Talk:Israel

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

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)

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)

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: , 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. 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. Jerusalem is the 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. 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, business regulations, economic competition, and overall human development.

-- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: , 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. 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. 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.

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". In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. 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. The nation is also considered the most progressive in the region in terms of freedom of the press, economic competition, and overall human development.

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)

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)

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)