're actually being political. As for this particular issue, if the United Nations Security Council has an official position on this, we should go with that position. I gather they're the ones who 'decides the rules' (for good and bad) when it comes to international law. --saxet 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Which city a country decides should be its capital is not a matter of international law, or a matter for other countries to "recognise" or "not recognise." Since Jerusalem is the capital of Israel both de facto and under Israeli law, the article should say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, with the appropriate footnote. Adam 01:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that Jerusalem (under internation law) might not be considered as a city belonging to Israel, and thus can't be the capital? A (poor) analogy: Russia couldn't (under international law) declare Kiev as their capital. --saxet 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That is only true of East Jerusalem. All countries which recognise Israel recognise that West Jeruslem is part of Israel. Adam 01:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

But Israel declared Jersusalem to be the capital, not West Jerusalem. --saxet 01:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Legally there is no such place as West Jerusalem. In 1950 "Jerusalem" under Israeli law obviously meant "that part of Jerusalem which is part of Israel." Today Israel claims all of Jerusalem, but it is not necessary to recognise that claim to recognise that Jerusalem, however defined, is the capital of Israel. Adam 01:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. --saxet 01:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I basically agree with Adam on this one. Certainly nothing other than Jerusalem can be seen as Israel's capital. john k 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Opening section

People should stop stuffing every fact and opinion they can think of into the opening section (a chronic Wikipedia weakness). I have removed some of this stuff, which belongs elsewhere in this article or in other articles. I have also removed some egregious Wikification (another Wikipedia vice). Adam 08:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Which facts, why? On first glance, that seems to be an elitist approach. The lead is instructive, I think, as lengthy as it is, since it answers a lot of key questions the average reader might have right off the bat. Similarly, in the sense of linking them to various pertinent articles or sections thereof; I don't think it's above the MoS' 10%, perhaps a few less topical ones could be omitted, but "horrible" seems overstated. El_C 09:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikification of common nouns is nearly always superfluous and unnecessary, as well as ugly. You also restored at least one ungrammatical sentence, plus the completely irrelevant statement about the supposed orgins of Christianity. This is an about about the State of Israel, which was founded in 1948. It is not about the History of Christianity. Encyclopaedia articles are supposed to be about what they are about, and furthermore they are supposed to be structured in a logical way, and not have everything crammed into the opening section. Adam 14:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in discussing aesthetics or cosmetics at this juncture. The lead is not meant for people with PhDs in history nor people who know where all the pertinent articles are. The lead can touch on the territory encompassed by the country. Point is, you can unwikify, you can fix grammar, you can shorten sentences, etc., all while keeping the average reader in mind. Also, once again, I unwikify repeated terms from one paragraph to the next. Please be more careful when reverting. Anyway, I'd like to see what others have to say. El_C 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The less political analysis and POV in the intro, the better. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet, if all what you consider to be POV is removed from the intro, we might end up with something that 97,5% of the world's population would consider not only POV, but also just plain wrong. Going down your route I might start to question whether the sentence that says Israel is a democracy couldn't be considered a dishonest exercise in "political analysis" since the UN defines a democracy as a nation that bestows equal rights to all its citizens.
And what about the sentence "About twenty percent of the population are Arabs", why not use Palestinians here? Isn't that POV? And regarding your dislike for the word 'occupation', that you seem to believe is political in nature even though it's the word used by allies and foes of Israel alike. That sensitivity could also be used when analyzing other words in this article, what about "the armies of six Arab nations attacked the State of Israel", isn't 'attacked' POV? Shouldn't we change that to "the armies of six Arab nations uninvited entered the State of Israel"? No, because it would be silly, just like it's silly to use any other word than 'occupied'. Think about it. --saxet 06:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The UN also defines Libya as a suitable country to chair its Human Rights Commission, so its definitions should be treated with caution. A democracy is in fact a country in which all citizens get to vote to choose its government, and that is all. There are liberal and illiberal democracies. Russia is a democracy even though it massacres people in Chechnya.
That's your POV, but whether Israel is a democracy is still a matter of debate. (Many also question whether Putin's Russia is a democracy). Jayjg prefers if we keep politics out of the intro, a solution would be to omit that sentence, it would also make the intoduction shorter and less "ugly". --saxet 12:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Israeli Arabs are indisputably Arabs: they are of Arab ethnicity and speak Arabic. Whether they are Palestinians is a matter of debate. They are Israeli citizens and not residents of any Palestinian territory, so in that sense they are not Palestinians. My understanding is that some chose to identify as Palestinians, some as Israelis, and some as simply Arabs.
Yes, Kahane said that Palestinians were different Arabic tribes with no relation to each other. Excluding what the Palestinian themselves think and what Israeli Jews claim, the Palestinians are internationally recognized as a people, by every governemnt in the world (including the U.S.). No one is/isn't "undisputably" anything, Blond haired Jews share less DNA with the old Jewish generations than most of the Arabs now living in the Middle East. Anyway, excluding the word Palestinans from the part that describes the demographic makeup in the intro is political POV pushing. --saxet 12:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That Israel is occupying the Territories is clearly a fact and should be stated as such. There is nothing necessarily pejorative about the word. The US occupied Japan in 1945, much to the benefit of the Japanese as they now acknowledge.

Adam 09:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding POV terms

As discussed here, I'm going to start replacing the POV term "Israel" with the NPOV term "Zionist Entity" throughout Wikipedia beginning in a few days. Please leave comments at the link just given. Marsden 13:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's retarded in so many ways. The name "Israel" is both correct and NPOV. --saxet 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, please leave comments at the link above. Thank you. Marsden 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
What you are suggesting betrays an anti-semitic agenda, I support any effort to have you banned (preferably as of now). --saxet 14:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
How intellectually interesting. Again, please leave comments at the above link. If this discussion is kept in one place, it will be easier for you to find consensus to support a ban of me, for example. Marsden 14:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No consensus would be necessary. If you knowingly commit vandalism, having announced it in advanced and been warned in advance, you'll just be summarily blocked. Don't waste your time or ours. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you are serious, you will quickly be banned for vandalism, and quite rightly. Adam 13:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, please leave comments at the link above. Thank you. Marsden 14:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
What does "Israel" mean? Is it any different from the racist-supremacist regimes in South Africa or Rhodesia?

Liberated

why is it that that the PLO article says the PLO is planning to create "a national authority over any piece of liberated Palestinian land", but when I point out that Israel happens to have actually liberated some "Palestinian land", it is immediately deleted from the article? is it ok by Wikipedia policy to say that all the land there is "Palestinian land"? Israelis can only "occupy" it, and Arabs can only "liberate" it? John McW 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the POV word "liberated" in the PLO article? Or what? Adam 04:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

John McW, I've read your comment here on the talkpage (that got reverted). Whatever you, Jayjg, Klonimus, Guy Montag, SlimVirgin et al, may believe, this and other Israel/Palestinian related articles are not meant to be a platform to disseminate Nationalistic propaganda. Just stop it. A true pro-Israeli stance is to be able to acknowledge, not just the positive aspects of our homeland, but also the negative (including the oppression of the Palestinian people), so that things can change. Or else all will be lost. --saxet 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you have no idea what I believe, please avoid speculating about it, and in the future please refrain from dragging me into your unrelated discussions with other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[sigh] Speculations and presumptions about other editors' beliefs are not only irrelevant but unproductive since it diverts the focus away from actual article contents. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not the function of an encyclopaedia to take "stances" for or against anything, or to disseminate propaganda of any kind, or to "acknowledge" the positive or negative aspects of anybody's homeland. I still want to know exactly what John McW is objecting to in this article. Adam 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Which was my point. I didn't state that Wikipedia should acknowledge anything. Anyways, how did you reason when you wrote that "liberated" was a POV word? What would be a NPOV word for actions resulting in an occupied territory being not occupied? "unoccupied"? As for John McW, if you look at the changes he recently made to this article (which got reverted), you will understand what his objections are. --saxet 05:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Nicely stated call for objectivity, Adam. I had to add your words to my "Favorite quotes" section... : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Arguing that the "liberated" is NPOV when a territory is "occupied", when there is a debate about whether or not they should be described as "liberated" or "occupied" in the first place is completely circular. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree his edits should have been reverted, and if he wants the article to reflect his POV he will be disappointed. The use of the word "liberated", however, is nearly always POV, unless there is universal acceptance of its use. Thus most people will accept a Wikipedia statement that "Europe was liberated from the Nazis," but will not (for example) accept a statement that "Baghdad was liberated from Saddam Hussein," because there is significant opposition to that view. Adam 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think John is arguing that there is a double-standard or POV being displayed here - when Israel captures the West Bank, it is "occupied", but if the PLO were to capture the West Bank or even Israel, it would be "liberated". Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is another example: Palestinian Islamic Jihad is described as a group "whose goal is the liberation of historical Palestine". Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Did I miss something obvious? Why don't those who are objecting to these statements go to the articles, put the disputed sentences in quotation marks to indicate that they are quoting the source and not reflecting Wikipedia POV, and move on to their next topic of mischief? (I mean that in the most humorous way possible). If you do so, please place a sentence in quotation marks, not a specific word, because a specific word will invite more NPOV battles. Ramallite (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh - and by the way, in the scheme of things, one should think of what's being liberated as the people, not the land, and relate the nature of the conquering army to the natives of the land being conquered. This makes classifying "liberation" vs "occupation" a lot easier. But that's just my opinion. Ramallite (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If Islamic Jihad or the PLO ever "liberated" Israel, I suspect the vast majority of "natives" would consider it something other than "liberation", assuming they survived. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I guess it wouldn't be called "liberation" by the above definition then. The "assuming they survived" part I don't follow, because having grown up in this society, I think that Hamas/IJ's barks are worse than their bites, and this would be especially true once the humiliation factor is removed (not counting the virgin-seeking loons of course). But it will take years to undo the negative stereotypes that have developed between both sides due to constant propaganda. In any case, I don't think the scenario you suggested is anything to worry about, it won't happen. Ramallite (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that the dozens of people murdered and hundreds seriously injured by Hamas and Islamic Jihad would consider their barks to be worse than their bites. They are the "virgin-seeking loons". Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

so everyone here agrees that the word "liberated" shouldn't be used. John McW 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't, I think disputed items should be left in quotation marks to imply context and left as is, like I said above. Otherwise, misrepresentation results. If I state that "Ramallite likes coke", I wouldn't want a Pepsi fanatic to change that to "Ramallite hates Pepsi". I think all this nitpicking is a waste of time by the way. I think it serves NPOV best to state the POV of both/all sides when it comes to topics such as these (especially when there is no alternative to 'liberate" and "occupy" - certainly not "conquest"), and place them in quotation marks when it's necessary. Ramallite (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the word "liberated" shouldn't be used until the Palestinians have actually been liberated. Which they will be, but not by Hamas or Islamic Jihad, but by an international coalition put together by the United Nations on June 24, 2009. Or something like that. As for the fear & paranoia crowd, you might have a point; South Africa was lucky that those ANC thugs never managed to come into power, Nelson Mandela would, for sure, have slaughtered the entire white population if that would have happened. Anyway, I have no clue why this section/discussion is here on Talk:Israel and not on Talk:Palestine Liberation Organization, where it belongs. --saxet 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The only way the Palestinians are going to be "liberated" is if they get rid of the terrorist groups that dominate them and the propaganda machines they call "schools". your fantasies about the United Nations ever doing anything effective make as much sense as the rest of your statement, the ANC has nothing to do with zealot suicide bombers. John McW 12:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The terrorist groups you refer to are ideologues that are not dominant, but a vocal minority on both sides that have unfortunately dictated their views to a silent majority. Funny, I went to these schools, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please point out exactly what you've seen or read? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Israel/History of Israel

Is it necessary to have two articles? Can't everything that needs to be said, be said in one?

Jews have held the Land of Israel to be their homeland

"For over 3,000 years, Jews have held the Land of Israel to be their homeland"

What about the native non-Jewish citizens of egalitarian, non-racist Israel? What do they consider their homeland? The article seems to be written from a certain POV.24.64.166.191 05:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

These people occupied the territory when the Roman Empire scattered the remanent of the Jews residing their within the First Century (I do not remember the exact date, so lay off it). So the Jews are the true natives of Israel, not these usurpers who seek to destroy the nation of Israel. 06:15 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Proposed re-ordering of paragraphs

Shouldn't

Fintor 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsrael_Archive_8_1fc8.html"