Talk:Israel/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 update needed for israeli GDP 2 Utter Disgrace 3 Intro, again 4 Scientific papers per capita 5 culture in israel 6 GDP per capita is $26,800 and not $26,200. 7 Misleading Introduction 8 order of introduction 9 State of Israel borders. 10 Last changes 11 Images 12 Article missing information 13 Bias 14 Bias, cont. 15 Zionism and the British Mandate (History Section): suggested improvements 16 Palestinian Exodus 17 Recent changes 18 Controversy 19 References needed 20 Gilabrand's image 21 plagiarism

[edit] update needed for israeli GDP

IMF increases Israel's per capita GDP to $31,767

The International Monetary Fund has raised Israel's per capita gross domestic product in purchasing power parity terms, placing the country at number 18 in the world up from the 21 spot previously.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188197182339&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.255.68 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a forecast. Let's wait until 2007 is over before we add it as a fact...--Doron 08:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utter Disgrace

How dare the editors, mention the occupied East Jerusalem and Hebron as a part of Israeli land. These areas were seized during the 6 day war, and they are not recongnised as Israeli land by the International community, but simply occupiers, hense the thought of the two state solution. This article has distroted the facts far enough, its time to stop this injustice and propaganda. I demand it be edited as quickly as possible. Any occupier does not have this power. And if the cowards are mentioning this, why have they failed to clearly state that Israel is a occupier nation. Cowardly attempt to make stuff up86.132.112.148 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You demand? Wow. Get over yourself.

And just as a reminder to anyone thinking of acting on this, please note that the article carefully distinguishes between Pre-1967 Israel, areas under Israeli law (like East Jerusalem) and disputed/occupied territories controlled in part by Israel but not under Israeli law (most of the West Bank).Schrodingers Mongoose 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop filling wikipedia with lies then. Heborn is in the West bank, just like E.J. dont tell me its under israeli law, because if that was the case, why are the thousands of Palestinians not treated the same as Israelis. The Palestinians that live in Hebron and the West Bank, should deserve the same rights the Israelis get inorder for this article to say ||palestinian territory||. And the settlements are illegal, that is why the Israel Prime minister has recently started its order of dismantlement. Israel can never get peace, if it continue its mass genocide and dispacement. 86.138.101.18 01:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? If there are errors, please cite sources that demonstrate this. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

thats stupid, find evidense to prove fact incorrect?, surely its the other way around. find evidense to prove facts right. theres no cite sources which say hebron 'belongs' to israel. on the other hand, you dont need to go far to see that israel is a occupier nation that denies the civilians of the occupation the rights they deserve under any occupation. 86.132.116.109 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe give us an example from the article of what you are saying. Where in the article is it written that "Hebron belongs to Israel" ? Benjil 16:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

well, its not a maybe, its just plain common sense, lol? you dont make claims without cites. and hebron is mentioned several times, i appreciate that sometimes it was suitable to mention it, but talking about hebron under the religion section is ridicilous. firstly this article is about israel, not the religion of judaism and its stupid to say the jews bla bla in hebron, secondly you shouldnt mention hebron under this section as it gives the impression that hebron is in israel (belongs to israel) which it does not, but is a disputed area. i say that because you dont see canadian cities listed on the american wiki, french on the spanish, kashmir on either pakistan and india, so it doesnt make sense, further more it is disrespect for the displaced palestinians that live in hebron.

if you want to talk about hebron, also talk about the fact that israel is an occupier nation, and that the international community sees there occupation as illegal following the rules of the fourth geneva convention bla bla. and it does not also allow the settlements that are made in the west bank, e.j and hebron (the main three) are also illegal, (that is why the israeli prime minister has demanded some to be dismantled (hebron recently))86.132.120.120 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Hebron exactly four times:

1. "In the 16th century, the pace stepped up, and large communities were established in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias." (from Zionism and the British Mandate) - describes the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel and immigration to it.
2. "At the end of the 1990s, Israel, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, withdrew from Hebron" (from The first fifty years, 1950s-1990s) - do you have a problem with this one?
3. "Of those, over 267,000 Israeli citizens lived in the West Bank[128] within numerous settlements, including Ma'ale Adummim, Ariel, and a handful of communities, such as Hebron and Gush Etzion..." - the fact that these people don't live in Israel proper is clear. If we claimed Hebron is "in Israel", we wouldn't bother making the distinction, would we?
4. "Other landmarks of great religious importance are located in the West Bank and include the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem." - Again, it's clear that these landmarks aren't in Israel proper, but are mentioned since they're under Israeli control.

I rest my case. okedem 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, in regards to the fourth item: the part about the West Bank was removed on August 7 (UTC) and I put it back this morning. -- tariqabjotu 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be a section about isreal offering the 25,000 iranian jews money (upper limit of $60,000) to leave iran, and their use of bombs in 1950 to scare 130,000 iraqi jews back into isreal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.218.19 (talk) 19:38, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The first isn't notable. The second isn't true. okedem 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion scares me in that an anti-semite can come on and try to distort facts and use this forum to promote his/her political views. i commend okedem, schrodingers mongoose, and others for having such patience and self control that i would not and do not have. The fact is that all countries are occupiers of territory! no group of people has had a continous government control over land since the time of cavemen! if israel is considered by this person/persons of being an occupier then yes that territory is israels! otherwise we'd have a mess with what to call california since 1848! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.142.254 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro, again

I have issues with the second paragraph of the intro:

Israel declared its independence in 1948 after the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, in November 1947. Israel was admitted as a UN member in 1949. Since Independence, Israel has been at war with many of its neighbours, and many of its borders are disputed.

It's an awfully short paragraph and misleadingly implies that the U.N. Partition Plan's Jewish state is today's Israel. So... I propose something between this paragraph and the lengthy paragraph that previously resided in its place:

Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisra'el), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.^[1] Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority.

The modern state of Israel has its roots in the land of Israel, which has been central to Judaism for four thousand years and, more recently, significant to other Abrahamic religions. In 1948, after the United Nations approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, Israel declared its independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those conceived by the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, with confrontations including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Nevertheless, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and numerous other conferences and agreements, have attempted to bring peace to Israel and the region.

Today, the population of Israel is about 7.1 million, with a large Jewish majority. While Israel is home to both Jews and Arabs, as well as a large number of Christian and other minority groups, it is the world's only Jewish state.^[2][3] Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city.^[4] Due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.^[5] Despite Israel's political problems and the vast sums it spends on military defense, Israel is an active competitor in the global market and is considered the most progressive in the region in terms of freedom of the press,^[6] business regulations,^[7] economic competition,^[8] and overall human development.^{[9] [10][11]}

-- tariqabjotu 21:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu, firstly thanks for your comments the other day. I am responsible for removing the lengthy history section from the intro as I think we should try to avoid unnecessary repetitions and verbiage and there was a history seciton in place. I left the line about the UN as I think that UN membership legitimates a modern state and it seemed right for the intro. I have no objection to your correction iexcept that I think your last sentence is akward and wordy: "Nevertheless, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and numerous other conferences and agreements, have attempted to bring peace to Israel and the region." I suggest "Since 1977 Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and efforts have been made to reach agreement with the Palestinian leaderhip." Telaviv1 09:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a correction to the 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence, of Tariqabjotu's suggested insertion. That sentence currently reads, "Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, with confrontations including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War." While technically true, this creates the historically inaccurate impression that Israel initiated the referenced conflicts. Therefore I suggest the following historically accurate alternative sentence: "Since then, many of Israel's neighboring Arab countries have been in conflict with Israel, with confrontations including the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War." Sandgolds 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Sandgolds

I don't see how the former wording implies that Israel started those conflicts any more or less than the latter sentence. I would not have an issue with your wording but for the fact that "Israel" is used twice instead of just once. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific papers per capita

I removed a statement saying Israel has more scientific papers per capita, but Beit Or re-added it saying "the statement is reliably sourced, the link cited is not about per capita". The second part of that edit summary is not true. From the American Chemical Society:

An analysis by NSF gives a guide to the scientific productivity of nations. Based on the most recent data available (from within the 2000-to-2003 range) for each country, it is expressed as the number of science and engineering articles published per year per million inhabitants. [emphasis added]

Of 157 nations ranked, the U.S. ranks 12th at 707 papers per million. The top six are smaller nations, with Sweden at 1,137; Switzerland, 1,120; Israel, 1,018; Finland, 974; Denmark, 933; and the Netherlands at 800. The U.K., at 796, ranks the highest among larger nations at seventh. The worldwide average is 108 papers per million.

Divide the figures by a million apiece and you have straight per capita (with the rankings unchanged). The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, but they are a media source and probably did not research this matter themselves. Instead, they probably got this information from sources such as this one that are from the Israeli government, who has a vested interest in exaggerating Israel's status in this ranking and/or has outdated information. The article from the American Chemistry Society, on the other hand, comes from November 2006 (after the writing of the JP article) and cites the source of its data – the National Science Foundation, an organization that is certainly qualified to do the pertinent research. They also have no apparent reason to rank Sweden and Switzerland (and not the U.S.) above Israel in this matter. So, if anything, the article should say Israel is third in this field. However, I do not believe there is a need to attempt to pinpoint its exact position. Israel's contributions to the sciences are already amply detailed throughout the rest of the section. -- tariqabjotu 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument is based on a string of false premises. The idea that The Jerusalem Post took its data from the Israeli government is completely baseless. Likewise, the claim that the Israeli government gives a favorable spin to the information (in other words, that it is lying) reflects only an editor's personal opinions and/or prejudices. Yet more questionable was the action, If there is a contradiction between two reliable, then either both sources must be presented (to comply with WP:NPOV) or it must be decided which source is preferable under the circumstances. Tariqabjotu's decision to remove the material altogether did not improve the article and thus was correctly reverted. Beit Or 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the claim that the Israeli government gives a favorable spin to the information (in other words, that it is lying) reflects only an editor's personal opinions and/or prejudices. That statement, heavily implying that I am prejudiced against Israel and/or Israelis, couldn't be farther from the truth and is derived from a perfectly valid statement that covers both explanations for the ranking disparity. Anyway, I will bypass the diversion, and allow you to find a third-party scientific source with data more recent than that published by the American Chemistry Society and National Science Foundation that corroborates the claim made in the article. If you can find that source comparable to the one I presented, I will gladly concede the point made in the article.

But, in the meantime, let's look at the two sources we have – one from The Jerusalem Post and the other from the American Chemistry Society. One is a media source and the other is a scientific source. Which is more relevant to the fact? (The latter.) One was published less recently, in August 2006, and one was published more recently, in November 2006. Which source is more pertinent? (The latter.) One does not cite where it received its data and the other does (citing from an established scientific foundation, at that). Which source is more reliable? (The latter.) Thankfully, I don't have to wrestle with you over which of those questions should take precedence, because all three point to the same source – the one that places Israel as third by this measure.

If you want to talk about neutrality, neutrality would be call for saying its "either first or third" (which, in my opinion, sounds ridiculous for such a minor point), making a blanket statement that covers every angle (i.e. saying "it's among the most"; this could work I suppose, but again this fact is so minor), or removing it altogether. I chose the last option. You chose the option of using the less reliable, more outdated source. That's not just an issue of neutrality, but an issue of factuality. If anything, you should have placed Israel third. Try formulating a sentence that fits that in. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's get our facts straight. While the ACS article was published in 2006, it relies on data from 2001-2003. I don't know where the JP got its info from, but it is quite conceiveble that the data is from a later period. Second, the ACS article refers to "science and engineering articles", wheras the JP article refers to "Scientific" papers, so it's quite possibel that we're talking about apples and oranges. In any case, it was inappropriate to completely remove the section - at best , you could have changed it to "ranked among the top 3". Isarig 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Isarig; it was the action, not the argument, that was the most reprehensible. Beit Or 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it was inappropriate to completely remove the section No, not at all. -- tariqabjotu 05:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] culture in israel

The culture section before I edited it was a disaster (and still needs much work). The English was poor and the information clearly written by someone who doesn't have a clue about Israel or Israeli culture. If someone has specific information that will improve it, fine, but going back to the nonsense that was there previously is unacceptable.--Gilabrand 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had enough. I've disagreed with you and others on pieces throughout the process of improving this article, but I have never resorted to back-handed ("Certain editors are trying to monopolize this page and push an Arab agenda"), presumptuous ("The phrase "I take issue" already shows me you are in a militant state of mind."), inflammatory ("If tariq tries to remove my edits, I will declare an edit war"), exaggeratory ("umpteenth time"), and simply insulting comments. If you think you can do better, be my guest. But perhaps you should also spend some time examining how destructive some of your comments have been. -- tariqabjotu 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy the battle, I assure you, but your methods of reversing what anyone else has written (and not only me), rather than putting in a correction where needed, is presumptuous, inflammatory and destructive, to use your terminology. If you think that another sentence is necessary to balance the article out, I can understand that and will gladly work with you to find a compromise. What I will not accept is these blanket reverts, accompanied by statements to the effect that I have ruined some great masterpiece of English style and historical accuracy that was there before. Oh, and my comment on someone else's user page makes no mention of you. Could you be jumping to conclusions? On the whole, the article is slowly improving, and I hope we can work together to make it better and more accurate. One of the major problems I see is that in trying to condense the information into a few sentences, causal relationships are being introduced that are inaccurate, such as stating that Israel is doing well in high tech and linking that to the influx of Russians with college degrees. Also, important information that is crucial to the development of Israel and Israeli mentality is being glossed over as unimportant. An example is the Adolf Eichmann trial, where the text reads as if he were some ordinary Nazi that Israel decided to execute just for the heck of it. Another example is leaving out major reasons for the outbreak of a war, as if Israel launches wars without any provocation. These omissions are unacceptable. If there were only one such instance, I wouldn't make a big deal, but the text is full of such inaccuracies and my goal is to correct them. --Gilabrand 18:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your criticism of my "methods" is overshadowed by the fact that these allegations have persistently been false, exaggeratory, and hypocritical, especially in the context of your actions.

• your methods of reversing what anyone else has written (and not only me), rather than putting in a correction where needed, is presumptuous, inflammatory and destructive – Please enlighten me as to how uncapitalizing century, adding a conjunction, moving a period, removing an incorrect date, and removing forced line breaks (as explained in the respective edit summaries) are not considered corrections, while this edit, reverting every one of the preceding edits and without an explanatory edit summary, is. I'm also curious as to how you would characterize "If tariq tries to remove my edits, I will declare an edit war", when you consider the words "I take issue" as "militant".
• If you think that another sentence is necessary to balance the article out, I can understand that and will gladly work with you to find a compromise. – I'm not sure what you believe I'm trying to balance out. However, until now, it appears your idea of gladly working with me is reverting to your version of things, exaggerating (and complaining about) my actions, and demanding that I be the one to initiate all discussion regarding our competing positions on matters. The only time you have contacted me on my talk page about this article was on July 18, when you alleged that I was reversing your edits "one by one". I, on the other hand, have contacted you on your talk page before making edits several times – regarding the museums per capita piece, the capitalization of diaspora, the use of the phrase "unrelenting shelling", the use of "Second Lebanon War", and the use of an image. I have also started similar types of discussions on this talk page (including in the section just preceding this one).
• What I will not accept is these blanket reverts – This is an exaggeration. My previous two points address this matter sufficiently.
• statements to the effect that I have ruined some great masterpiece of English style and historical accuracy that was there before. – About historical accuracy, I'm not sure what you're referencing. As for the part regarding "ruin[ing] some great masterpiece of English style", this is another exaggeration; I have not claimed you have ruined some great masterpiece of English or said anything that gets close to suggesting that. Your argument is further weakened by your own, direct claim that I write in "substandard English" as well as your comment in this very section that the "English was poor". Why do you have an issue with me mentioning the quality of a paragraph as lessened (thanks, in part, to a few misleading elements which I'll get to later in this response), but feel entitled to mention writing quality as well?
• Oh, and my comment on someone else's user page makes no mention of you. Could you be jumping to conclusions? – I'm not stupid; you were obviously talking about me. I'm not very fond of you and others using hints that I am (or anyone else, if you prefer, is) motivated by some pro-Arab or anti-Israel stance as a means to form defenses. They're baseless and irrelevant and I'd thank you and Beit Or to cease making them immediately.
• One of the major problems I see is that in trying to condense the information into a few sentences, causal relationships are being introduced that are inaccurate, such as stating that Israel is doing well in high tech and linking that to the influx of Russians with college degrees. – Inaccurate? Okay, how would you interpret this sentence – "Nearly one million educated immigrants from the former Soviet Union, 40 percent of whom hold academic degrees, have been absorbed into Israeli society and helped spark Israel's high-tech boom." – from the Consulate-General of Israel in New York?
• Also, important information that is crucial to the development of Israel and Israeli mentality is being glossed over as unimportant. – Are you referring to this? I don't see how the number of Jews stateless in Czechoslovakia or the amount of money Jews needed to migrate freely is essential (we do have a History of the State of Israel article). I might be able to see the sentence beginning with "The Arab riots...", but I still think it sounds like a non-sequitor to the average reader.
• Another example is leaving out major reasons for the outbreak of a war, as if Israel launches wars without any provocation. – I'm not sure how to respond to this one because I have no idea what you're talking about. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to remind you that there's a difference between mentioning the circumstances surrounding the start of a war and cardstacking against the Arab nations to the point where the reader has no choice but to say "Oh yeah, Israel was forced to do it". As far as I can tell, the article does not contain cardstacking. However, if some look at the facts surrounding particular wars and decide in their minds that "Israel launches wars [or 'launched a war'] without any provocation", that is their prerogative; you're going to have to be okay with that.
• An example is the Adolf Eichmann trial, where the text reads as if he were some ordinary Nazi that Israel decided to execute just for the heck of it. – I don't understand how "an implementer of the Final Solution" understates his role in the Holocaust. Did you just assume I "blanket revert[ed]" every single edit you made and not notice I left that part (and many of your other changes)? Or are you objecting to the fact that I removed "chief of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo"? Or were you talking about prior to your edit that introduced that element? If the second is the case, you don't address that in your comment above. If the last circumstance is the case, I don't know why you'd be bringing this up.
• If there were only one such instance, I wouldn't make a big deal, but the text is full of such inaccuracies and my goal is to correct them. – Fine, correct them. But if you're going to alter statements that are sourced, and there are many, you can't just alter things because you think you know better. You have to provide a better, more reliable, and/or more updated source. Regarding the paragraph in the Culture section I reverted (and you, in turn, reverted again), my issues can be summarized as follows: your paragraph (a) suggests Israeli literature is just Hebrew literature and does not include, for instance, Arabic- and English-language literature (not true?), (b) neglects to mention the other (non-printed) media the National Library must receive (from here), (c) by simply saying receives two copies instead of supposed to receive two copies, you are ignoring the widespread non-compliance to the Library law (as, again, noted here), and (d) does not mention that Agnon only won half the Nobel Prize (noted here).

I too don't enjoy battling you. I would love to see this article featured (and it's oh-so-close). However, I think we're going to have some serious trouble accomplishing that goal if you keep assuming bad faith toward my edits. I'm not here to steamroll over others or not listen to others' opinions or promote a pro-Arab agenda; I thought this was quite clear from my actions regarding this article, but you have refused to take notice. Your edit summary threatening to "declare an edit war" was the final straw for me, demonstrating that you'd rather blow any content disputes between us out of proportion, rather than work toward compromise; I have yet to hear why you objected so greatly to every one of my changes you made during that revert. I'm looking forward to that explanation. (See also: Talk:Israel/Archive_21#Monopolizing_the_article.) -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The culture section needs something about Israeli theatre and a link to Yiddish theatre. Perhaps also a mention of Habima the national theatre. Telaviv1 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Habima National Theatre is both mentioned in the body and pictured. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDP per capita is $26,800 and not $26,200.

please correct

Please cite sources and explain why they are more accurate than existing sources. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

not inaccurate, just outdated. see e.g., cia factbook and various economic publications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.68.42.80 (talk) 12:10, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Again, you need to be specific. If you can show that a new source is more accurate and/or up-to-date than an existing source, list both sources and the reasons you believe the new one should be used. If there is consensus, the change will be made and maintained. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He was specific enough; the CIA World Factbook says $26,800. The Economy section has the correct statistic, but the infobox is outdated. I'll fix it. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be due to the amount of money with which the US subsidises "Israel" . That's my guess. It averages out at $900 per Jewish person. Strange they don't pay it to Arab residents but hey that's another story. When Wikipedia allows the historical truth to be told http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/78601.stm I'll believe Wikipedia is a source of information until then it's just a US-centric propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.27.193 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Introduction

I find one aspect of the second paragraph to be problematic: "The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those conceived by the UN Partition Plan." It omits the cause of Israel's border expansion, leaving open to interpretation whether Israel provoked such expansion. Considering that critics of Israel frequently use the argument that Israel is an "expansionist" state, it may be appropriate to include the context for such border expansion. Is there a NPOV way of saying that upon its creation, Israel was subsequently attacked by five neighboring countries. This is significant historically, and it is appropriate because in many way that first war defined the most basic foundations of Israel. Monitorer 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be plenty NPOV to say it just as you have. "Upon its creation, Israel was attacked by five neighboring countries, acting in violation of the UN Partition Plan. The subsequent Arab-Israeli War ended with expanded borders for the Jewish state, beyond those originally conceived of by the Plan." Or something to that effect. LordAmeth 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Except then, you might also have to mention that Jewish militias went outside the borders of the partition plan allocated to them by the UN before the Arab armies entered the scenario. Perhaps better to leave it simple? Tiamat 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what you're referring to Tiamut. Can you provide a reliable source? To my knowledge - and this seems to be historical consensus - Israel's attackers were unprovoked at the moment the State was created. Now if you're referring to militias prior to Israel's creation, that is not within the context of this article. I am referring to strictly to the "expansionist" implications in that sentence. If we are to address that point only, these militias you talk about are irrelevent. Monitorer 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject I should point out that Israel was not "created" in 1948, it merely declared itself an independent state. The state, such as it was, already existed. I am going to take up LordAmeth's suggestion and change the textTelaviv1 10:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Would you like to clarify that? The state was created on May 14th, 1948. Before that, the area was governed by the UK. okedem 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to again express my objection to the (current) second paragraph of the introduction. It, in this form, misleadingly suggests that the borders established by the UN Partition Plan form the State of Israel (and obviously that is not true). We need to have something in there that mentions expansion of the State beyond those original borders. We don't need to mention the Six-Day War, but the territory captured during the Arab-Israel War is crucial.

(```) International Law UNGA 181 established the State of Israel. State of Israel Declaration of Independence itself refers to UNGA 181: where the foundation for the layman's term "right-to-exist" orginates from. UNGA 273, recognition of Government of State of Israel and admission of State of Israel to UN membership, also specifically refers to Israel obligations to UN Charter, specifically of [ph 5.]"Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 (UNGA 181) and 11 December 1948 (UNGA 194).

The expiration of UNGA 181, Part I., A., [ph] "1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but not later than 1 August 1948." is in referene to UK's international law obligations as Trustee for the territory which now was under UN organization Trusteeship itself, UN Charter Article 81 "...such authority, hereinafter called the administering authority, may be...the organization itself."; being placed in said UN Trusteeship in accordance with Article 77., a., & d. of which the resulting action was UNGA 181. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloah (talk • contribs) 23:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'd like to express my objection to edit summaries alleging "censorship" and "POV edits". I have a greater issue with the latter edit summary; the former at least explains why (s)he is claiming censorship (although I think the use of the term is a bit of a stretch). On the other hand, the second does not explain what is "POV" about the previous editor's change. That phrase "POV" is thrown around all over Wikipedia, especially on controversial articles; if you're going to use it, you better be prepared to back it up and you should avoid using it in terse edit summaries. Also, one of my pet peeves is when someone makes a revert telling someone to go to the talk page first when he himself does not go to the talk page to discuss the disputed change. We see a discussion here about the introduction, which does not appear to relate to the changes made by Telaviv. In fact, Telaviv's edits appear to be in direct disagreement to what is discussed here, removing the part about neighboring Arab countries objecting to the Partition Plan. Further up in the page, the intro is discussed at #Intro, again. Once again, Telaviv's edits (and the latest revert, done by Isarig) are in direct disagreement with what was discussed there; that's why I'm raising the point about the expansion of Israel's land again. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the second paragraph here. I believe it explains the expansion of Israel's territory and Arab objection quite casually, in a matter-of-fact manner, without taking a side; the "current" version does not mention either of those pieces at all. I fail to understand how anything is "POV" there and I await an explanation. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By declaring independence in May 1948 The Jewish Agency did not magically create a state. It merely announced to the world what already existed (and gave it a name). The Jewish Agency performed all the functions of a state. It had a democratically elected leadership, ran education and health programs and I believe it was even able to raise taxes. It also had a nascent army. The Israeli state was all in place some time before independence was formally declared. By the time GB withdrew in May 1948 GB had for months ceased to rule more than a few areas of Palestine. Incidentally in Hebrew the official name was Palestine E.I. (Eretz Israel). I can continue talking about what is a state (I have an MA in Politics and an interest in this topic...) but I don't want to bore you. I accept Tariq's point that one needs to mention the borders of 1948 are not the same as those given in the partition plan. Telaviv1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(````) I dont think Telaviv1 knows what a state is: A declaration of independence of its own accord does not translate into sovereign powers. You and I can declare independence from one country an call it whatever we please: that does not provide sovereignty nor soveriegn powers.

The State with its sovereignty and territory was pre-existent called the State of Palestine which was under League of Nations Trusteeship being administered by the UK. WHAT was partitioned into two states is exactly that of ONE state into TWO states, Jewish and Arab, of sovereignty and territory demarcated in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries.

The "Jewish State" was established on November 29, 1947 as was the "Arab [Palestine State" on same date with same international law of UNGA 181, a UN Charter Chapter VII resolution. Those sovereign powers were transfered from UN to State of Israel with UNGA 273 for its Part II Boundaries but not for the UNGA 181 Part II boundaries of the State of Palestine. (````) Israel Declaration of Independence was a declaration of self-incorporation of sovereign powers, e.g., Provisional Government of the Jewish State.

Telaviv1, Politics, political science, respective state civil law and international law are not one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloah (talk • contribs) 00:17, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

States are complex and I ahve much to learn on the topic. However, a sovreign entity is not necessarily a state. According to Max Weber sovreignty is the "monopoly on the use of power within a given territory" (quoted from memory) Great Britain was the sovreign power in "Palestine" but a Palestinian state did exist - a state is also a body of institutions. In my opinion a state is primarily a body of institutions and where those instituions (Police, Army, Legislature and Judiciary) do not exist (Army is not vital) there is no state (I follow structural marxism on this issue). The UN partition decision did not grant sovreignty to either Arabs or Jews. It merely called for Britain to leave the area and two states to be created. Britain left, but not in accordance with the terms of the resolution. If there was a basis for an Arab state, it quickly ceased to exist. There was a Jewish state which was granted recogntion by a host of countries and admitted to the UN, thereby becoming a recognized sovreign state. The state already existed when Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948. You can make your own judgement about when it became sovreign. State and sovreignty do not mean the same thing.Telaviv1 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This article fails to provide a proper neutral argument. It endlessly praises Israel and it's developments, and how it is above the rest of the Middle East, without mentioning the vast amount of aid it recieves from the US. User: Mork546 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:40, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

From the Economy section: "The United States is the source of half of the government's external debt as it provides the nation with US$5.5 billion annually." Also, criticism of the country is also mentioned under the Government and politics section (in the fourth paragraph). You can also draw your own conclusions – positive or negative – about Israel from the History section. -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if this is the right place to put this, but this section of the 2nd paragraph of the introduction is factually inaccurate. "Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East." Israel excluding the West Bank and Gaza is democratic but it is not the "only" liberal democracy in the Middle East. Cyprus also part of the Middle East according to the CIA world fact book, among other geographic sources, is also liberal democracy whose citizens enjoy a great deal of civil liberties and political freedoms. I am hesitant to edit on such a delicate topic as I am an infrequent user but I do believe the phrase “Due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.” is misleading and should be change to…

“Due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered a liberal democracy.”

In addition to this, the statement concerning Israel as the most progressive in the region in terms of freedom of the press, is also inaccurate. According to Freedom house’s 2006 rankings of freedom of the press Cyprus received 22 while Israel received a 28 though both scores indicate a free and healthy media it is incorrect to claim that Israel is the "most" progressive when Cyprus outscores it not only in 2006 but also previous years. The best solution to this is to simply remove “most”

Pretty much all I am asking is just the removal of absolutes in these two places.

Thanks Bored college student 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

this sounds like a legitimate point except that Cyprus has not always been considered free and democratic by Freedom House while Israel has. Telaviv1 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

When wasn't Cyprus considered democratic by freedom house, save for 7 days during a failed coup in 1974 and that is not really registered by freedom house. If you are refering to North Cyprus, that is internationally recognized to be illegally occupied and not under the control of the legitiment Cypriot government. It would be similar to using the West Bank and Gaza as measures for Israel only even more outlandish. Bored college student 07:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] order of introduction

After reading the introduction over again, I changed the order of the paragraphs to make it flow more naturally. Tariq claims this needs to be discussed. So I hereby open a discussion. No substantial change has been made to the material itself except for abbreviating here and there in keeping with the idea of an introduction as "introductory." I believe my reordering of the paragraph reduces the choppiness. At the moment, there is a drastic shift from potted history to population statistics and basic facts about the country, which usually come first. Another change I made was taking out the mention of 3 of 6 major wars. This is not a pick & choose subject. Possibly a footnote listing them all by name could be helpful, although I don't know if anyone reads the footnotes. If things have "calmed down," I believe it is more technical than anything else. Who has patience to sit around for it to upload, and then find that none of the changes can be saved because of some problem with Wikipedia or an edit conflict? The fact that something has been discussed before doesn't mean that the page is perfect, or that no one is allowed to touch it in the interests of making it better. --Gilabrand 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current ordering of the introduction is problematic, but I believe moving the entire third paragraph before the second is not the perfect solution. Everything from "Israel is the world's only Jewish state" to "Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city." would probably be better placed prior to the current paragraph (maybe in the first paragraph) although not necessarily in the current wording (in fact, please not in the current wording). However, the rest, detailing Israel's standing in the world, ought to remain after the history. This method of putting a brief history paragraph between a preceding basic info paragraph and a following the country's standing today paragraph appears to have been employed on Indonesia, Japan, Peru, and Nepal, which are all featured articles. I'd also like to agree to the fact that mentioning only three wars in the introduction is probably not a good idea although I would not recommend a footnote for listing all of them. To better illustrate what I'm talking about, here's an example:

Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל‎, Yisra'el), officially the State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl), is a country in Southwest Asia located on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It has borders with Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.^[12] Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority. With a population of about 7.1 million, the majority of whom are Jews, Israel is the world's only Jewish state.^[13][14] It is also home to Muslims, Christians and Druze, mostly of local Arab background, as well as other religious and ethnic minority groups. Jerusalem is the nation's capital, seat of government, and largest city.^[4]

The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, which has been central to Judaism for over three thousand years and, more recently, to other religions. After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people".^[15] In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.^[16] On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. The new country's victory in the subsequent Arab-Israeli War expanded the borders of the Jewish state beyond those conceived by the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence. Throughout the conflict, Israel's boundaries have been subject to dispute and change although in recent years, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and made efforts to reach permanent peace agreements with the Palestinian population.

Despite Israel's political problems, the country is a developed country and a liberal democracy.^[17] The nation is also considered the most progressive in the region in terms of freedom of the press,^[18] economic competition,^[8] and overall human development.^{[19] [20][21]}

Note also that I removed "business regulations" from the last sentence of the introduction. Someone in the peer review mentioned that the list of feats were overkill. Business regulations seemed related to economic competition, so I think we can do without that one and simply mention it in the Economy section, if desired.

One problem I had with your version was that in the course of getting rid of the purported choppiness, you appeared to introduce several short sentences:

Also adjacent are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, partially administrated by the Palestinian National Authority. Israel is the world's only Jewish state. In 2007, the population was 7.1 million, the majority of whom are Jews. Israel is also home to Muslims, Christians and Druze, as well as other religious and ethnic minority groups. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, seat of government, and largest city. Due to its broad array of political rights and civil liberties, Israel is considered the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Now I know not all of those are your fault as a couple mini sentences exist in the current version, but the additional short sentences added by your change make the issue glaringly obvious. I've tried to remove these mini sentences from the sample idea above. Regarding your last sentence... no I don't think that, but I think others should be given an opportunity to comment on what has been the most contested part of the (already hot) article. Also, you didn't just change the order of the paragraphs; you significantly altered the history paragraph. -- tariqabjotu 07:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of Israel borders.

(````) issue: State of Israel's borders are demaracted in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries. Whereas, UNGA 181 is a UN Charter Chapter VII resolution of which UN Charter Purposes and Principles, specifically Article 2., "4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political indepedence of nay state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."; Said Article 2., [ph]4., is the foundation of UNSC 242, another Chapter VII resolution.

Therefore, the issue of 1947 was that the Arab states could NOT invaldiate international law of UN Charter's , a multi-lateral international instrument of agreement, Chapter VII Resolute Law. UNSC 242 reaffirms that same interanational law position for that 1967 conflict of which State of Israel cannot invalidate international law of UNGA 181, nor UNSC 72, 1949 Armistice Agreements; And that UN Charter's Chapter VII UNSC 242 reaffirms the staticity of borders which are defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries.

Said two states borders of Israel and Palestine, nor accompanying sovereignty for said demarcated territory have never been in contention; nor are the borders fluid of boundaries; in fact are static as defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boudnaries.

What has been fluid are battle lines in a War of continuum: Sovereignty of UNGA 181 State of Palestine is held in Trust by UN organization itself, UN Charter Article 81, and in accordance with Article 77.,ph's a. & d. of UNGA 181 foundation; of UN International Trusteeship System of Article 80 purposes and principles; regardless that UN has been a most negligent Trustee. (````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloah (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You lost me. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last changes

Tariq, I looked over the changes and most are fine. There are a few sticky points which I will elaborate on: "Arabs rejected the plan" - not "some" Arabs but all the Arabs. Hence, "THE Arabs/the Arab countries rejected the plan." In the footnote about New Judea, the word "even" injects POV into the discussion and should be removed. I think moving the demographic statistic regarding Soviet Jewry down to the section on language was not a good idea - I think it is notable that a country's population increases 12 percent in the span of 4 years, and is relevant to an understanding of the country, not just language-wise. Also, the new phrasing of the language issue is awkward - there was no need for editing this. Regarding the Bahai, the complex in Haifa is not just an administrative center. To say that conflicts with the statement that it is a religious pilgrimage site for Bahais. The building in Acre is the mausoleum of the founder, who was imprisoned in Acre and died there. I am not sure it is called a temple. As for the contribution of Arabs to Israeli culture, you are overestimating the impact of literature - sadly, only a handful have produced notable work (I can bring numerous citations for that). Since we are only giving examples, I would stick to such fields as architecture, music and cuisine, where the Arab contribution is indeed important and noteworthy. That's about it. I think the article has come a long way and I appreciate your dedication to the cause. On a final note, I think some better photos are needed. --Gilabrand 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for the "dialogue" between Arab and Israeli architecture (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA+Publications/Photo+exhibits/Encounters-+The+Vernacular+Paradox+of+Israeli+Arch-+Intro.htm) and for the influence of Arab cuisine (http://www.med.umich.edu/umim/clinical/pyramid/global.htm)--Gilabrand 06:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding all the Arabs rejecting the plan... oh really? Not one thought it was a good idea? I find that very hard to believe, even if the vast majority of Arabs may have rejected the plan. I'll go for "Arab countries" (or actually "the Arab League") though.
• I do agree it's notable that the people from the former Soviet Union increased Israel's population so greatly; moving the sentence does not suggest otherwise. However, take a look at the first paragraph of the demographics section. The first sentence is about the total population but the rest are about Israelis in the disputed territories, with the second sentence having a transition from the first. The Soviet immigration sentence is the odd one out.
• I don't know what footnote about New Judea you're talking about.
• The sentence about the Bahai World Center does not say the administrative center is the only thing there; it says the administrative center is located there. Nevertheless, I've re-worded the sentence to add a mention of the Shrine of the Báb.

I think I've addressed everything else, except the pictures. I think we could use a couple more as long as they relate to things discussed in the body. -- tariqabjotu 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Even though I haven't really been following the article for a while now (no time), today I have noticed that many of the original images are gone and/or have been replaced by others. I agree with some of the changes, but not with others. IMO, we need to set some principles regarding to what images should be added, how they should be added, etc. Here are some basic rules that I propose. Please note that these are strictly my opinion, however, I've given thought to each one and don't see (for now) any reason why anyone would disagree. However, feel free to raise any objections because if this reaches consensus, I hope we use the same principles for this article for a long time to come.

1. Each image needs to be in a relevant section. For example, a picture of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem should be under education, not economy or history. This is a large article and therefore there shouldn't be major formatting and flow issues.
2. There should be an image in most sections with enough content, especially major sub-sections like history, geography and climate, economy, etc. Some smaller sections don't need an image. On the other hand, there shouldn't be more than one image per section, unless the section is diverse (e.g. culture). In short, if there already is a picture of the Weizmann Institute, there shouldn't also be a picture of the Hebrew University.
3. Avoid people in pictures, unless they serve to demonstrate what the article talks about. For example, the Haredi soldiers image is fine, but the book fair image is not. People of national importance, like Ben Gurion etc. are also fine.
4. Pictures should be representative and show nationally important subjects. For example, a picture of a small synagogue somewhere in the suburbs of Haifa wouldn't be good to display Jewish holy places in Israel. However, the Western Wall is fine. Exceptions can be made on the same grounds as with rule #3 - when the picture is purely for demonstration and can't be reasonably replaced with a better subject matter. If possible, when the subject matter is a building or structure, only nationally recognized landmarks should be used.

I am now going to make some small changes based on these principles in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Please don't take this as an insult if you were originally responsible for the changes. Raise your objections here.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much insulted by you changing up the images in the article (I don't particularly care), but I don't understand why you felt it necessary to write up these rules. There was no image problem to begin with. So you think the accelerator image is more appropriate under "Science and education" than "Economy". That's fair, but it might be able to work under either section. You don't think the Hebrew Book Week image is necessary. I disagree because the people serve a purpose related to what the article is talking about; how would you be able illustrate Hebrew Book Week without an image of people attending it? An image of just booths at the event would be rather uninteresting. But I suppose that's okay... I can deal with it, especially because there are two other images in the section. Make changes to images if you want, but we don't need a lecture on rules for putting images in articles; we know how it's done. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are meant to introduce a standard, which is needed because this particular article's images are changed completely by a new user each time, every few weeks. Therefore it's much easier to work when you have a set of guidelines to go by. If this wasn't the case, then Wikipedia as a whole wouldn't have any guidelines, because most users "don't need a lecture on rules for writing Wikipedia; they know how it's done." Frankly I'm extremely surprised by your response and vehement opposition to an introduction of guidelines/principles for putting images in this article, which is one of the more important articles on Wikipedia, and is set to be included in Wikipedia 1.0. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You mention that "this particular article's images are changed completely by a new user each time, every few weeks". Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention recently as this is not the case.

From Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep (yes, I know it's an essay): "For proposed new instructions, instruction creep can be avoided if all of the following hold... There is a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem)"

So, there is no actual problem. Instead, you just barged into the article, returning from your absence by laying down some rather obvious, condescending, and, ultimately, unnecessary rules (or principles, if you so desire). People will always make generally undesirable changes to articles, but no one is stopping you from fixing them. Or saying why you disagree. No need to say, "I'm removing that image, stating I disagree, and then, just for the hell of it, going to establish some laws for the future (oh... but don't feel insulted)". Thanks, but no thanks. This article has far more contentious areas than images and the last thing we need is anyone – you, me, or anyone else – bossing others around with his or her own compendium of rules. Wikipedia's project-wide policies and guidelines, which already have the support of the general community, are meant to explain how things should be done around here. If you feel those are incomplete, perhaps you should raise your points there. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article missing information

There is no mention in the section on the first 50 years of the fact that Israel instituted martial law between 1948 and 1966 in all Arab localities which were administered by a separate military government administration. (See Arab citizens of Israel for more on that.) This seems to be a rather large oversight. Indeed, more discussion of Arab citizens in the the aftermath of the creation of the state (or at least a mention of their situation) is necessary to provide a more complete picture. Can someone rectify this? Tiamut 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also missing is any mention of the offensive forays of Jewish militias into areas designated by the partition plan as Arab, before the outbreak of the war of 1948. (See Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus for more on that.) It was in a prior version of the article but seems to have been deleted. Tiamut 13:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Superhuman efforts have been made to keep this article as neutral as possible. The additions you speak of will necessitate alot more detail about firebombing and shooting at passenger cars, Molotov cocktails, stonethrowing, bus bombs, suicide bombings, terrorists firing from densely populated civilian areas and surrounding themselves by children to maximize the melodrama, and use of ambulances to transport weapons, all of which can be easily referenced. In the interests of keeping this article in the fairly neutral situation it is now, I suggest you put on your thinking cap and consider whether your suggestions are valid here.--Gilabrand 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning that Israel had a military administrative government and restrictions amounting to martial law violates NPOV in any way. It's a fact of Israel's history that between 1949 and 1966, Arab citizens living in Arab localities in the state were subject to curfews, administrative detentions and required permits to travel from place to place. Now, how you want to phrase it is separate issue, but ignoring that it happened and that this was Israeli domestic law for two decades after its founding is manifestly POV since it ignores reality. Tiamut 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not dumb. The information is not the problem. It's the very clear agenda behind it. You have more than enough articles about Palestinians to introduce whatever you think will draw sympathy for your cause. There is one article about Israel and its thousands of years of history are summed up in a couple of lines. The Arabs have been mentioned more than enough while leaving out piles of information about Israel as a Jewish state, all to pacify people like you - certainly not in the interests of truthfulness and telling the whole story. You responded with outrage when someone added a category you didn't like to the article you were working on. Jihad, suicide bombings, "honor" killings, the murder of fellow Palestinians accused of being "collaborators" - all these things are studiously avoided lest anyone step on Arab toes. Well, then don't step on the toes of other people.--Gilabrand 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to object, Gilabrand, not primarily to your underlying message, but to what you are advocating to achieve your message. I know you weren't entirely serious, but although there are indeed plenty of articles related to Palestinians, they are not there for Tiamut or anyone else to draw sympathy for his or her cause. There are also plenty of articles related to Israel too (although, obviously, only one Israel article); this is not the only one. The Arabs have been mentioned more than enough while leaving out piles of information about Israel as a Jewish state, all to pacify people like you - certainly not in the interests of truthfulness and telling the whole story. I don't know where you get the impression that that was the aim all along, or that that was even accomplished. The article may not say "terrorism" or "suicide bombings" or "honor killings" (not sure why that last phrase is relevant), but Palestinian 'political violence' is mentioned several times. In my opinion, the mentions of violence don't number too many as they are important to understanding surrounding content. Ultimately, I think you are both letting your biases cloud your judgment. I'm glad those biases aren't currently seeping into the article, but I find the extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict onto Wikipedia, well, silly (actually I find the whole conflict silly, but that's for another day). -- tariqabjotu 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a political battle here. The fact remains that martial law was instituted in Israel from 1949 to 1966. This was domestic Israeli law and has nothing to do with Palestinians or their cause. This fact needs to be mentioned in the article in the section on the first fifty years of the state's establishment. Indeed, the resistance to such inclusion using excuses centered on my motivations is a side-stepping of the issue. This article is an incomplete without it. Tiamut 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If we mention the military administration, we'd have to explain why it was established - the fact that many Arabs fought against the Israeli forces in 1948/9, and so the state didn't trust them not to act against it.

Many details would have to be added (like the fact the administration was over several geographical areas, what it meant, the fact that Arabs in mixed cities were not under its rule, etc.) , otherwise the reader would be left wondering. Don't get me wrong - this is something important that should be mentioned in History of the State of Israel (and isn't, for some odd reason - it's a badly written article as a whole), I just don't think we can spare enough room to do the issue justice here.

As "The first fifty years" are covered by a whopping 5 paragraphs, that may be problematic. okedem 11:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good reason not to mention it, or say provide a link to a place where it is discussed in further detail. In that vein, I have added a section to the article Martial law on Israel. I think that for now at the very least this article should include a sentence about martial law in Israel that links there. Tiamut 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you added a section there, but please - write accurately. The military administration was over geographical areas (part of the Galilee, part of the Negev, and the Triangle), not people, and was not in effect in areas like Haifa (which had significant a Arab population). Israeli Arabs also received citizenship before 1952, voting in the 1949 first general election. In fact, there were three Arab Knesset members in the first Knesset. okedem 12:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever issues you have with what I wrote there, can be discussed there. You statements contain a lot of factual errors but that can also be discussed there (for example, technically, no one had citizenship before 1952). Here, the question is how are we going to include something about the almost 20 years of martial law that in Israel? Tiamut 17:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the Citizenship Law of 1952 (which restricted citizenship) with actual citizenship. If even your version was true, your phrasing is false, as it makes it appear as though everyone else had citizenship, and the Arabs didn't. As the Arabs voted in the first elections, and participated in it, they were citizens just like the Jews. I'll remove that statement.

As I said, in order to add this piece of information, we'll have to add a lot of information around it, otherwise it'll be very confusing. okedem 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How is adding a link to Martial law#Israel confusing? Tiamut 02:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The term "terror" is only used once in the article, in reference to the PLO. The exact phrase reads, "In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to destroy the bases from which the Palestine Liberation Organization launched terror attacks against northern Israel."

Either the actions of the Israeli military must also be recognized as terrorism, or the above excerpt must be edited.Smitty Mcgee 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Either the actions of the Israeli military must also be recognized as terrorism, or the above excerpt must be edited. That is a terrible misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. If Israel was not committing terrorism (and they would not be if they were destroying bases), we shouldn't call it terrorism. The PLO, on the other hand, has been referred to as a terrorist organization by multiple governments. WP:NPOV does not compel us to distort facts so as to put the Israeli government and the PLO on the same plane. That being said, the sentence might work just fine without terror. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it does not even matter if the PLO has been labeled a terrorist organization. What is important in this case is if the attacks at hand have been called terror attacks, which they have, by a wide variety of sources. --Shamir1 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, destroying only military bases does not constitute terrorism. However, the Israeli military has not deemed it necessary to restrict their attacks to such targets. As a result, Palestinian civilians find themselves targeted by indiscriminate aggression.

I do not ask that the Israeli military be put on the same plane as the PLO, since there are two main differences between these two organizations: first, the Israeli military is a much more effective killing machine, and, secondly, the PLO was formed as a response to Zionist aggression. However deplorable their tactics may be, it must be kept in mind that they are not responsible for starting the conflict, and are, in fact, reacting to an unprovoked assault upon their people. Smitty Mcgee 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, actions by Israeli military to fight these terrorists has been referenced as State terrorist by multiple governments, so maybe it's best to use insurgency / counterinsurgency to rid us of a potential raison d'être for editorial conflict. El_C 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, insurgency is only relevant for organizations opposing a military occupation, against the military forces. Suicide bombers blowing up in a bus in the middle of Tel Aviv is not insurgency. It's murder, and it's terrorism.

Terrorism is attacks against civilian targets with the goal of instilling terror in the hearts of the civilians, to affect some political goal. The PLO, Hamas, Hezbolla, etc. specifically target civilians, for this very purpose. While Israel sometimes injures/kills civilians, it is never for that purpose. One might claim that Israel doesn't do enough to avoid "collateral damage" when attacking military targets, but that's another discussion. As civilians are not the target, Israel's actions cannot possibly be called terrorism. okedem 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whereas sending whole divisions and displacing a million people over the kidnapping of two soldiers is ... what again? Anyway, deontological versus teleological moral argument (i.e. intent versus consequence) aside; here, npov is a buzz-word for 'we need to reach a compromise that'll prevents us from arguing indefinitely over the designation of terms'. El_C 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The word terrorism, despite what some may believe, does not mean "something bad". It's well defined, and Israel's actions do not fall into that definition. I will not have the "NPOV" argument used to water down accurate use of language.

"kidnapping of two soldiers" - And killing several others, in a cross border attack. Israel responded to an attack, and did a lot to prevent hurting civilians (for example - it could have just bombed whole villages out of existence, instead of sending in soldiers for close combat to find Hezbolla men, suffering heavy casualties doing it). Mind you, a country is responsible for actions from its sovereign territory, and the fact that the attack was not carried by Lebanon itself is irrelevant. okedem 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into the polemics of terrorism/State terrorism and have nothing to add to what I already stated above. El_C 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The mention of "terror" should at least be made in the section on the British mandate. It was Jewish Zionist terrorism that secured the existance of an Israel state. If Palestinian terrorism is to be condemned in the article, the way in which Israel was born must also be mentioned! PMK 11:15, 15 September 2007 (GMT). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.178.115 (talk)

False. Britain controlled Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which clearly instructed it to create a Jewish State. While the Lehi and/or Irgun did commit acts of terrorism, it was much, much, later, and by no means a decisive factor in Israel's establishment. okedem 12:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias, cont.

To Okedem, you claim that, "While Israel sometimes injures/kills civilians, it is never for that purpose."

This is irrelevant. There is no political or moral difference between blowing yourself up in a crowded market, or using an air strike with an expected rate of collateral damage. Both actions are taken with the full knowledge that civilians will die as a result. Palestinian attacks are not aimed at a "purpose" of killing civilians any more than Israeli military policies. Both sides committ these acts of terrorism in order to achieve a political goal.

Stating an intention of removing military targets while taking an action which is expected to kill innocents is nothing but terrorism. You seem to think that the definition of "terrorist" hinges on whether one is honest with one's intentions.

To continue, you claim that, "Israel responded to an attack, and did a lot to prevent hurting civilians (for example - it could have just bombed whole villages out of existence, instead of sending in soldiers for close combat to find Hezbolla men, suffering heavy casualties doing it)."

Two holes exist in your reasoning. Firstly, to claim that Israel responded to an attack ignores the history of Israeli aggression against its neighbors. Let us not forget that the very process of creating Israel involved the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land. Do you wish to get into an arguement of who started the conflict? If not, do not attempt to argue that Israel's actions were retaliatory. A more legitimate claim is that Lebanon was acting in response to Israeli aggresion. How many Arab prisoners are held indefinitely in Israeli jails, given no trial or legal counsel?

Secondly, it is irrational to justify an action by pointing to an even more horrendous action that could have been taken, if not for the benevolence of the actor. The fact is, the Israeli military did kill Lebanese civilians, with the full knowledge that their actions would do so. As stated above, this is no different from terrorism with honest intent, since the targets remain consistently civilian. Israel could have slaughtered every Lebanese man, woman, and child. That does not change what they did, nor does it alter the fact that it is terrorism.Smitty Mcgee 16:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By your definition, every act of war that hurts a civilian, in any way, is "terrorism". Interesting definition, though wrong. okedem 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You misread my remarks. Every act of war that is taken with the knowledge that civilians will die as a result is terrorism. Collateral damage is expected. Therefore, it is terrorism. It is possible, however unlikely, that an act of war aimed at a military target accidently kills or maims civilians. By my definition, this would not be terrorism. By your misrepresentation of my definition, it would be.Smitty Mcgee 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Then almost all acts of war ever committed, in this century or earlier, are terrorism.

Terrorism is a well defined term. Actions taken to instill terror, to further some cause. If the purpose is not to terrorize, it's not terrorism. If a country bombs a railroad to cut off a supply route, knowing that some civilians will die, that's not terrorism. The purpose is the whole point.

I'm done here. You can make up your own definition as you please. okedem 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to leave the argument, I cannot stop you, but you will understand that I must establish my point.

You argue that the intentional killing of civilians is only terrorism if it is committed with the intention of instilling terror in the general populace. So, who are we to trust in this situation? Should we trust a suicide bomber that his intention is not to terrorize, but to liberate his people? Should we trust an Israeli soldier that his intention is not to terrorize, but to defend his country?

Terrorism is defined by the intentional targeting of civilians. Every civilian population that is targeted will feel terrorized. Every organization that does the targeting will insist on other motivations. If a country bombs a railroad to cut off a supply route, having complete knowledge that civilians will be killed, this is terrorism.

Or will the families of those killed not feel fear at receiving the news of the loss of their loved one?Smitty Mcgee 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr McGee. We take your point and will try to account for it in future. I suggest you, in turn, reflect on the injustices done to Jews and Israelis by Arabs and by Europeans, since you seem to lack empathy in that direction. However, could you continue this discussion elsewhere? It is not directly relevant to the page.79.179.188.154 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... what does this all have to do with the article? -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not stand for attacks on my personal character, so please refrain from accusing me of lacking empathy for Israelis. Furthermore, I refuse to continue this discussion elsewhere, as my very simple, clearly stated grievance with this article has yet to be addressed.

If the article recognizes resistance to Israel as terrorism, it must also recognize the actions of the Israeli military as terrorist in intent and execution. My reasoning, explicitly given above, has yet to be challenged. Do not avoid the issue by labeling it "irrelevant", since it has everything to do with the supposed neutrality of this article. I expect to be provided with a reason for the hypocritical treatment of the matter. Otherwise, the article is in need of revision.Smitty Mcgee 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken, as your supposed reasoning uses a definition of terrorism you made up, and not the common definition.

As I said previously, almost any military action carries the risk of civilian casualties. If you start categorizing any such action as terrorism, practically all military actions in the 20th and 21st century would be called terrorism. This, obviously, is not the common usage of the word, and so would not be used. okedem 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it seems you haven't even bothered looking at the article before making such bold claims as "the article is in need of revision". You see, had you looked, you would have seen the article never even uses the word "terror" or any of its derivatives. There was one mention, and it's gone now. okedem 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Any military or resistance action which is expected to kill civilians, yet is undertaken regardless, is terrorism. Your definition conveniently protects governments from ever having to answer to the accusation of state terrorism. Resistance movements do not have the convenience of using terms like "collateral damage". When a state commits murder, it is the equivalent of a resistance movement committing murder.

Your only argument is that my "uncommon" definition of terrorism would include most military actions of recent times. So what? Argue against my definition on the basis of merit, not semantic consequences.

From September, 2000, to July, 2007, 952 Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli military. (Source: Remember These Children). Apparently, since the Israeli military slaughtered these children by accident, it is not terrorism.Smitty Mcgee 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the article; move along. -- tariqabjotu 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is relevant, as the changes were made.Smitty Mcgee 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. The removal of the word "terror" occurred more than twenty-four hours ago (by myself, I might add, and not the least because of your misconception of the definition of terrorism). Your soapboxing since then has no connection to anything anyone wants to be added to or removed from the article. Therefore, it does not belong on this talk page. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your use of the loaded and condescending term, "soapboxing."

"That being said, the sentence might work just fine without terror." Those were your words, posted directly under my original "soapboxing". Or did that simply coincide with your own autonomous decision to remove the word "terror" from the article?Smitty Mcgee 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to those who edited the article, per my request.Smitty Mcgee 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete my arguments, and do not attempt to justify it by labelling it as a "rant". Do all users have the right to arbitrarily edit talk pages based on their own subjective whims?Smitty Mcgee 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism and the British Mandate (History Section): suggested improvements

1. The section about Jewish immigration into Israel/Palestine in the 19th century only lists Ashkenazis. I checked the Hebrew wikipedia and 2500 Yemenite Jews (10% of the community) migrated 1891-2. Several hundred Bukharans (from Bukhara in Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan) emigrated in the 1890's and set up a (well known) neighbourhood in Jerusalem. Unlike Ashkenazi immigrants oriental immigrants did not return to Europe (some Ashkenazis dropped out) so their numeric impact tended to be stronger over the long run.
2. the 1936-1939 "Arab rioting" is generally known as the 1936-1939 Arab uprising and there is a section with that title which should be linked.1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
3. the final paragraph "When the British imposed even stricter quotas on Jewish immigration, and countries around the world turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust.." should refer to the White Paper of 1939 a critical document in Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history. The White Paper restricted Jewish migration and banned Jews from buying land, and promised an Arab state in Palestine by 1949 - without it the Holocaust might have been prevented. It also led to a Jewish uprising against the British in Palestine.
4. "In 1917 when the British conquered Israel from the Ottomans a Jewish Legion, comprising primarily Zionist volunteers assisted in the conquest." This line should be at the appropriate location in the section.
5. This needs to be added at the end: "After World War II, the Labour Party won the elections in Britain. Their manifesto promised to rescind the 1939 White Paper and create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Labour Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, decided to persist with British policy and the British Government began a struggle to prevent Jewish immigration into Palestine. This lead to creation of The Jewish Resistance Movement and increased Jewish attacks on British targets in Palestine. As a result Britain began imprisoning 'illegal' Jewish immigrants in camps on Cyprus. " Telaviv1 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All of these are worthy additions that add to our understanding of what led things to turn out as they did. Early on, my criticism was that basic links between facts had gone awry or been distorted in the interests of keeping things short. So these new bits will need to be phrased succinctly, but I agree they should be there.--Gilabrand 10:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. That might be a fair point, but you can't cite the Hebrew Wikipedia (like you did when you originally added this piece).
2. I don't see why "rioting" is worse. One might say "Arab rioting intensified...", but "Arab uprising intensified..." seems unnatural.
3. Why not link "imposed even stricter quotes" with White Paper of 1939 or, alternatively, put "...on Jewish immigration with the White Paper of 1939". Actually, if the second option were to be used, it should probably say "The British imposed even stricter quotas on Jewish immigration with the White Paper of 1939 and other countries around the world also turned away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. In response, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine."
4. I think it makes chronological sense after "...who established the kibbutz movement." Additionally, dependent clause at the beginning of the sentence should be swapped with the one in the sentence that starts "In World War I...". The sentence also needs to be copyediting. So, something like this... "During World War I, the Jewish Legion, a group of battalions comprised primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Israel from the Ottomans. In 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour...")
5. I believe your fifth point is too long and not needed for the article.

-- tariqabjotu 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that "rioting" downplays the significance of the event and is slightly condescending. Revolt implies a nationalist action. Rioting individual activity.
The Balfour declaration took place before the Jewish legion participated in fighting in Palestine so I have put it in after that.

I did insert the stuff about Bevin as I think its important, but I tried to cut the excess verbiage in the seciton so it didn't affect the length. I think the stuff about the pre-zionist jewish conneciton doesn't belong under the British mandate so I moved it to the previous section where a certain repetition becomes visible. i will edit out the repetitive text so as to make it shorter.

I took your point about the white paper and worked round it.

I think jewish immigration from yemen and bukhara can be left out for the moemnt to save space. sorry i should have consulted more, got a bit carried away there. Telaviv1 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolt implies a nationalist action. Rioting individual activity. I have no idea where you came up with that impression; rioting is not in any sense individual activity. From the American Heritage Dictionary: A riot is "a wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people" or "a violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose" (emphasis added). -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Exodus

Upon further study of the article, I came across a disturbing passage: "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel."

I have listened to much debate regarding what percentage of Palestinians fled and what percentage were forcibly expelled, but never, from even the most extreme historians, have I heard the claim that every single one of the 711,000 Palestinians chose to leave of their own accord.

I propose that the sentence be changed as follows: "During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled or were forcibly expelled from Israel."

The Wikipedia article Palestinian Exodus lists four theories regarding the causes of the exodus. This article mentions but one. Far from accurate, and lacking any sort of internal consistency, this article much be edited to reflect differing views on the matter.Smitty Mcgee 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

but never, from even the most extreme historians, have I heard the claim that every single one of the 711,000 Palestinians chose to leave of their own accord. Okay... and? This article does not say that either. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"During the course of the hostilities, 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, fled from Israel." The wording, as it stands now, overlooks the fact that certain segments of the population were forcibly expelled. My proposed alternative is both more accurate and less biased.Smitty Mcgee 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording does not suggest all the Palestinians left on their own accord (as with "consent" or "agreement"). "Flee" does not just mean "leaving" on one's own accord, but instead means "to run away, as from danger or pursuers; take flight". Even if the Israelis (hypothetically) threatened the Palestinians or burned down their homes to make them leave, the Palestinians would still be fleeing "from danger" or at the very least a perceived danger. The Israelis would have to pretty much be trucking them out for it not to be fleeing (and even then, there would be fleeing involved). You must note that we have an article entitled 1948 Palestinian exodus (not exactly a "trucked from their homes" word) and that in the intro of that article, one sees "The 1948 Palestinian exodus... refers to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs" (flight being one of the definitions of and a word similar to flee). I'm not trying to say Wikipedia is the tell-all of facts, but it might be a good measure of what has been accepted here as decent wording for describing certain events. Flee appears to work fine here. -- tariqabjotu 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you will notice that I cited the very same article you did: Palestinian Exodus. The following is a quote from the introduction of the article:

"The initial exodus ... of Palestinian refugees is a contentious topic...". For this reason, it seems, the article deems it necessary to list four distinct theories regarding the causes of the exodus. You are correct that the Palestinian Exodus article uses the term "flight". However, in this article, no explanatory measure is taken, as in the cited article. To use the term "fled" without an accompanying explanation is as neutral as using the term "expelled". Both are necessary to ensure accuracy as well as fairness.Smitty Mcgee 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. The other end of the spectrum from "expelled" would be something like "left" or "departed", which would imply a lack of duress. "Fled" does a decent job of striking a balance between the perspectives that conflict so badly on this issue. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you, when you get the chance, fix this? -- tariqabjotu 06:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "These exoduses became a vital component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict " as the Jewish exodus is not a "vital component". Not the least because Arab-Jews got Israeli citizenship and housing. The Palestinian refugee situation is defnitely a bone of contention so I left that ( The fate of the Palestinian refugees today is a major point of contention.") in but I think many/mmost Israelis would not regard it a vital component. The conflict has all too many vital components and these may have changed over the years. Telaviv1 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I have a few objections to some of the recent changes:

• 06:19, Sept 11 (UTC): A left-aligned picture next to a right-aligned picture forces a tight squeeze. The picture of the Technion is not necessary.
• 06:19, Sept 11: I don't see why the success of two high school students in a science competition is worthy of mention here.
• 06:55, Sept 11: I am trying to understand why the word around was changed to round and why a comma was removed from after the dependent clause. There was no need to make those two changes, which made the sentence grammatically incorrect.
• 06:55, Sept 11: I see the phrase, "which allowed for 75,000 more Jewish immigrants by 1949 when an Arab state was to be created in Palestine", was added. What this means is unclear to me, but either way, I'm certain its far too much detail (and unsourced). Just say it restricted immigration.

From the text of the White Paper (taken from the Avalon Project): "For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.

In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children anddependents.

The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted.

After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it. His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration, and further preventive measures are being adopted. The numbers of any Jewish illegal immigrants who, despite these measures, may succeed in coming into the country and cannot be deported will be deducted from the yearly quotas. "

That's in 1939. So I was slightly out, in fact it was and end to Jewish migration by 1944. finally (this is actually earlier in the text): "His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10 years.". In other words they were guaranteeing an Arab majority and independence by 1949. Needless to say the Arab were pretty pissed when the British yet again reneged on a promise and the UN gave the Jews half of Palestine. Telaviv1 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• 07:03, Sept 11: I don't believe this is a good change. Yes, the reader can read about the organization at the appropriate page. However, we are talking about self-criticism here; it would seem to make sense to at least mention what B'Tselem is criticizing.
• 07:15, Sept 11: Here we go again with the forced line breaks. Telaviv, for the umpteenth time, stop. I have a feeling you're using some external editor that automatically adds line breaks. Even still, you are certainly able to edit them out before you put them on Wikipedia.
• 07:15, Sept 11: I don't know if this is a British / American English difference, but "The Jewish diaspora have always aspired..." and "...the second wave were largely non-religious, socialist pioneers..." don't make grammatical sense to me.
• 07:15, Sept 11: I still don't find the paragraph "After World War II... ... camps on Cyprus." to be important.
• 07:43, Sept 11: That paragraph is an introduction to Zionism; it thus belongs under Zionism, where it is not "irrelevant material".
• 07:46, Sept 11: Forced line break, again.
• 07:59, Sept 11: As I said earlier, I object to the moving of the first paragraph from the Zionism section, so, in my opinion, this change just makes things worse by melding unrelated topics (the transfers of power and Zionism) together.
• 08:10, Sept 11: The article now says "In 1961, Israel captured Adolf Eichmann, an implementer of the Final Solution hiding in Argentina, and brought him to trial." for perhaps the third time in recent months. As I keep saying, that's incorrect because, although he was brought to trial in 1961, he was captured in 1960. Either the sentence needs to be split up to account for the different years or a more general descriptor of the time period (such as "At the start of the following decade").
• 13:40, Sept 11: I don't think mention Operation Moses is necessary. Also, the influx of large numbers of people from the former Soviet Union should be mentioned in the History or Demographics, but not both (as is the case at the moment).

-- tariqabjotu 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will only respond regarding the changes I made - I added the photo of the Technion as a replacement to the very offputting and unrepresentative photo of Hebrew University that was there. I think a photo of one of Israel's universities is needed. If there is something better, add it. (I admit this one is not fabulous , but it's a little more dramatic than the other). If you don't think the position is right, fix it. About Israeli high schools students coming out top in a worldwide contest, I think your dismissiveness is misplaced. It is in the section about schools, and illustrates the achievements of Israeli schools better than a lot of statistics and percentages that mean nothing to most people and are skipped over as completely boring (Wikipedia loves these unbelieveably snore-producing paragraphs). More space should be devoted to where Israel does well - an article about Israel should showcase Israel (to balance out all the negativism introduced in the name of "neutrality" (i.e. Israel claims this, but the world says otherwise). I disagree about B'Tselem. If thousands of years of history are compressed into a few sentences, two words about B'Tselem are giving it more than its due. --Gilabrand 06:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, Israeli high school students are not the only students that do well at international competitions. You will rarely (perhaps never?) find such trivial recentism in a country article.

...to balance out all the negativism introduced in the name of "neutrality" (i.e. Israel claims this, but the world says otherwise).

Unbelievable. You're still on that? You are reading only what you want to read; there is plenty of information regarding Israel's successes, beginning with the last paragraph of the introduction. The economy section notes the country's comparative success. The same is noted in the human rights paragraph. And the Education section. Oh c'mon Gilabrand, realize that there are both positive and negative things about Israel (and just about any country) and quit complaining that those negative things get mentioned too. The problem with articles like this one is that nothing is ever good enough for everybody. Each side seems to think their interests are under-represented but when the other side says the same thing, they are suddenly "POV pushers" or have a "very clear agenda" – something of that nature. Oh please; I am way over tired with it. Nationalism "is an epidemic across Wikipedia" and you are not entirely immune to it.

If thousands of years of history are compressed into a few sentences, two words about B'Tselem are giving it more than its due. Way to completely avoid my point. Bravo. -- tariqabjotu 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the line mentioning the War of Attrition is superflous. There are more important events such as the bombing of Osirak or the decision to develop a nuclear option which are left out and the history seciton is too warfare oriented as it is. Telaviv1 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I'm probably going to get flamed for suggesting this but ...

Given the fact that the debates surrounding Israel's formation, borders, and even its existence are so central to a large part of world politics it seems that an explicit section on these controversies is worthwhile. These issues are touched on in some of the text but it is sort of "buried" in there. It seems that, awkward as all this may be, it is such an important aspect of the subject that it bears bringing out as its own subtopic, at least briefly.

--Mcorazao 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that since these controversies are so central to the fact of Israel's existence (its creation, its borders, etc), they are therefore already discussed in quite some detail in just about every section of every article on Israel-related topics across the 'pedia. There are already a number of separate articles on various individual aspects of the controversy (see 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Palestinian refugee, Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestinian Exodus, etc etc etc), as well as, most likely articles even more specifically devoted to describing the historiography of the controversies. As a result, I do not think we need an explicit section in this here article. LordAmeth 07:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I feel like there should be a section here about the Palestinians/the territories. This isn't some passing military occupation. It's been happening for 40 years, more than 2/3 of the country's existence, and has had a profound impact on the country. I hope that such a section can be written with NPOV in mind, and be reasonably concise. Can it be done? okedem 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these controversies are central to Israel's existence and its existence and history cannot be discussed without touching on them. Nevertheless, for a novice reader, it would be easy to miss how significant these controversies are in world politics from the way this article is written. I would still argue in favor of adding a section, albeit a brief one, in this article to just say "Hey, if you don't get it, here is why Israel's name keeps coming up in so many news stories that don't even involve Israel." I think that is educationally significant.

Regarding the suggestion of an explicit section on the Palestinian territories I tend to agree that this a major enough issue to brought out as an explicit section of its own. Perhaps that could be a sub-section of what I have already suggested.

Mind you I am in no way arguing that these topics should dominate this article. That would be inappropriate. I am simply suggesting that reading the article now it almost seems that it is trying to hide the "elephant in the room". So it seems worthwhile to more explicitly mention the elephant and provide clearer links to the details of the elephant.

--Mcorazao 20:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think these issues are already covered adequately in the article and especially in the other articles about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict, history of Israel, etc. 6SJ7 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't believe we need a separate section. If people want to know more about the conflict(s), they can look at the appropriate article(s). -- tariqabjotu 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References needed

Can a few people take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Israel (near the bottom) and address some of the points regarding requests for references? I didn't add a couple of statements noted in the FAC so I don't know where the relevant information came from. In fact, I looked for sources for two of the requests prior to the FAC and came up empty. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilabrand's image

I'm not going to beat around the bush anymore with my objections: it's quite obvious the only reason Image:MtolivesviewC.jpg is in the article is because Gilabrand wants his picture included. If I were, hypothetically, to believe that Gilabrand simply wants all religions to be represented in pictures, he would easily be able to find on Wikipedia images (a) of better quality, (b) more representative of Christian landmarks in Israel, and (c) more focused on the relevant subject. Instead, we have tight squeeze of images in the Religion section for the sake of showing off Gilabrand's work, which shows a church in the midst of irrelevant landscape.

In response to my objection that there isn't enough space to put three images in the Religion sub-section, Gilabrand makes a few points. First, he says "if Israel is holy to the 3 religions...". No, that's not true. It's holy to at least the four that are mentioned in the article (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith). He proceeds to mention that "...there should be photos that include them all". That might be reasonable but for the fact that a small sub-section does not have enough room to contain all the photos which together amount to just decoration. Gilabrand accounts for this by concluding his edit summary by saying, "If there's no room (which of course there is), leave out Bahai". "Which of course there is"? I'm not hallucinating, Gilabrand. The only way I can imagine there being enough room to accommodate three images in that section is if one has the default image size in his or her preferences set low (and I don't doubt that, considering Gilabrand's multiple, repeated attempts to add forced image sizes to make normal-size images bigger, only to get them reverted). However, for the rest of us, with image sizes set at the higher end of the spectrum, we see a crowd of images. At 250px for images and my monitor set at a high resolution (the settings I use), the images on the right side of the religion section intrude upon the Culture section, pushing down the Hebrew Book Week image and forcing the Bahá'í Faith image to overlap some of the text in the Religion section. Now one may say, oh, that's your fault for having your settings that way. But that's not the approach we should be taking toward our readers. I can assure those of you with that stance that there is absolutely nothing abnormal about having images set at 250px if one is using a high-resolution monitor. Instead of inconveniencing some of our readers so we can fit Gilabrand's image, we are better off removing it and pleasing everyone (except, perhaps, Gilabrand). Additionally, the crowding and intrusion issues are not exclusive to these settings.

I'm rather disgusted by Gilabrand's suggestion that we should remove the Bahá'í image to solve this problem (which Gilabrand does not believe exists), considering an earlier comment of his where he described certain religions as "esoteric religious sects". The Bahá'í Faith has its administrative center in Israel, which is more than can be said about Islam and Christianity (and, one might argue, even Judaism). Obviously, the Bahá'í World Center image should not be the only one that illustrates the religion section, but the suggestion that we should remove a rather good quality image in leiu of Gilabrand's image that illustrates more generic landscape than the landmark itself is preposterous. -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am stunned by the viciousness of your response. Tariq, you are clearly losing it. Your lack of knowledge of Israel and Jerusalem cries to the heavens. That generic landscape you poke fun at is the heart of Christiandom - the Garden of Gethsemane, adjacent to two major Christian churches - the Church of All Nations and the Russian Orthodox (Pravoslav) Church of Maria Magdalene. Apart from being one of Jerusalem's major pilgrimage sites, it shows the topography and flora of the country in a way that no other image on the page does. And yes, I stand by my suggestion that if we "must" choose, then an image of the Bahai gardens is less vital to this page than an image reflecting some aspect of Christianity. Your insinuation that I bear any kind of grudge against Bahai is pathetic. If there is "no room" in the religion section, it can also be moved to the geography section to illustrate the hilly, terraced topography characteristic of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem district. --Gilabrand 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your claim of there being too many images is simply not borne out by the facts. I did a random search of articles on countries (some featured) and found that Canada and Spain contain 19 images, Egypt - 20, England - 26, and Germany - 33. The Israel page lags far behind. --Gilabrand 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong about religious importance of the land around the structures in the picture (poke fun at -- oh, brilliant characterization), but my point still stands that there are other images already available on Wikipedia that are of better quality and more focused on an important subject. I can't exactly tell what you're trying to say with "Your lack of knowledge of Israel and Jerusalem cries to the heavens"; either you're just playing on the religious nature of the picture or you're suggesting that I know very little about Israel or Jerusalem. If the latter is the case, I'd like to question why no one has run me away from the article (although you have gotten close) despite my frequent editing of it since the beginning of July. The fact that one might live in or have gone to Israel or Jerusalem does not make one the expert on those locales. Wikipedia makes it quite easy for one to contribute effectively provided he or she is willing to do the appropriate research and support content with references. In fact, the requirement to back up content with sources is imposed upon everyone.

"your claim of there being too many images is simply not borne out by the facts". Excuse me. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me repeat that there is absolutely no reason for us to have so many images crammed into one sub-section that they cause text to be hidden by overlapping images. Indeed, the articles you mention have more pictures than this article, but they appear to actually fit (I'm not going to look at every single article, but if any of them have images that overlap text, illustrate redundantly, and intrude upon following sections, I would gladly remove a few). We might be able to add more images in other sections here. There appears to be room in "The first fifty years, 1950s–1990s". There might be room in "Early roots" and there's certainly enough space to fit images under "Government", for example. The number of images that could be included here are, however, limited by the two very large templates (three, if you want to include the infobox) that exist in the article. One thing that is clear (well, except, apparently, to you) is that we do not have enough room to fit three images in one sub-section as it overlaps text and causes an unnecessary intrusion into the "Culture" section.

You mention that "If there is "no room" in the religion section..." No you're wrong; this is not a matter of if. There is no room in the religious section. Period. You don't appear to believe me that there is a serious problem. If you want, I can post a screenshot. Or you might be able to adjust the settings on your computer to duplicate the effect. Your suggestion to move your image to the geography section still does not address the fact that we have images of greater quality (and that the image crowding problem may still exist there). I'm standing by my assertion; the inclusion of this image is simply self-serving on your behalf. Everyone loves to have their pictures included in a well-presented article, but it just does not fit and is of poor quality in comparison to similar images. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plagiarism

Tariq, I think you don't know what plagiarism is - it is using material without quoting the source and claiming it as your own. Before you write libelous stuff like that, stop a minute and give it some thought. Your current attempt to "repair" these simple statements of fact,which constitute a short digest of material in the article, have resulted in a convoluted mess, using the same words over and over to say the same thing (and in effect, saying nothing -a machtesh is not "like" a crater; the distinction is much more complex than that, and I would avoid such non-scientific claims). I suggest you go back to the old wording (although the new sources are good, and I imagine the dimensions cited by a Ben Gurion University are more accurate).--Gilabrand 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have long wondered why you persistently term different phrasings and wordings as a "mess" or "convoluted" (and again), "incomprehensible", or "beyond farce". You're no Shakespeare yourself; I've had to correct your grammar and errors on multiple occasions and I don't hound you about them (although perhaps I should, especially in regards to your improper citations). As for your suggestion that I don't know what plagiarism is... either you thought you put part of the information from the Jewish Week article in quotes (when, of course, you didn't) or you don't know what plagiarism is. You didn't copy an entire paragraph or even an entire sentence, but the phrases "machteshim are unique to Israel and the Sinai; Machtesh Ramon is the largest such crater in the world" (from The Jewish Week) and "is a geological formation unique to Israel and the Sinai; it is the largest such crater in the world" (from your wording are pretty darn close) are pretty darn close. That you put a citation at the end of the sentence is not sufficient; you should put quotation marks around the copied phrases (particularly "largest such crater in the world") unless there is simply no other way to say it. As I have demonstrated, there is another way to say it (and a way that notes what "such crater" means). What you wrote, on the other hand, has a lengthy bit taken from that source, but no quotation marks. That's a problem (see here).

"a machtesh is not "like" a crater; the distinction is much more complex than that." What? "Like" is not used and "similar" is not describing the distinction at all; it's merely saying they have similarities, as evidenced by the rather common reference to "Ramon Crater" even though that's technically not correct. Your version didn't even include the word makhtesh. -- tariqabjotu 07:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the span of one & a half sentences, the word "largest" appears twice and the word "craters" (which you say is not accurate) appears three times. All your long-winded attacks on my English will get you nowhere. You have a lot to learn, my young fellow, and dealing with other people should be high on your list (from the comments on these and other pages, I am clearly not the only target of your outbursts). --Gilabrand 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)