Talk:Israel/Archive 9

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

Population/democracy

Dose the population inhclude gaza/palistinian teretories which are considered to be on israel land by the israely goverment included in the populattion count, and what proportion take part in the israely democracy. I am not asking to be offensive, i just wish to understand. as it is not clear in the article. Is it true also that israel is the only country with an actual goverment pased bill that sets out how torture should be carried out? (again i understand that a lot of countries, even in the west do this and i am not judging israel, i just wish to know the facts.)--Happyhaydn 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The population numbers given by Israeli Census do not include the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The democratic process in Israel includes all its citizens, including Palestinian people that remained within the borders of the state of Israel in 1948 and their descendants. Since the occupied territories were not annexed to Israel, its inhabitants are not considered Israeli citizens.

Regarding the torturing issue, even though it’s out of the scope of this article, it is worth noting that Israeli intelligence services are indeed bound that a law that explicitly prohibits torture. The law gives examples of the types of investigation that might or might not be carried out on suspect terrorists.

Gabi S. 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

isn't it amazing that the same radicals who murder jews and israeli's have their minor league farm team attempt to destroy this site - doesn't that say it all?Incorrect 02:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Israelis" template creep

The {{Israelis}} template is getting unreasonably large and incoherent. While it's justifiable to want to refer to all of these topics here, it just doesn't make any sense for all of them to mutually-reference. Look at an article like RAFAEL Armament Development Authority to see how disproportiate this appears in some cases. I'd strongly favour refactoring this template into a number of smaller, more topic-focussed ones (possibly including a top-level one for the main categories on this template). Alai 19:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of states

Lists of states that do and don't recognise Israel don't belong in this article. They belong in Foreign relations of Israel or something like that. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

White space

And also someone please fix the enormous white space at the start of the article. Adam 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone fixes the white space soon I am going to delete the infobox. Adam 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see excessive white space at all. I'm using a Mac, and I tried Safari, Opera and Firefox (all current versions). It looks fine in all of them (cluttered, if anything). The two boxes are on the right and the text flows down the left. --Zero 09:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's strange. I see the white space when I use IE and I don't see it when I use Firefox. Why is this? It still needs to be fixed for IE-using people. Adam 12:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The problem appears to have been in the display of the table of contents against the {{Israelis}} template. As long as the template is below the first heading, it appears to display well in both browsers. --Viriditas | Talk 12:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it created a problem for some IE users at higher resolutions. I self-reverted, but feel free to revert back to a version that works for you. I give up. --Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Golan annexation?

It is not a simple matter to say whether Israel annexed the Golan Heights. The question is hotly debated between experts on international law. For example, in vol 20 (1994) of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, there are back-to-back articles by two Israeli law professors. One argues that the Golan was annexed and the other argues that it wasn't. Both of them agree that the 1981 Golan Law was intended to annex the Golan while using language that allowed plausible denial. However, they disagree on whether this objective was achieved. They also disagree on whether the Israeli Supreme Court has accepted annexation or not. I found similar disagreement on this question in other law journals. We should present it as a disputed point, and not adopt one conclusion or the other. --Zero 10:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does Israel claim to have annexed it? Does it appear on official maps and in official statistics as part of Israel? Adam 12:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose in presenting it as a disputed point, obviously it is disputed that Israel had the right to annex it, but the right of the US taking half of Mexico in 1848 was also disputed, but very few sane people would debate that they had in fact not taken the land.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Those territories were annexed by the terms of the peace treaty after the Mexican War, so the situation is not analogous. My question was - does Israel claim to have annexed the Golan? Adam 07:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to get a straight answer on this question, and there is no such thing as an official map in the sense you mean. Apart from what is in the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, Israel has never officially defined its borders. Whenever the subject of negotiations with Syria come up, Israeli politicians adamantly claim the Golan is part of Israel, or isn't part of Israel, according to their political positions. An example of the ambiguity: enter the Flash presentation on the Israeli Foreign Affairs website at http://64.49.224.152/mfa/mfa.htm and you will find a map of the Golan which carefully repeats the formula "law, jurisdiction and administration" (from the Golan Law) in the caption but says "sovereignty" on the map itself. Incidentally, the same wording "law, jurisdiction and administration" was used in 1967 with regard to East Jerusalem and spawned the same argument. This policy of vagueness served Israel well with regard to EJ and was copied for the Golan. --Zero 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics maps show Golan and East Jerusalem as part of Israel, but not the West Bank. Same with the Ministry of Internal Affairs maps, and maps by Mapa, the biggest private Israeli mapping company. -- Ynhockey || Talk 03:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears Israel does not claim to have annexed the Golan Heights, so how can Wikipedia claim that perhaps she did?--Doron 12:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

We should not claim that Israel definitely annexed the Golan, nor that Israel definitely did not annex the Golan. We should describe it as an unclear question that is a matter of dispute between legal experts. I believe that is an accurate summary. --Zero 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
So would it be correct to say Israel did not formally annex the Golan Heights, although some experts claim Israel has? Or that what Israel has done amounts to a formal annexation? Or is this a question of de facto vs. de jure? What exactly do these experts claim?--Doron 21:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Check edit of 86.105.71.34

Hello, if you can please check the edits of 86.105.71.34 because he's a known vandal inserting false figures in romania and hungary related pages, most of the numbers are from dubious sources or with no source at all. --grin ✎ 18:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the question here is, is the amount of people with Romanian origin relevant to a short summary of demographics? The answer is (IMO) no. Therefore, I removed the info. Maybe it belongs to the Demographics of Israel article, but as you said, we'd need someone to check the validity of the information (although it looks valid to me). -- Ynhockey 19:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Gaza

" The future status of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights remains to be determined." Didn't Israel declare the border with Gaza to be an "international boundary"? Why should it be mentioned in the "Israel" article

When did Israel do that? Preaky 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably from pressure applied by Condoleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. 06:07 January 31 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it had more to do with Sharon's dissengagment policy than the Bush administration... though I'm sure their pressure helped. -Almo

The Druze community?

The following question/comment was left on the main page under the section "at the request of the Druze community". I've moved it here, after reverting the main page. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"at the request of the Druze community" What does this mean? Is there there some elected body that represents Druze people? I don't understand how things work in Israel. In the US no-one would say "at the request of the black community" - there is no-one who legally represents blacks. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
What about lobby groups and such?

The druze community in Israel still posseses some strong traditional cultural aspects which, along with the traditional close-knit nature of the Druze community, allows for much greater unity in the community than the black community in the US, which lacks these qualities.

Incorrect Transliteration

This phrase: مغتصبةْ إِسْرَائِيل Does NOT spell Dawlat Israel. I don't know what the word on the right means, but it doesn't transliterate as Dawlat. The correct Arabic spelling is the one on the right where the official names are listed in boldface. Rhesusman 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

'mughtasabat' - Rapist - the guy is clearly trying to push a POV, don't hesitate to revert again.

israel is illegal state it must have no name.if a baby is not born why you give him/her a name.

You must be joking. Preaky 04:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are using a Bias against the country....and what do you mean by if a baby is not born? because Israel was born and it has been named. You should keep your anti-israel mentality out of the article if you have such problems

Your opinion that Israel was never born is both a racist and an ignorant statement. Israel was "Born" when it was officially recognized by the world body, the UN. To say Israel was never born is changing the history books. Your comment is false and is not welcomed, keep your anti-Israel agenda to yourself.

Gross domestic product comparison

I find the table comparing the gross domestic product of Israel with its neighbors inappropriate for this article. It seems like the purpose of this table is to show that the Israeli economy is about as big as all its neighbors' economies combined. To this end, it would be sufficient to say just that (providing a link to the source of these figures). If anywhere, this table may perhaps belong in Economy of Israel, otherwise I cannot imagine what the GDP of Lebanon has to do with this article.--Doron 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Doron: I do not agree at all with your claim. This table is highly relevant, IMO, to the article. It gives the reader a relational perspective on the Israeli economy. --Thorwald 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What is the point this table is making? Lebanon's GDP has nothing to do with the economy of Israel. The table is irrelevant and given out of context, and I am removing it. Please discuss my concerns before reverting again.--Doron 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The point is placing the economy of Israel in perspective (I believe that is fairly obvious). This section of the article is on the economy of Israel and to better understand Israel's economy in relation to its neighbours, this table is an attempt to do just that. It is simply not true that the table is "irrelevant". Since I added the information, it is appropriate for you to discuss its placement before removing it. That is simple Wikipedia etiquette. --Thorwald 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll stick my polite nose in. I agree with Doron; the table (a) doesn't look good; (b) conveys the wrong level of information for this article; (c) belongs with Economy of Israel much more than here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your opinion that the table "doesn't look good" is just that, your opinion. I do not agree that it conveys the wrong level of information for this article. I maintain that is gives the reader an important perspective on Israel's place (economy and otherwise) with respect to her neighbours. However, if you insist, move it to the Economy of Israel article. --Thorwald 18:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • One more point, if you look at something like the Economists's country profile of Israel, you will see that they do have a regional economy chart, but they use Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey as comparisons, and they give much more than GDP. I am not against including a comparison (probably in Economy of Israel), but it would be better to select a different range of countries in the region that then PA and Lebanon and Syria (none of which are good examples of working regional economies), and to include more data, such as the vital GDP/head, as well as some of the other ratios in the Economist chart. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
          • GDPs of Israel and neigbors
            GDPs of Israel and neigbors
          • (After slippage) Obviously the aesthetics are just my opinion. I wonder -- do other country articles contain similar comparison-with-neighbors tables? The statement in the text ("Israel's economy is nearly as large as the economies of all of its immediate neighbors added together") should suffice, since the adjacent map shows the neighbors, and the link to the World Bank database provides the adequate citation. Why do you think the "relational perspective" is that important -- and why do you think the text statement does not convey that relational perspective? But while we're talking about perspective, I just made a pie chart from the numbers on your table, and it conveys a rather different impression: Israel and Egypt have quite comparable GDPs, both of which dwarf all the rest of the countries. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
            • So what have we got: Israel's GDP is a lot bigger than some Middle-Eastern countries' GDP, and comparable or somewhat smaller than other Middle-Eastern countries'. Of course what you really should compare is GDP per capita, which places Israel much higher compared to the Middle-East. On the other hand, Israel's economy has very little to do with the Middle-East due to the political situation, and comparing Israel to the EU or the US is a lot more relevant. And there are many other figures about Israel that may be interesting to know about Israel's economy. This should all go in the main article on the Economy of Israel, not here. The article about Israel should have a concise description of Israel's economy, the details can be left for the more specific article.--Doron 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

racist official policy

"It is official policy to preserve Israel as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and a religious sense." Could we have a reference please?

Who are you? Preaky 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Israel's Declaration of Independence proclaims Israel as a Jewish state, though the Declaration has very little legal binding. According to Basic Law: The Knesset, section 7a, a party or a person whose agenda or actions constitute denial of Israel's existance as a Jewish (and democratic) state, is banned from being elected to the Knesset.--Doron 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jews in Palestine before 1900s

"Throughout the centuries the size of Jewish population in the land fluctuated with the population in the region of the present day Israel"

I don't understand the sentence, maybe somebody can rewrite it. Repetition 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this a reference to the percentage of the total Western Asia Population that was Jewish before 1948?

SlimVirgin

I'm sorry User:SlimVirgin, but I doubt you read the changes entirely, or you would not have stated "rv to last version by Zero; I agree that it's better without these changes". That edition you two have reverted to contains outdated information on demography that changes from what is in stated in the intro to what is stated in the demography section. Further, I have also added Ladino as a spoken language. Please do not deny this. And I have also added that Arabic is also spoken my some Mizrahi and Teimani.

Please point out any inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. But do not revert under the guise that it “looks better”, but by doing so you delete so much relevant information that should not be omitted.

Again, I cannot comprehend how you could agree (I you have indeed compared version) that it is better without the changes, when the article content conflicts from one part of the article to the other. Al-Andalus 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

From your own user page: "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." I have done this. Please do also comply by your own demands. I am the only one who has explained my reasons. I'm still awaiting yours and user Zero's. Once more, please point out to me the inaccuracy in my edits, and delete those if you find them. Al-Andalus 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of your information is incorrect though. Not 19.5% of all non-Jews are Arabs, but 19.5% of the entire population. On the other issues, I don't necessarily (dis)agree with either side. -- Ynhockey || Talk 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Al-Andalus, I don't think the average reader will know what point you are making with the sentence "Jews may be of any race.", and I find it rather jarring. Perhaps you should explain your intention (here). --Zero 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've taken it back out [again] from Demographics of Israel where Al-Andalus insists it should be also. Not only is the subject covered in Jew, where it should be, the subject of that paragraph concerns Israeli census data, and no part of the Israel Census addresses "race". I doubt this will end the discussion on the matter, or the reversions of this rubbish back into the article, despite the fact that IMNSHO it should. Tomer TALK 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've looked at the insertion and the whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. Does the Israeli census really talk about what "race" Jews are? Even if it's true, wouldn't that information make more sense in the article about Jews? Also, you've used "first generation" and "second generation" incorrectly. "First generation Israelis" are immigrants, "second generation Israelis" are the children of immigrants. A "Sabra" can never be a "first generation Israeli". Also, ALL of the of the non-Sabra are "foreign born", so there's no point in saying so, and "olim" includes both "voluntary" and "refugee" Jews. Preaky 02:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I made changes based on my comments above. I also fixed some grammar problems. I notice that a sentence was added which says "It is official state policy to preserve Israel's status as a Jewish state in both its ethnic character and religious constitution." What does this mean, and where is this policy written? Preaky 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Good edits. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem is that by using the term "race" in the context of Israel's demographics, we are stating a premise that is contentious in itself. The point may be that Israeli Jews are a highly diverse group of people (though they clearly have some important characteristics in common), but even that is raising a misleading issue, since it can be argued that Arabs and Palestinians also are highly diverse. --Leifern 13:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly; we certainly don't state that Arabs are "multiple races" either, and the Israeli census bureau doesn't state anything about race at all. Jayjg (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I note that Al-Andalus has added back "foreign-born" to describe people who weren't born in Israel. As Preaky points out above, all non-Israeli born Israelis are by definition "foreign born"; this is redundant and confusing at best, POV pushing at worst. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted it because it's odd looking, and I also deleted the sentence saying "Jews can be of any race," because the writing is odd and the point is jarring, as Zero said. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i have been reading views on both sides of the arab-israeli conflict, so that i could understand this page. is neutrality a compromise between two views, or a refusal to show either?(which can be a view in itself). i think on this page it is the latter, and shouldnt be. i think something should be added that brings light to plausible speculations that the state of israel was created when european nations, wanting to politically recuperate for their WWII actions, decided to build a state for the jews in palestine. thanks! =) [m47h1337]

GDP Table

The GDP table lists countries by their nominal GDP rather than the GDP adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity, if you look at PPP than the results are completely different, Egypt has a much larger GDP than Israel. See List of countries by GDP (PPP) I don't know enough economics to know which measurement is more accurate, but I don't think we should include a table that says one thing, when another measurement gives us an entirely different conclusion. GabrielF 07:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't see the discussion above. Clearly the table was put here to advance a POV, I guess that would be okay except that the table is factually questionable. To quote List of countries by GDP (nominal)
"Great care should be taken when using either set of figures to compare the wealth of two countries. Often people who wish to promote or denigrate a country will use the figure that suits their case best and ignore the other one, which may be substantially different, but a valid comparison of two economies should take both rankings into account, as well utilising other economic date to put an economy in context."
GabrielF 07:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

An entire paragraph about the AIC in the intro

The text on the conflict doesn't belong in the intro. This article is about a country just like any other. Many countries are imbued in conflicts, and usually such info is not mentioned in the introduction. We do talk about it just a couple paragraphs later. We do have whole series of articles dedicated specifically to the conflict. The text is clumsy, the words Jews and Muslims should be capitalized, etc. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Also the last sentence says that resentment has resorted. --Zero 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I also agree, but it appears to be gone now. Preaky 06:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the paragraph, and I disagree (well, you expected that). The conflict is an important theme in an article about Israel, certainly more so than the etymology of the name. Israel is hardly "a country just like any other" (no one is anyway, "close enough no one is normal"), it is the center of a 50-year-old conflict that has worldwide implications. Humus Sapiens says that "such info is not mentioned in the introduction", but this is not true for many: see Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, details of wars fought by Israel (such as occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank) are implied in the introduction, and one who did not know anything about the Middle East may wonder what was Israel doing there in the first place.
I cannot really see what is the issue here: the introduction is supposed to give a brief overview of the subject, and I find that talking about Israel without even mentioning the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has so many implications in Israel, in neighbouring countries and worldwide, is quite negligent. --Orzetto 10:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the articles you listed, and I didn't see long paragraphs on the wars they are in. Anyway, they aren't the same - Afghanistan and Iraq are currently at war, filled with foreign troops, Bosnia and Hezegovina is a very new country, and Chechnya isn't even a country. Preaky 22:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


This version is far superior to the frozen version I found several months ago. While might quibble with various details in it, It is on-balance NPOV. Hurray, the process works.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 06:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

External Links

The external links section just seems a bit too much; it consumes half of the table contents and adds a lot of unneeded bulk to the page; if I knew more about the subject matter I would trim it myself. Or perhaps just remove it from the TOC? Peyna 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the External Link subheadings from the TOC; I think it looks a lot cleaner now. It was a little distracting before. Peyna 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think most of the links there ought to be removed, I think many of the links there are unnotable or do not conform to Wikipedia policy about external links.--Doron 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right; I just didn't want to step into a page with so much discussion and work behind it and unilaterally delete most of those links. Peyna 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New section for Israeli Media

I've moved the list of Israeli media sources to a new section. There are two major uses for this list, a user may want to find an Israeli newspaper's website in order to read the news, or a user may want to know something about the media in Israel. When the list was in the external links section it couldn't be comprehensive or helpful to people who wanted to know about the media in Israel in general because it didn't make sense to add a link to one of the many Israeli newspapers in Arabic/Russian/Hebrew etc. that didn't have an online English edition. As a separate section it can be a comprehensive and fair guide to the Israeli media (which doesn't seem to exist outside of wikipedia) and it can also be useful to people who just want to find a link to the jerusalem post.

I do worry that it may require a separate article due to length.

GabrielF 00:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Map is outdated

Gaza is no longer "occupied" post unilateral disengagement. A newer map would be in order. Savidan 06:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of the name "Israel"

Regarding Jacob's assailant: If the original Genesis (in Hebrew) is referenced, the term "man" or "God" or (effectively, regarding the lack of reply to Jacob's questioning the assailant as to his name) "unknown assailant" can be used...but there is no latitude for using "angel" unless a different source is going to be used.

Reference: link

If someone would be so kind as to refer directly to the Tanakh source for all of this, we'll nip this whole issue in the bud, as I will very gladly defer to a *direct* translation from that holy source (which is also the source for the Christian Bible's Old Testament and, of course, Genesis).

--AustinKnight 22:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind...lo and behold...Wikipedia has the following in the Jacob article: "...a mysterious being ("a man", according to Genesis 32:24, or "the angel", according to Hosea 12:4) appeared and wrestled with Jacob until daybreak."

In other words, this will boil down to a choice between the Torah and Genesis or the Nevi'im and Hosea.

So...new question: is there any reason for picking Hosea over Genesis with respect to describing Jacob's assailant...? --AustinKnight 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See the commentary of Rashi which is one of the most accepted commentaries by religous Jews. See http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8227&showrashi=true --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes...and thank you for responding. We can see that he is clearly focusing on Hosea over Genesis. But do you know why? It seems odd, as Hosea is one of the 12 minor prophets. --AustinKnight 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My guess would be that you have the word G-d as the man that Jacob was wrestling with, now logically speaking it makes more sense to say that it was an angel of G-d, as opposed to a man. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Torah refers to the assailant as "a man" (Genesis 32:24) and after the struggle Jacob refers to the assailant as "G-d" (Genesis 32:30)...but there is no reference in Genesis 32:24-30 to an angel. Will stay with the current "fix" (literal-quotes for both Genesis and Hosea) if that's acceptable. --AustinKnight 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the 'fix' for the moment is to cite original quotations from the Tanakh. I'll do that for the time-being. It's possible that this is otherwise unsolvable, and I don't think we necessarily have to 'pick' one over the other. --AustinKnight 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I was taught that the name actually means "Ish Ra'a El" (איש ראה אל), i.e Man who saw/witnessed God Itamar 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Historical roots" section

  1. Where can I read about "mention of the name 'Israel' in Ancient Egyptian accounts of conquered lands in Asia minor, dating back to about 1500 BCE."? I only know of the mention (probably as a group of people rather than as a place) in the Merneptah Stele dated to approx 1210 BCE.
  2. Where can I read about "the remains of the First temple"?

--Zero 11:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding (1)- One of the most famous references is the Shishak Relief in Karnak, which describes the raid of Shishak on both Israel and Judah around 10th century BC (some say this is when the Ark of the Covenant disappeared forever). [1] [2] Sangil 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but my question was about a claim that used to be in the article about 1500 BCE, which is much earlier than any mention of "Israel" afaik. That claim is not in the article any more. --Zero 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Your'e welcome :) Sangil 00:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Archeology

"Much evidence has been tampered with over time, due to Muslim conquest, the Crusades, and more recently, an attempt by the Muslim Waqf to destroy acheological evidence on the Temple Mount." Note the spelling error before reverting. I am editing this inflammatory comment. --68.217.111.53 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


I have deleted the last sentence regarding the historical existence of King David and Solomon. Sufficient evidence is not supplied and reference link does not provide evidence.

Help Needed

Vote To Keep

Odd, Simpson seem to think his son was the one who adviced Sharon to pull out of the settlement. Was this an open secret or where did he pull that opinion from? See paragraph below.

"He certainly had a change of mind about the correct way forward, and seems to have been persuaded by his son Omri and others that it was essential to get rid of the settlements in Gaza, where two soldiers were needed to guard each settler."

Always find this to be a little odd. Some dude visiting a place and then its hell from there to infinity. Then again I am ethiest and this could explain why the whole thing look a little mindless See paragraph below

"This particular peace strategy ceased to exist on the day in 2000 when Mr Sharon ventured onto the precincts of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem (known to Jews as the Temple Mount) and sparked off a new intifada. The violence led to the defeat of Ehud Barak's government a few months later." [3]

It looks like this is the last nail to president Bush & prime minister Blair middle east peace. They would have loved to impose some order there to clean up their tarnished legacy, but hell will freeze over before that happen. Oh well, what a miserable world. See paragraph(s) below.

"On the Palestinian side, assuming that an election goes ahead later this month, Hamas seems likely to give a real drubbing to the ruling Fatah party, headed by Mr Abbas - if, that is, the election is a fair one.

In the past it was never entirely clear whether Hamas really wanted to form a government. Now its leader, Mahmoud Zahar, says it does.

"We are running for the Legislative Council to put an end to the vestiges of Oslo," he said at the weekend.

So by the spring an Israeli government led by Mr Netanyahu will probably face a Palestinian administration in which Hamas will be the strongest element.

After that, there will be no excuse for any politician or any commentator to use the phrase 'peace process' any more.

The Americans will be as strongly as ever on Israel's side, but demographics will be on the side of the Palestinians. And no one can be sure what the outcome will be this time."

One last thing, no censoring wikipedia. The world has to learn to live in an open manner,

moto for israel

what about Herzel's "If you will it ,it is not a legend" ? (Or a better translation if possible...the original was not said in hebrew I suppose) The Procrastinator 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


The translation I've usually heard is "If you will it, it is no dream", although I don't think that's any kind of official motto or anything, just a famous quote from Israeli history. Zkion 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

This article contains historical inaccuracies and no Palestinian perspective on events. Siddiqui 16:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point out the inaccuracies? Also, why should there be a Palestinian perspective on events? This article is about Israel, not Palestinians. It's true that if Israel (the article's subject) is criticised, then it should be noted, but there should not be an entire Palestinian perspective. Where is there an Israeli perspective in the article on Syria or Iran? I won't revert your change since there are many editors who watch this article and it will surely catch their attention, so we can reach a consensus, but I don't think simply putting a 'disputed' tag is very helpful, since an article as important at this probably won't keep a tag for long - either the problem will be fixed or it won't, but the tag will be deleted sometime soon anyway. -- Ynhockey 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Siddiqui, what do you want changing? You can't just slap a "totallydisputed" tag on just because the article contains something you don't like. What are the historical inaccuracies? When you find them, tell us and they will be corrected. Izehar 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well for one Siddiqui has a point. The General Assemby proposed a two state solution, but the resolution was never put forward to the security council. I guess what Siddiqui is trying to say that a lot of Palestinian Arabs (I use this term carefully because one should not assume being a Palestinian is the same as being of Arab origins, feel that one of the security council permanent member would have vetoed the resolution.
  • Yes but what does a two-state solution for Israel and a new state, consisting of Gaza and the Westbank (etc.) have to do with the article about the state of Israel and furthermore it being 'totally disputed'? -- My opininon is that the talkpage entry and the disputed tag were made to express a general discontent towards the state of Israel as a whole. Something's only 'totally disputed' if reality is totally/radically different from what is claimed, if it's not even existing or if someone lied. LIllIi 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I both disagree and agree with you Ran. I think 'Totally Disputed' heading is bit far fetched, although I believe there are some historical inaccuracies and misleading passages in the article, its intention is to give the reader a brief background on the State of Israel. It is however clear that the article is Israeli bias, for example at no point in the article does it say that Israel unilaterally declared independence which is a fact. The UN partition plan was a resolution that was not passed through to the security council, the Jews interpreted the vote as a victory while the Arabs were vehemently opposed to the plan since they could not accept losing even 1% of land they owned to foreigners regardless of whether or not the land was promissed to them. I also believe that 'the war of independence' is very misleading. It is true that the outcome of the war would effectively decide whether or not the Jews would be have their own homeland however the word independence is too lossely used, it would make the reader believe that the Jews fighting in the war were indigenous people when in fact the majority of which were European and Northern African immigrants. The Jews have a right to fight for their rights to practice their religion and live in peace, sadly it was at the expense of Palestinian Arab land which had been legally owned and farmed for hundreds of years if not thousands of years.
I think you don't understand how countries can become independent. First of all, why should there be a security council resolution? But anyway, the UN does not necessarily have to give out a resolution. Anyone can declare independence unilaterally. For example, I can claim my home as an independent country right now. The question is, who will recognize it? The moment most UN countries individually recognize a state, is the moment which it becomes a legitimate state. It seems to me simply like you have a pro-Palestinian bias. Also, please sign your name or register an account. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thats interesting, in the article, the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, yet all countries refuse to recognise it as its capital. All embassies and consulates are in Tel Aviv including Israel's strongest supporter the United States (please correct me if I'm wrong). You are right to say that any country can unilaterally declare itself independent as long as other states recognise its status as a viable independent state but lets face the fact that many countries were to some degree accountable for the genocide of Jews in the Second World War and many countries began to slowly recognise Israel as it was in their interest to side with a super power such as the United States so it was a mixture of sympathy, guilt and interests. The Palestinians can unilaterally declare independence and you can be sure that several states recognise it as a viable country but it will be certain none of the G7 countries will. In much the same way the majority of U.S allies in the latest war in Iraq were nothing more than bribed states, for example Slovakia received around USD 15 million for simply adding its name to the list of nations in support of the United States in the war against Terror. I promise to create an account as soon as possible. Apologies for remaining anonymous for the time being. I believe the Jews have a right to practice their religion and live in peace, all I'm saying its simply sad that it had to be at the expense of other people's freedom and human rights (under international law). I think the article needs to add some of the above points, Wikipedia should be a non-politically motivated source of information, I have no problems with the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.50.52 (talk • contribs).

Take a look at Capital, and tell me where it is stated there that a pre-requisite for a city being the Capital of a country is recognition by other countries.
-Sangil 10:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, by your logic and definition in Wikipedia, the capital of a future state of Palestine will be Jerusalem as well, as they have equal claim to it to being its capital? As far as the international community and international law are concerned, East Jerusalem is still deemed occupied, under Israeli law the city can never be divided, under international law the city cannot be run by one government. It appears that the people here are adhering to or ignoring definitions and international law when it suits their argument. The complication here is that Jerusalem is holy to three religions not only one and in my POV UN resolution 181 (Jerusalem as an internationally adminstered City) should be respected until further peace negotiations can take place, and not by force. Can you imagine how Israelis would feel if say there was a shift in superpowers and arms/money is poured to Palestinian who in turn invade all of Jerusalem calling its undivided capital? Historically, since this is what Israel's existence is based on, all three religions have an equal stake to the City. (At least there is a footnote next to Jerusalem in the article, maybe a paragraph can be added to discuss above?). {unsigned|12.42.50.52}} 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
First and only, there is no palestinian state. When and if will be one. than we could do smth. about it. For now it just your fantasies. -- tasc talkdeeds 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with "{unsigned|12.42.50.52}". Even developed and multi-cultural countries like Canada do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ([4]) --Ozzyprv 02:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the previous comment is totally clear. Other countries positions is absolutly irrelevant!!! -- tasc talkdeeds 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the statement that the four thousand people killed by Israeli forces were mostly millitants but a large amount of civilians have been killed. Firstly, how do we know that they were mostly millitants? Because Israel says they are? And secondly that statement makes no sense. It's saying both that Israel is completly justified because most of who they kill deserve it and that they are wrong for killing innocents.

Tasc, you may call it a fantasy but I call it a possibility. Its not my fantasy, in fact if anything its only reality. How can you expect peace without confronting the realities on the ground. Will those areas where Palestinian Arabs live be called 'Palestinian territories' indefinitely? Does Israel intend to slowly occupy and unilaterally declare the whole area as Israel, (which I'm sure the United States will eventually support)? Or will the existing border lines remain fixed? Will the wall act as a permanent or temporary border? Will Jews accept the right for Palestinians to live in a land that was promised to them by God. Will settlors in Palestinian territories pay tax to the Palestinian authority? Will the Palestinian Arabs forget about the issue of refugees and right to their homeland that has been affecting them for the last 50 years? We know Jews haven't forgotten about it for thousands of years. Will the United States remain a super power for another 50 years? Will a nuclear power (Iran) in the Middle East affect future negotiations? So I ask you, how can Jerusalem be the capital of Israel when the East is deemed occupied. Maybe West Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, how can the whole of it be its capital, because it says so? Things are not as black and white as stated in the definition of 'capital'. I can pose to you hundreds of definitions and extracts from international law and human right laws that Israel do not abide by. Is Israel above the law? Maybe. But having this stance can only create more problems: example Iran and many other radical countries are looking to explore and become a nuclear power (they ask themselves why they should abide by International Law when other countries don't have to. Its politics, there is no right and there is no wrong, this is why in POV the article on Israel should discuss these points and not simply state things as they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.50.52 (talk • contribs).

Euthanizethis

Blue from talis

Interesting apocryphal story I once heard, in that the stripes are blue because that is the color on a Sephardi talis. Ashkenazim have black stripes. Both are reminiscent of techeiles, the question being just how dark an indigo was the actual chilazon extract. Avi 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the darker color contrasts better with the white and that color should only be blue. I will look around for more clues though. Any other takers? gidonb 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I heard that the stripes on Ashkenazi tallesim are mourning over the destruction of the Beit hamikdash (Temple) -Epl18 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Map in Geography section

I think that as the edit war in Talk:Jerusalem/capital ended with "Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, although the status of the eastern part of the city is disputed." on the page, Jerusalem should have a star on it in the map, as right now Israel has no capital there, and I think this is slightly not NPOV. Again, refer to that Talk article for the entire dispute, that I'm pretty sure ended with this conclusion.

Also, and this is a more important issue, is it too much to ask to have the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights (well, at least the last two) in a different color than Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. While they may be disputed, they are not separate countries, as the map seems to imply. In most atlases, at least, I see them in a slightly different shade than Israel, but still not as separate countries. --Syxed 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention that the UN has passed more resolutions against Israel than any other country.

In the geography section? Why should we? Isarig
I agree about the map. I have another map of Israel not from the CIA, which is more detailed and was made by me, but it needs quite a bit of work to be fit for the main Israel article. I'll see what I can do. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 10:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have made a map from my other version, it took a while. But anyway, go here: Image:Israel wikipedia full.png, I can also upload the SVG but it's huge and probably not necessary for this. Since it was in SVG I didn't add a scale, but if you think it's absolutely necessary, I will. Please respond quickly (whoever is reading this). -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 18:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also wanted to note that if you have any suggestions for changes, they can be implemented very quickly, although please reply tomorrow at the latest as I'm gone again on Sunday. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the map, can it be put on the page now?--Syxed 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No way! Just a second. You'd like to put map as it is? It just horrible with those sliding towns names. Please, could someone fix it? --tasc 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is quite a good map. My own question: what is the criterion for including localities in the West Bank? We cannot imply that these localities belong to Israel. On the other hand, if the intention is to show major population centers, there seem to be some missing. --Zero 10:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that map is overloaded with information, I don't think that so many relatively small Israeli town should be shown. Anyway, the current size of letters (city's names) does the map totally useless. There is nothing to be seen in thumbnail. --tasc 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Recent history addition from CIA World Factbook

I copied some text from the CIA World Factbook (public domain) into the history section of the article. Original here:https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html. It needs paraphrasing, but I don't have time, and I think the article is much better with a verbatim copy of the factbook than with almost no information more recent than 1980. If someone has the time, it'd be much appreciated if you could improve the text.

That's not how things work here. Please refer to Wikipedia:Copyrights. The copyright-violation text will be reverted until you (or someone else) paraphrases it, if the content is not already in the article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook is in the public domain. There is no copyright violation. Jkelly 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted again.... Jkelly is right World Factbook is PD and therefore not subject to any copyrights. It would be nice to integrate it better though... but there even is an ongoing wikiproject to integrate the new factbook info from 2005 (most of the stuff we ahve is from 2000) Sasquatch t|c 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reoccupy Sinai, Gaza, and Don't cede the West Bank or the Golan.

Why is Israel negotiating with terrorists? Destroy Hamas and Hezbolla. In fact, it's time for another 6-Day war. Take everything west of the Euphrates. Deport all the resistance to camps in the desert and let them return to their nomadic ways terrorizing sheep and camels.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) .

Please use article Talk pages to discuss improvements to the article, rather than expressing opinions about the subject of the article. Thanks. Jkelly 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________

Shouldn't we merge in an article about Israel's right to exist, because it is very shaky and has been traditonally disputed. Mossadian 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Jkelly, that was a really random comment about a way too emotional comment. -- Israel's right to exist... I actually wanted to start writing 'if something exists, why does it need to prove that it has legitimate reason to exist?'. (Do others need to prove the contrary?) The idea of enhancing the article with a passage treating the claim that it has no right to exist would be too much in an article written and expanded because of the sustainable existance of Israel. LIllIi 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons Status

There seems to be a weight of evidence supporting the view that Israel does hold nuclear weapons, so perhaps the relevant section should reflect that. Here's an informative link: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ EdX20 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a more informative page on this topic in Wikipedia (why so many separate sub-pages, shouldn't all closely related articles be grouped under one subject?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction but the Military section here could be improved, I think. EdX20 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Those links should form part of the article. Here is another http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/statefct.asp Midgley 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference Request for Historical roots

There's plenty of unsourced material in this article but can someone please provide references for the following, in particular:

Throughout the centuries, the size of the Jewish population in the land fluctuated widely. Circa 1881, in the region approximating present-day Israel, the Jewish population numbered approximately 20–25,000 of a total population of 470,000.
Since 1844, in Jerusalem the Jews have constituted the largest of several ethno-religious groups. By 1896, they were an absolute majority of the population.

Thanks.--DieWeibeRose 06:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting to write edit summaries for my last two edits to the article.--DieWeibeRose 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Added source request templates to the "Historical roots" section.--DieWeibeRose 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The figures tagged as unverified in this section appear to come from Demographics of Jerusalem, which has major problems of its own (see Talk for that article). Humus sapiens, will you please show me which policy or guideline indicates that three "citation needed" tags and a section tag requesting sources constitutes "excessive"?--DieWeibeRose 10:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

DieWeibeRose, I have individually referenced some of the statements in this section. Please tag with individual {{ref}}s other statements for which serious doubts remain. Or is it just the 1881 data? gidonb 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The 1844 claim still does not have a reliable and reputable source. Mideastweb (Table 10) references Focus on Jerusalem, a "Biblical Prophecy Ministry" where the figure is undocumented.--DieWeibeRose 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

UN condemnation

Please provide reference to UN condemnation Jerusalem capital status. --tasc 09:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Well, POV box is good. I just don't see you contributing to the discussion --tasc 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See UNSC 478. --Ian Pitchford 10:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't find anything about condemnation there. Perhaps, better wording is needed. --tasc 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
UN General Assembly Resolution 36/120 adopted at the 93rd plenary meeting, 10 Dec. 1981. Article D, 6: “(…)rejects the enactment of a “Basic Law” by the Israel Knesset proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of Israel”. [5] (comment by Bertilvidet, forgot to sign, sorry)
Aparently, not the UN proclaims independent states capitals. --tasc 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course they don't. But why is it so important to leave this fact out of the article? Bertilvidet 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I was not saying about excluding this precious from the article. But neither "condemned" wording nor infobox cluttering is appropriate. --tasc 10:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. Hope we then can agree on the new wording. I removed the POV tag, but will put it back if a revert war (that I refuse to participate in) breaks out. Bertilvidet 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There should then be a footnote reference from the info-box. My limited skills in html coding make me afraid of leaving a mess if I try. Hope someone will provide the technical assistance. Bertilvidet 10:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


There should be a reference to the international condemnation of the State of Israel for breaking international law; specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) signed by the State of Israel in 1951. The State of Israel is the only state to claim that this Articel does not apply. RE http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Jerusalem population

Why is the population of Jerusalem treated in this article to such detail? This is not an article on Jerusalem. Besides, the information given is misleading. The 1844 figures were outliers for 19th-century estimates - most estimates don't show a Jewish plurality until about the 1870s. Also, the 1948 UN figures are for the corpus separatum of Jerusalem, not for Jerusalem city. It included Bethlehem and quite a few Arab villages in the surrounds of Jerusalem. --Zero 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

ISRAELI MAP

Israel no longer occupies sinai, that belongs to is Egypt since 1973. The map in the page is misleading, and must be fixed !

The map clearly shows Sinai as "Egypt". Look again. --Zero 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Shalom

Please support category Kurdistan against some biased users. Thank you very much. Diyako Talk + 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A fairly significant claim?

Hello.

Firstly, this is my first edit/follow-up discussion, so please excuse any protocol I may have neglected.

I was just reading some of this article, and in the "Establishment of the State" section, towards the end, there was the note: "Soon after the fighting broke out in Palestine between Arabs and Jews, (likely it was instigated by the Arabs in most places)...". There was no reference, and what I do know about the history of the area does not agree with such a general claim, or at the very least suggests disagreement and uncertainty about the specifics of the area. I removed the bracketed note as I feel that it adds no objective or valuable information to the section. If someone readded it with a reliable reference, I would have no objection.

Comments and feedback are quite welcome.

I can

Israel by Martin Gilbert (ISBN: 0-522-99545-2) backs up that statement over the course of a chapter, but i think that statement makes a rather moot point for this article, which can be better discussed in the relevant article where there is more room to expand upon it. I don't think that passage is particularly lacking without that sentence.

-- Lordandmaker 11:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Events during the British Mandate

There are several important events which took place during the British Mandate (most notably the 1936-1939 arab revolt and the Haganah/Etzel/Lehi struggle against Britain) which have no reference here. Shouldn't they at least be mentioned? Sangil 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on the importance of the events. Technically anything before 1948 does not deal with the State of Israel, which is what this article is about, but important events leading to Israel's creation are documented in the History section. If you think the events in question significantly contributed to Israel's creation or status, feel free to add them. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed your added section to the article and think the information in it is fit for the article. However, some sentences under Zionism and Aliyah deal with Jewish underground groups and the White Paper, and should probably be merged into the section. Moreover, please pay special attention to spelling and grammar, as well as NPOV terminology, when editing an article as important and frequently perused as this. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What errors in spelling/grammar are you referring to? I spell checked the text twice before adding it,so I'm curious to know :) Also, if you are referring to my use of 'expulsion' as non-NPOV, i think it is accurate. I mean, do you really think the British spontaneously 'abandoned'? Why would they willfully leave such a strategic location as Palestine? The truth is they were forced out by a combination of military actions (King David Hotel bombing, Acre prison escape, etc.) which caused them to appear as unable to control the situation, and major PR errors (e.g. Exodus) which caused them to totally lose public support both at home and in the world. But- until I bring references, I guess I'll leave the wording as it is... Sangil 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving to left
Errors:

  • Template main article - you used it incorrectly. Actually not a sp/gr mistake, but you should use the preview button to spot something like this.
  • betwwen instead of between in sentence 1.
  • Madate instead of Mandate in sentence 1 (noticed this one just now).
  • defence instead of defense in sentence 1 - not technically a spelling error, but a consistency error (articles already uses defense, therefore you must also use this spelling, or alternatively changed the spelling for the entire article, which is not a good idea).
  • Hagana instead of Haganah in sentence 3 - another consistency error.
  • Adherred instead of adhered in sentence 4.

I can't find any more at the moment (usually it would be visible through changes, but it's not because I added a space between paragraphs...), but there might've been one of two more. As for expelled vs. abandoned, saying the British were expelled by the Jewish underground is like saying that Israel was expelled from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, etc. While some may think it's true, and it may actually have a grain of truth, overall there were many factors other than Jews who made the British leave the mandate. For instance, the bad economic situation of Britain. Also there are a few terms, such as the War of Independence, which although can be used, should probably be kept to a minimum. Just like Nakba is not used much on Wikipedia, so shouldn't be a term viewed entirely pro-Israeli. Actually I support using this term personally, but the NPOV policy is very far-reaching. Practically everything you right here, can be said to be POV.

-- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is strange, because the errors you refer to were corrected by myself almost immediatly (as you can see in the article)- unless we were both editing the article at the same time..:)
Regarding use of "War of Independence"- since the independence of israel occured during, and was directly a result of this war, I find it odd that using this term is considered POV. Why not call the War of American Independence the "1776 Britain-American Colonies War"? It's completely ludicrous.
And yes, however much it pains me to admit it, the israelis were most definitely expelled from Gaza by Hamas. It is quite clear to any israeli, and I am curious to know where you heard otherwise. Why else did we leave? The economy? Or maybe the weather? No, it is because israeli soldiers were repeatedly killed. Just like Israel left Lebanon because of the 1997 Helicopter Disaster.
-Sangil 14:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was only Hamas that caused the Gaza pullout. Obviously they contributed to Sharon's decision (maybe they and other terrorists were the only cause), but Sharon wouldn't have succeeded if the overall population of Israel didn't want it. I mean, we all saw a bunch of orange ribbons before the disengagement, but I think most people in Israel supported the move. Many Israelis (especially the left) doesn't like settlers even more than they don't like Hamas :( -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but WHY did the majority of the population support the pullout? Was it because they like the palestinians? No, most israelis dislike them , if not outright despise them (blowing up buses did wonders in convincing israelis that palestinians are bloodthisty savages). Is it because Israelis believed that the pullout would increase security in israel? Quite the contrary (as recents events have shown). Or maybe because they hate the settlers? Only the extreme left (Meretz and such) have that gut-hate of settlers as you say (more than Hamas? In my inexpert opinion it is evident they all suffer from a major self-hate complex, and are pretty pathetic. But then that's just my opinion). Most Israelis either sympathize with them or are indifferent.
The answer then is- Israelis were tired of the fighting, and especially sick of soldiers dying. That is the reason Sharon (correctly) felt that the pullout would be accepted by the majority of Israelis.
-Sangil 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: I propose changing to "withdrawal of the British". If no one objects in the next few days, I will update the section.
-Sangil 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal seems like a more neutral term. I do not oppose it. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

infobox

Recent edits of mine to the infobox were repeatedly reverted or changed. The main question here is do my edits hurt the article or do they help the article. I have done similar edits to a vast number of pages without being reverted. So the question stands: Is there any compelling reason why English measurements should be removed from the infobox when it clearly serves a purpose and is intended to help a majority of the native Anglophones who read this article and others like it. Please go to the History tab (or click the links) and please compare the difference between before I edited the infobox [as of 02:31, March 20, 2006] and after my edit [as of 12:25, March 20, 2006]. This was also debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions. It is only appropriate to debate this here so that a consensus of sorts can be gathered and the article not suffer a revert war. Do you think this edit helps expand this article so that it is easier for more readers from different parts of the world to read and comprehend or not? MJCdetroit 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed this discussion from the MoS discussion. My perspective, as an American student of world history, is that US Customary units are not useful in this context. Territorial area is most often specified in metric units, even in American texts. Now, I have a broader interest in this than someone who may just want to know how many Israels will fit in Alabama. I normally support unit conversions, though I favor SI, but in this particular field (territorial area infoboxes) I think it's a little silly, since no serious discussion of that topic is ever held with those units.—Daelin @ 2006–03–21 06:02Z
i'm sorry to say so. but your edits to a vaste number of pages are useless as well. I'd suggest you removed them by your own. --tasc 07:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I would not say that, and I do think think such treatment will have any constructive results. MJCdetroit's edits have improved the presentation and consistency of a vast section of Wikipedia, doing work nobody can write a bot for and which most consider tedious. This is a simple query about the merits of including a set of units which is familiar to a large section of the article's audience. I see no reason this ad hominem.—Daelin @ 2006–03–21 11:47Z

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Israel has been reopened by request, but no mediator has yet been assigned to the case. Please be patient. -- Fullstop 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation: I suggest someone cite some sources for these numbers (official government statistics if possible) in the evidence section of the above-mentioned mediation case. This might help mediation. Incidentally, the question whether all articles should/should not be required to provide both units of measurement might be considered to a policy issue (and thus transcend mediation), and should perhaps be discussed in a Wikipedia:Request for comment. -- Fullstop 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is needed, but here is a source which has detailed areas of Israel: [6]. Granted, some of the areas used in the article cannot be directly taken from that source and need to be calculated, which shouldn't be a problem. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 is now open. -- Fullstop 08:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Give Caesar what is Caesar's

It's too bad that both muslims and jews fight over this piece of land because of religious reasons. For all I care the country of Israel could be renamed Piece of Land and have a completely secular government. Religion shouldn't be used to justify war or military occupations. God does not belong to any government or political party. This unsigned comment was left 17:20, March 26, 2006 by 168.243.222.28

Its too bad that the muslims attacked the jews because they hate them and want them completely wiped off the map with their country. 1948 and Yom kippur wars. And why is the title "Give Caesar what is Caesar's"? Caesar was driven off by by germanic tribes. Epl18 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add oc:Israèl

Please add the link to the article in the Occitan Wikipedia. Thank you oc:User:Joao Xavier

someone has done it. 12:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Can't correct this myself due to the lockout, but the latest map is currently described as a "Relief Map of Isreal" Can anyone clean this up? 130.15.190.219 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has dealt with this problem. -Reuvenk[T][C] 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Groups of people in Israel

The section where it says "...of Israel's 6.9 million people, 76.2% were Jews, 19.5% Arabs..."

I think it should include somewhere that the Arabs are gentiles (Muslims, Christians, Druzes) because obviously there are Israeli-Arab Jews, and they should fall under "Jews", but they are still Arabs at the same time, so they would also fall under "Arabs", and that doesn't work out.

There is no such thing. You may be referring to Jews who have immigrated from Arab countries, but they are in no way considered Arab by anyone.
-Sangil 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
While nothing is inherently wrong with it, the designation Arab Jews is quite unpopular among the population it is supposed to describe. Very few people exist who like the concept to describe them, one of which seems active here on Wikipedia. The concept gentiles is not used is in a secular framework anymore. gidonb 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean there is no such thing? There are still many Arab nations with Jewish communities. Just because they are not referred to as Arabs doesn't mean that it's not there language, culture, their ethnicity. Arab Jews have a right to their Arab heritage as any other Arab. So Wikipedia now is keeping the truth from the people who cannot handle it now? Arabs Jews are ARAB Jews, meaning they are ARAB. They speak ARABIC, they live in the ARABIC culture, they are part of the ARAB nations, the ARAB ethnicity. And now Arab Jews are offended when they are called Arabs? Isn't that self hating? I've read many things on this site that have personally offended me, but I have never tried to keep it from others.
Sorry buddy but once again you are confused about something. Arab Jews are not "Arab", it was just a term that was used to describe where some Jews had lived. For those users you had not read this anon's previous assertions, he has claimed that there had been "mass conversions" by gentiles to Judaism in the centuries and millenia past. The "source" for this claim is a book called "Comprehensive History of the Jews of Iran" by Habib Levy, which offers no support for his assertion, apparently this user misinterpreted either a passage about zorastrian and Jewish conversion *to* Bahaism, or a differernt passage describing the conversion of the upper crust of the Khazar people to Judaism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I admit to saying that. Lots of Iranian Jews (Iranian in the sense of 'Iranic') are not descendants of Jewish faith Hebrew immigrants, but Iranian converts from thousands of years back. There were Persian towns in ancient Iran that were converted to Judaism, along with several cities and provinces in ancient Kurdistan. This makes sense to me, because anti-Semitism didn't exist thousands of years back. I am not misinterpreting ANYTHING. The passage I am talking about in Iran refers to PARTHIAN times; Bahaism clearly didn't exist yet. I am not trying to put any of this on the website, because my source isn't online, therefore I cannot prove my views. In addition, quoting my book would be a bad idea as well; people might believe I am lying about what the book said. So do not ask for a source please. What I am saying is widely known and I do not understand why gentleman such as yourselves haven't heard anything about these conversions I speak of. 69.235.239.168 06:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, that is NOT the name of the book. It is called "History of the Jews of Iran". The passage has nothing to do with Bahaiism, so please don't go walking around on Wikipedia trying to correct me when you are the one in fact misinterpreting things. It is also interesting how you are telling people my IRRELEVANT previous statements, as if they are going to say "this anon is a fool, leave him". My statements are 100% true and I am not even trying to put those on this site so stop doing these childish things and get back to ISRAEL. THAT IS THIS ARTICLE. Not Jewish Iranians.

Actually Friend, it's not widely known. In fact its widely known that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are telling me that there weren't conversions in ancient Persian and Kurdish areas? Source? What makes you think that? Not all Jews are Jewish faith Hebrew immigrants from ancient Israel, whether you like it or not.

Failed GA

Articles references section needs to be brought up to standard.

--CommonGround 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The references now conform to the Cite.php standard. Green Giant 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your edit, GG, because you had added descriptions to the embedded links, which goes against WP:CITE, the relevant guideline. What is the Cite.php standard? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate why a wholesale revert was necessary including mispelt external links and why the existing descriptions in embedded links are acceptable. Green Giant 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It would have been tricky to retain good edits and delete bad ones, and I saw you had added quite a few descriptions to the links, so I reverted. If there are other links like that in the article, they should go too. Can you say what the Cite.php standard is? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, I shouldn't have moved the descriptions in the first reference such as for the embassies. In the rest of the references, the descriptions refer to the wepages themselves, to make them easier to locate than just the address. For example, references 12 and 13 were to a specific pdf and the description is only of the title of the document and the source of the document. Anyway it is better you reverted as I note I made a couple of errors. By cite.php, I was referring to meta:Cite.php but it isn't really a standard so much as a citation tool. Green Giant 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No worries. The drawbacks of adding descriptions to links is, first, that the reader may not realize they're being taken off-site until it's too late; second, if another link is added later to source the same material, the link included as a description will appear to be the authoritative one; and third, if you add a description, the links can't be remembered or referred to as numbers, which can be useful. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Good points, but I would add that the references as they stand are not informative enough. In most of the references I was trying to use the Template:Cite web as that gives enough detail to allow a reader to search for the source in the event of a dead external link. I believe it would improve the references section in the way CommonGround was requesting above. Are you amenable to cite:web being used for the references with fewer parameters such as url, title, and access details? Green Giant 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If we're using embedded links, the full citation should be in the References section. I'm not familiar with the citation styles you're suggesting. Can you show me examples? Alternatively, we could change to the <ref> footnote system. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
With cite.php, the citation is added into the text itself, but the <references/> tag collects the information and presents it in the References section. For an example look at the article on AIDS which uses this style. Green Giant 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually GG, you were right and I was wrong, so I've reverted myself to your version. I'm sorry for reverting all your work. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No worries, my original edit had some errors anyway, but I've fixed them now. Green Giant 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

Deficiencies fixed, article passes GA review.

--CommonGround 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive edits by 69.251.8.216

I object to the anon's massive edit/expansion of History section. First, this is supposed to be a short summary of a subarticle History of Israel. Second, I am noticing a certain political slant. This is news to me: a buffer zone was maintained until May 2002 when Israel unilaterally returned to Lebanon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Israel (disambiguation)

I put in this header line:-

This article is about the nation. For other meanings, see Israel (disambiguation).

and someone promptly deleted it. Why can't Israel have a pointer to other meanings of the word, any more than many other pages whose names have other meanings? Anthony Appleyard 05:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should ask gidon, what on earth was that? I mean two last edits -- tasc talkdeeds 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link should be there. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Gidon

Wtf? do you see diff? what is that supposed to mean? there is no claims about arabic being semii-official language... -- tasc talkdeeds 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See my answer on your talk page. I apologize for not checking and this system problem. Will fix the edit immediately. gidonb 09:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If the comment is not about the status of the languages it should not be in the info box. The info box is for the very basic facts, not for discussions. gidonb 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Name and Flag

I edited this section for a few reasons. Firstly, it's an unusual thing to have at the top of a country article. Secondly, the two issues are not obviously related. Thirdly, what was said about the flag was not a useful summary of the contents of the separate article Flag of Israel, to which there is already a link in the info box. Fourthly, the top of a country article is not the place for detailed scriptural discussions - although I quite happily kept the references in a footnote. Finally, the important thing to get across in discussion of the name is that the terms Israelite, Jew and Israeli all have important differences. Discussing the etmology of the word 'Jew' at this point in this article is just confusing, but a distinction between Israelite and Israeli is, arguably, relevant. If these differences are judged to be a subtle point, then maybe the whole section should not be placed so prominently in the article. Since tasc reverted my edits without putting any justification, I am restoring my edits and look forward to hearing his (and others') views here. Nomist 13:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection over Yom Ha'atzmaut?

Wondering if it's worth protecting this article over Yom Ha'atzmaut? I don't know what vandalism's been like on this topic in previous years, though. -- Lordandmaker 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsrael_Archive_9_550d.html"