Talk:Israel

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

State terrorism

A paragraph should be included about the practice of state terrorism against the Palestinian population. that's something inherent to the Jewish state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.23.175 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's efforts at peace with the Palestinians

In the intro, teh paragraph summarising Israel's violent birth ends with, "and efforts are being made to reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians." This is plainly not the case and I intend to edit the sentence. Menswear (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

World War II(2) and the effects on Israel

It has came to my attention that not many people know this but israel was not a official country until the end of World War II. Many people belive the greater picture of the war was to make Israel a official country. --Jazz951 (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel did not exist, officially or unofficially, until 1948. While there were plans for its establishment from the end of the 19th century, and the Balfur declaration dates from 1917, the country itself was only created in 1948. You might say that international support for that was partly motivated by witnessing the horrors of the holocaust, realizing that Jews need their own country so nothing like that would happen again. okedem (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With the logic, naturally, that taking that country from someone else would never come back to bite them in the ass, or, at least, that the bite might be mitigated with $2.7B in yearly American aid. GodzillaWax (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits

GDP per capita on 2007 is:33,000$ (ppp)'and not 27000$ so someone must change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.92.225 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Within etymology) "Over the past three thousand years, the name "Israel" has meant in common and religious usage both the Land of Israel and the entire Jewish nation.[18] According to the Bible, Jacob is renamed Israel after successfully wrestling with an angel of God.[19]"

I would have thought that it would be more sensible to be 'According to the Torah,' or 'Jewish Scriptures say that' as the 'Bible' is not the original source of the etymology. Equally in the next section a reference is made to 'Biblical times'. 81.110.95.133 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Shug Niggurath 81.110.95.133 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors

Capital is not capitol. someone want to fix these? i'm not going to create an account just for this. it's found at least twice in the first section. makes it hard to believe the article has won so many awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.252.16 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does not contain the word "capitol" anywhere, only the correct spelling, "capital". I don't understand your complaint. okedem (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• "On December 1, 1947 the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a 3-day strike, and Arab geurrilla attacks began against Jewish targets." in section "Independence and first years".

I think the word should be "guerrilla" and not "geurrilla". Sorry for the fuzz over a small thing but I am not yet autoconfirmed. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have fixed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA?

"The United Nations and most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya."

This information keeps being deleted by Okedem. I dont think it is trivia.--Abuk78 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, quick tip. If you want people to take you seriously, don't write provocative titles in ALL CAPS. It's shouting, and it's rude.

What you write is just another piece of information related to Israel. There are many such pieces of information, all true and referenced. Not all of them can be in a article, and certainly they can't all be in the lead. Thus, we have to pick the most important points. The identity of a nation's capital is certainly relevant, and you can see it mentioned in the lead of most country articles. International opinion regarding the capital, is not quite so important. It does not change anything about the capital, which is defined as a nation's seat of government. Jerusalem still fulfills its functions as the nation capital, regardless of what other countries think of it. Thus, that piece of information is not important enough for the lead. It is mentioned in the footnote from the info-box.

Beyond that explanation, note this - this article, like many other contentious ones, has been heavily debated and changed. As always, the lead receives the greatest amount of attention. The current phrasing is the result of many discussions and arguments, and represents the opinion of many editors. This is also the version that got FA status. When you wish to make a change to such an article, the proper way to do so is to suggest your alternative version in the talk page, and get other people's opinions. Constant re-insertion of your phrasings, without trying to discuss things, is edit-warring. Even if you think your version if "the right one", respect other people's opinions, and try to collaborate, not force your way.

I am reverting your version, and adding a link to said footnote from the lead. A change will only happen if there's major support for your change on the talk page, and not before. okedem (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that CAPS are rude, but also agree that the the information is important enough to be included here. RomaC (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a true, referenced and important piece of information. "Anyone" can edit FAs. This edit doesn't change the FA status of this article and adds value to the article. But as far as I can see you are another article guardian in Wikipedia. --Abuk78 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Okedem is right. This is detailed in the footnote. It is also well explained in Jerusalem and Positions on Jerusalem. It is also detailed in Tel Aviv. No need to push it everywhere. -- Nudve (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant enough? It's nothing but a minor point. It changes nothing of Jerusalem being the capital. It has no bearing on the lives of Israelis. For all intents and purposes, by all definitions, Jerusalem is the capital. As interesting as international opinion may be, it is far from notable enough for the lead. It is important for the article about Jerusalem, but not for the entire country, and certainly not for the lead.

If you want to discuss this further - sure. Explain how it's important enough for the lead. Why it's on the same level as the country's location, the few sentences about its history, or its political system. But first - revert to the stable version, instead of pushing your version by force. okedem (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; classic case of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagee with Okedem. It seems clear (see Positions on Jerusalem article) that this article should instead state "Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital". The existing phrase "Jerusalem is the country's capital" indicates bias and asserts something as fact which is contrary to majority international opinion. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel controls Jerusalem and there for it is the countries capital even though its disputed. I agree that there should be a comment added on afterwards saying something like, it is the capital although this is disputed by some etc. Information on another article or in a footnote is not going to be seen by many people so it would be helpful to include it but i dont see the need to say its "claimed by" that too would be bias in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Control" isn't even the point. There's no precedent anywhere I know of for other countries to have any say whatsoever regarding a country's choice for capital city. They can have an opinion, certainly, but for every country in the world, throughout history, it appears that their capital is exactly where they choose their capital to be. "Claim" indicates bias; neutrality simply says "Jerusalem is Israle's capital." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Judaism in the Bronze Age

"The modern state of Israel has its roots in the concept of the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), which has been central to Judaism for over 3,000 years"

The latter statement is inaccurate. The only source given is a page from jewfaq.org, a creationist website. It should be changed to "which is central to Judaism". Bob A (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The world's only Jewish state

"Israel is the world's only Jewish state", appears as a strange statement to me. Does it not come close to implying that the normal state of affairs is that most peoples have several states specifically designated for them ? Or that there should be more than one ¨"Jewish state" ? The statement could perhaps be deleted or changed to : 'Israel was established, as a country where Jews could settle after World War II. [ref]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokgand (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The movement to establish the country started in the 19th century, long before WW2. There are dozens of Christian and Muslim states in the world. The is just one Jewish state. That's the meaning of that statement. It's what makes Israel unique. okedem (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Who broke the ceasefire

Please someone correct false information in "recent developments" section, which erroneusly reports that Hamas broke the ceasefire. Actually Hamas re-started hostilities against Israel only after the ceasefire was ended (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-12-18-hamas-declares-end-to-ceasefire-with-israel), while it was Israel who first broke the ceasefire back in november ( "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians).--Heartpox (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that dozens of rockets were fired at Israel during the supposed "ceasefire", I disagree. Israel acted against an immediate threat, in a very specific place, whereas Hamas fired rockets indiscriminately into civilian population. okedem (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Okedem, I am not discussing here weather or not Israel reacted to an immediate threat. I am just saying that the truce did not collapse in december after rockets were fired from Gaza, as the article says. This cannot be true simply because the truce was supposed to end on Dec 19, so it did not collapse. The sentence, in my opinion, should read as follows: In late December 2008, after the end of a six-months ceasefire on December 19, Israel responded with a series of airstrikes against Hamas in response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip." --Heartpox (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: If you have information on continuous rockets firing all along the ceasefire, you should update accordingly the article dedicated to rocket attacks in 2008. From that list I can see that no rockets were fired between end of July and November (but still Israel attacked Gaza on the 5th of November breaking the truce [1]).

Agreed it is a biased comment that it collapsed AFTER Hamas fired rockets into Israel. It should just say after HAMAS announced it would not renew the ceasefire or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

you may want to re-check that link: between June 19 and december 19 there were over 200 motars and rockets fired in to israel from gaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing part

This article doesn't provide sufficient information of how the jewish population accumulated from 1881 to 1947 acquired the terretories which it then assumed control on. 83.65.163.194 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, which will take you to Chronology of the Jewish settlement in the land of Israel in modern times; those should provide the information you seek. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli v Jewish

It is important to remember the tribes of Israel of which the Jews were only 1. Israel was the Jewish homeland and the Palestinian homeland was next to it. It seems to me that the israelis had only taken back part of israel up until 1946, but after this time instead of trying to get back the majority of their historical homeland to the north and east, they turned on the palestinians to the east, something to which they had no real claim. [2], [3], [4]. Can anyone clarify for me? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no trace of "Palestinians" back during the time of the Jews in Israel. The West Bank is just as much a part of the historical homeland as the rest of Israel. Jews had not "taken back" any part of Israel until 1946, because there was no country then. The entire territory was controlled by the British. There were Jewish villages in what came to be called the West Bank, and those were depopulated during the 1948 war, like Arab villages in what came to be Israel. Historically (Biblical times) speaking, Jews had the same claim to the West Bank as to the rest of Israel. It is known there was no "Palestinian People" in biblical times, and their origin is unknown. Some guesses are that they descend from Arabs migrating from the Arabian Peninsula (during the great Muslim conquests of the 7th century); that they descend from peoples brought to Israel by the occupying powers (Assyria, for instance); that they descend from some of the Jews that were not exiled by Assyria, but converted to other religions; and several other assumptions. Perhaps it's a combination of all, perhaps something else. okedem (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article Jews did not have possession on the land since 600. And even prior to that they had intermittent rule... if that. As stated ht Muslims and prior to that Romans controlled the region. IMO United Nations should give ALL North America back to the possession of the Indians which have over 12,000 years of claim on the land compared to the "5000" yrs if that the Jews claim. I can understand why Palestinians and the other Muslim nations are so set against Isreal. look what the religious right does to abortion clinics in the US. lobbing rockets for stealing land that's been in ones families possession more than a 1000 yrs is no different. Lives are being ruined the article should state the facts better than the one sided angle presented. This is a prime example where Wikipedia fails to present the truth and lets a group controls the information. Readers wanting to know more need to realize that Jews have the same claim on the land as any group that has been displaced over that last 2000 yrs. mtrout —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

You didnt click those links I put in, they are from the israeli government, plus the philistines were around during biblical times: where did they live? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I visited your links. They don't say what you claim they do. The Philistines, who you can read about in their Wikipedia article, lived in the lower coastal plain, in a stretch of land from Jaffa to Gaza. There's no evidence linking them to current day Palestinians. okedem (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are evidences linking them to the Hellenic people. Modern Greeks are probably their closest modern relatives. However, ancient scripts mentioning the kingdoms of Israel and Judah also mention Arab tribes who lived in this country. There is nothing new about Jews and Arabs living together on the same land. DrorK (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the links then, they give these quotes: "The Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922: The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the ::::"historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

and "In the end Israel not only ejected the invading Arab forces - it also captured and held some 5,000 km2 over and above the areas ::::allocated to it by the United Nations." Chaosdruid (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please state your claim in a sentence or two? okedem (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Israel

Why isn't there a good one, of the country and cities etc.? RomaC (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea to put a map showing the evolution of the borders (can't find a map with pre-6-day-war border) Jean-Francois Paradis Montreal, Qc, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff1308 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An animated map showing the starting and moving of the borders over the thousands and hundreds of years would be awesome, if there is anyone here with the know how and willingness to spend time researching and sourcing it. JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirm reference

Can someone confirm the quote "During the summit, Barak offered a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected it.[95]"? I would assume that should read Bill Clinton and not Barak? The source is Gelvin, James L. (2005), The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521852897 Bobthropshire (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't say anything about the source, but as I remember, it was Barak. Barak offered a plan encompassing some 97% of the West Bank and Gaza (a few of the larger settlements were to be annexed to Israel), and the equivalent of the missing 3% in land in the Negev, by the Gaza strip. The Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem were to be the Palestinian capital. Clinton and the Saudi prince supported the plan. Arafat rejected it. I don't know exactly why. okedem (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

British Mandate Text

I added the next line of the British Mandate text to the article, as I believe it is needed to provide a more rounded understanding of the extent of the "national home for the Jewish people." The next part of the mandate reads It being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" The citation give for the previous text "The Palestine Mandate". The Avalon Project. Yale University (1922-07-24). Retrieved on 2007-09-06." is the same citation, it is directly the next sentence in the mandate. Please don't revert this without reason as the version which ends 'national home for the Jewish people' makes it sound as if the Mandate was only to provide a 'national home for the Jewish people' however that was not the extent of the mandate, it being understood that nothing could or should be done in achieving that goal which would prjudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities. This is not contentious, it is history and needs to be maintained to allow a wider understading of what the mandate actually did.EoinBach (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize. Next time, when you edit text followed by a source, make it clear in your edit summary that the newly introduced material is mentioned in the source. However, there are other issue with this edit. First, I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. I think it belongs in the History section. Second, what makes this particular sentence of the mandate text so notable? Which brings me to the third point, which is that the mandate text is a primary source, that should be used with care. -- Nudve (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have stressed that it came from the same source but I did say that it was the next part of the mandate. I feel that this particular sentence is important as it is a direct qualification of the sentance which directly proceeds it. I could have removed the reference to the 'national home for the Jewish people' but do believe that it is sufficiently important to be where it is but only when understood within the context of what the intention was for those peoples and communties already living within the area covered by the Mandate. I feel that if gives a much more rounded view of the League of Nations intentions and should be kept with the proceeding sentence. If it is believed that it shouldn't be here, at this section, then I would argue that the whole section needs to be rewritten to ensure balance and a clear understanding of what a 'national home for the Jewish people' actually meant. EoinBach (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is too long a quote for the lead, since it is not that important to the creation of the State of Israel. I think it should be moved to the "Zionism and the British Mandate" section. I suggest we wait for input from other users. -- Nudve (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is important to the formation of the state of Israel - it provided the basis for Jewish migration into Palestine under the British Mandate and ultimately for the formation of Israel as a state, however a recognition of those communities and inhabitants that were already living there was of equal importance and I fear that selectively quoting in such a highly visible possition from the Mandate document to suggest that it provided a basis for a Jewish homeland and that is it actually distorts the intention of the League of Nations. I don't think that it should be reversed just because you think that it is a bit long - if so lets take out the whole reference to the Mandate document and to a Jewish Homeland (which I don't want to do but I'm guessing you don't either but I equally do think that the fuller quote is needed and will wait until tomorrow before reversing your changes). 82.15.28.90 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The full quote has been moved to the relevant section, via a secondary source. -- Nudve (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that the Independent article supports the claim that the sentence in question was added "at the request of" Montagu and Curzon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the "At the request" part, if you have doubts about that. -- Nudve (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the quote, or in fact anything explaining that Jewish immigration was not to impinge on the inhabitants of the country "irrespective of race and religion" (second article of the Mandate). This article needs to discuss the Mandate in a way which doesn't make it look as if its only aim was to establish a national Jewish homeland with no regard for the people already there. I can't seem to find this in the article and feel that the quotes already used have been chosen to express one part of the story without giving the whole story. We need an objective and even handed approach on Wikipedia and I fear that this article and the reluctance to include references to the guarantees for those communities already living in Palestine only detracts from objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia has separate article on the Balfour Declaration of 1917, British Mandate of Palestine, History of Zionism, as well as numerous articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not everything has to be included in the main article, certainly not in the lead. -- Nudve (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that not everything needs to be included, but we do need balance in what is included, and as this was clearly intended to provide balance in the mandate I would argue that it is needed here as well - in the same prominence, if not, then the article ceases to provide an objective overview of the history of Israel and the establishment of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments

Header made by EivindJ.

<< Isarel killed about 800 and injured over 3200 in 14 days offense on Gaza Strip between 2008/12/27-2009/01/09 about 50% of them are women and children under 16 years old. Isarel did not respond to UNSC resolution for immerditae cease-fire. Hamas fired rockets because of the siege that lasted about 18 month during 2007 & 2008. Only 6 Isarelies were killed in rockts attacks. This is not an openion, these are facts from news channels and newspaper articles quoting both sides...It is also dokumented in UNSC meetings regarding Gaza situation, that Israel targeted civilian and aid-worker. Both ICRC and UNRWA submitted official complaints about Isareli armed-forces targeting their operation and employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.80.81 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 January 2009

First of all, most of your data is false. I suggest you use more reliable sources. Now to the main point - are you trying to improve the article, or are you just trying to defame Israel? DrorK (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the first comment, which does carry with it a strong hint of anti-Semitism, the West Bank is one of the most densely populated areas in the world with almost half of the population under the age of 17, so it is far more likely that more and younger casualties will occur in the Palestinian provinces than Israel. The other fact not disclosed in the first statement is that Israel's attack was in response to a preceding 6000 rocket attacks by Hamas. These facts can be verified in recent new paper articles[5]. I suggest checking facts and using a spell check tool before contributing to articles. TriXtar (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Official languages

As far as I know, there are 3 official languages in Israel: Hebrew, Arabic and English. According to the material which I've found in PC program "35 languages of the world (Berlitz): Hebrew is official language of Israel. Arabic is the second official language, English is also very common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 231013-a (talk • contribs) 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it says "official", and not just talking about most common languages in order? JayKeaton (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a complicated situation. During the British Mandate, they declared that all official orders will be published in English, Hebrew and Arabic. When the state was established, it was decided that English would no longer be used in this manner, though there was no real decision on Israel's official languages. All Israeli laws etc. are published in Hebrew and Arabic (but not in English), so those two are understood to be the official languages. okedem (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)