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.

Archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital 2002 – 2003 Aug 2003 Aug 2003 – Apr 2004 Apr 2004 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2005 Jan 2005 – Aug 2005 Aug 2005 – Sep 2005 Sep 2005 – Oct 2005 Oct 2005 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006 Jun 2006 – Jul 2006 Jul 2006 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – Aug 2006 Aug 2006 – Sep 2006 Sep 2006 – Oct 2006 Oct 2006 – Oct 2006 Oct 2006 – Nov 2006

Racially-based citizenship

Someone should mention the racially-based nature of Israeli citizenship. Palestinians are not full citizens of the state of Israel even though they were the original inhabitants of the land. This policy is different from the policy of the United States towards the Native Americans because Native Americans are full citizens of the United States. This article seems very pro-Jew and anti-Palestinian. Some balance would be nice. 160.39.240.81

Your facts are wrong. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens because they inhabit land that does not constitute part of the state of Israel; this land is officially disputed and controled by Israel pending settlement. Israeli arabs, who live within the confines of 1967 border are full citizens of Israel, enjoying the same rights as other Israelis. Jews and Arabs have been living continously throughout the middle east for 2000 years. --Kobigal 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the "Law of Return" allows for the granting of Israeli citizenship to any adherent of the Jewish faith, even converts (subject to the nature and verifiability of the conversion). Citizenship under the Law of Return is thus a function of relgious affiliation and not race.

Compare Japanese citizenship which is almost exclusively a function of descent from a Japanese person. Naturalisation through marriage (and adoption?) is possible but birth in the state of Japan is not a criteria for Japanese citizenship (unless the person would have no other citizenship, which is a criteria virtually mandated by the international community).

Claims that Israel has a racist citizenship law need to be backed by facts. Robert Brockway 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is very biased towards the jewish occupiers of Palestine. "An amendment passed in 2003 to the Nationality Law barring Palestinians from living with an Israeli spouse inside Israel - what is termed "family unification" - did not violate rights enshrined in the country's Basic Laws" from http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0244.htm#Top. In other words Israeli arab citizens can not get married to Palestinians or Palestinian refugees living in other countries. This is only one of many examples which indicate that israel is an apartheid state where Arab citizens are treated as second class. Also in the opening paragraph it mentions that israel is a liberal democracy. It's not liberal in any way what so ever and is becoming less so by the day, particularly when judged by European standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostandcold (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

The aforementioned law prevents granting citizenship to Palestinians, since Israel is at war with the Palestinians. There are Jews who want to marry Palestinians, and can't. One can marry a Palestinian with a Jordanian, Egyptian, or any other citizenship (except for enemy countries - Syria for instance). There's nothing special here - what country lets enemy subjects receive citizenship? okedem 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A "disputed land" would be a land upon which conflicting claims have been laid; Palestine, in this sense, is not "disputed" since no state entity is claiming sovereignty over it. The West Bank was disputed as long as Jordan claimed her sovereignty over the territory; it is disputed no longer. Palestine, thus, is not "disputed"; she is simply "occupied". As I see the issue. Yuriy Krynytskyy.

Right of Return/Ethnic Citizenship

The person who wrote the above about ethnically based citizenship is correct in principle, but in practice there are a few caveats. It is correct that within the borders of the state of Israel that there is equal citizenship to Arabs who remained after the 1948 war. The issue is the occupied territories. My understanding of International law is that you can't change country borders through acts of war, it must be through an international treaty. A state can occupy foreign territory for short periods of time for strategic military reasons as a result of aggression, but you must either 1. give it back after some definite period of time or 2. make it part of your country with the people living their becoming full citizens with all the rights of other citizens. The Golan heights qualifies as a strategic military position. The West bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza do not. Since Israel has intentionally set up permanent settlements on these territories, it can be implied that the state of Israel (at least in the past, and presumably partially today ) intended to annex the territory. As such they should be required to give all people in these territories their full democratic citizenship in the state of Israel. This will never happen as there would be more citizens in Israel of Arab descent than Jewish. This paradox is the crux of the post 1968 Israeli/palestinian conflict, Arab terrorism/protest is a nasty ugly symptom of that paradox. I think the above paradox of a demographic group not receiving full voting rights while settlers of a given ethnicity on the same land do have full voting rights is what the original person meant by "racially based citizenship."

On a side note, the solution to the paradox and the proper course of action according to international law would be for Israel to decide the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are no longer strategic territory and give it up but retain the Golan Heights. I'm doubtful this will happen. (The last statement is my POV)

Just my two cents, I also think the main article is quite biased, in the sense that it leaves out a lot of crucial information about the Palestinians. The demographic information about the Jewish/Palestinian/Christian populations (listed in a comment below) from 1880 to 1920 is crucial to an understanding of the history of Israel.

The right of the return of the Palestinians who either fled or were ethnically cleansed (depending on your point of view) from Israel in the 1948 war of independence is a point of International law that Israel is also in violation of. Refugees, no matter their ethnicity have the right to return to their homes. My POV on this comes from having worked with refugees in the Former Yugoslavia, not any like or dislike of Israel. Ironically, the strongest case supporting the Israeli case for not granting the Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war the right to return is the Sudetenland Germans of the Czech Republic and Poland who were ethnically cleansed at the end of World War II simply for the fact that they were German. They have never been given the right to their properly back simply based on their ethnicity, similar to the Palestinians. Hence the Irony.

Lastly, I would like to address the issue of the purchasing of land prior to 1948. Constitutional issues are not determined by a commercial transaction, they are determined by democratic plebescite. The fact that wealthy Jews from Europe bought land from poor (or even wealthy) Palestinians is immaterial to determining if their should be a Jewish state. Almost all of the above (IMHO) is lacking from the current article. I welcome comments Aburda 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "The Golan heights qualifies as a strategic military position. The West bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza do not". That's clearly not true. The U.S defense ministry recognised in the past that for secure borders Israel can't return these territories. As for the Gaza, the idea of Gush Katif was exactly to serve as security buffer against attacks from Egypt (especially after the peace treaty). This was said by all israeli governments. As for the West Bank, the strategic importance of Judean hills is exactly like the Golan Heights. A famous Shimon Peres quote says that they're also very high mountains in Judea important for security (back then he was against any return of territory to arab countries). Furthermore, the Jordan valley is regarded as crucial to Israel's security to this day and it was a foundation stone of the Oslo Accrods where Yitzchak Rabin promised the whole valley except Jericho will be kept in Israel's hands - this is the requirement of Israel up until Ehud Barak who also wanted to maintain control of the border and the importance of the valley to Israel's integral security. As for refugees, you say correctly that the 12 million german refugees after WW2 is proof that refugees don't have any such given right in international law, on the contrary - population transfer are very common as with Bulgaria and Greece, India and Pakistan and indeed Jewish exodus from Arab lands and those Arabs that left Israel towards the Arab countries. As for citizenships to these Palestinians, I think you'd see that they would refuse any such proposal to begin with. Israel was willing to give self rule to the Palestinians so that where the international law requirement ends - Israel is not obligated to give them a state nor does it have to retreat from the territories. In fact, even the U.N (!) doesn't claim - Security Resolution 242 only calls for withdrawl from territories - which can be only a partial withdrawal. Israel also conquered an area which wasn't in the soverigen control of any other countries and where JEWISH refugees were cleansed before - in Hebron, Gush Etzion and so on. But I don't think Israel's article should get into political issues with Palestinians there are many articles for this. Cheers. Amoruso 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You quote the US Defense department saying "for secure borders Israel can't return these territories", exactly my point. If Israel can't return these lands, and they intend to govern them/annex them indefinitely, then they need to make the people living their full citizens and give them representation in the government that controls their lives. The settlers I think are sufficient proof though that the territory is not being occupied solely for the purpose of security which is all the more reason for giving the people living their full rights of citizenship.

As far as population transfers, my experience in Yugoslavia was, irrespective of what side the ethnicity to a conflict you happen to be born into, you have the right to return to your house, no matter how borders are drawn after a war. This relates to the rights of the individual and his property against those of collective ethnic punishment. Ironically, you quoted the most atrocious genocides and ethnic cleansings of the 20th century as a justification for why Israel should not have to abide by accepted International norms of the right of return of refugees. Practicality speaking, I agree with you that the '48 refugees are never going to be able to return to their homes. And certainly the Greeks are never going to get to go back to their homes in Turkey. The primary difference though (in my eyes) is that there are still vast numbers of living Palestinian refugees from the '48 war who have a legal right to property inside Israel. The same can't be said for either the native Americans or marginally the Greeks and Turks of that "population transfer." In the case of Pakistan, you could make the same case, but they are an impoverished military dictatorship, so its not even worth discussing the finer points of "right of return of refugees" as it would just be purely hypothetical.

As I mentioned though, the the German Case is the closest parallel. It happened at roughly the same time, there are still lots of living survivors. You have a western government (Germany) pushing for recognition that the expelled people were treated unjustly by the governments that expelled them (Poland and the Czech Republic). And you have the two countering Western Democracies refusing to admit responsibility. This case though is really much more hypothetical, as none of the Germans who suffered from the expulsion are refugees anymore. In Palestine, the people who still legally have the right of return 50 some years later are still very much materially suffering in refugee camps as a result of the decision by Israel to not allow them to return to their homes and obtain citizenship.

Your point about the Jewish flight from Arab states brings up an interesting point. It would be an illogical argument to say to a Palestinian who lost his house in the 1948 war and wants it back, that he can only get it back until some Jewish refugee gets to return to Iran. The Palestinian response would be, "I didn't push that other man out of his house, and I am not from Persia, but I have the keys and the deed to that house in Jerusalem. It is mine and I want to go back." To deny him the right to his property and citizenship in the new country created around his home simply because he is Palestinian would be collective punishment based upon ethnicity, which is where this conversation got started and I hold by the fact that it is a moral outrage, irrespective of UN resolutions. Having worked with the UN in Kosovo I won't start on that.....

I politely disagree to say that none of this belongs in an article about Israel any more than to say the Mexican governance of California does not belong in an article about California simply because the constitutional status of California no longer has any relation to Mexico. It is very pertinent to understanding many aspects of California society today, particularly for the Mexicans who live here now. Regards Aburda 06:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that settlements in the West Bank "prove" that it's not only a security issue, but it's exactly the other way around. With settlements it makes the bonding to the place more fixated so it should be more difficult to move out and therefore a better chance to maintain the place for security. In addition, there are mixed reasons for "settlements" in west bank other than security - which is not denied by anyone. That reason like I said is the fact that Jews were expelled from these territories starting from 70 CE and coming into 1948. You might want to have a look at 1929 Hebron massacre and Gush Etzion massacre and others to see why Jews feel they have a right to these places in addition to the fact it's the birthplace of their nation. As for Palestinian refugees, you seem to think that refugee camps are a result of israel's policy while it's actually the policy of Jordan , Syria, Lebanon and just about any Arab country in order to maintain the conflict and the desire to destroy Israel one day. All the jewish refugees from arab lands with some estimates being TWO OR EVEN THREE TIMES LARGER (think about it!) than the arab refugees were settleed and integrated with Israel's society. Population transfers are only natural and are the most humane possible solution in these situations. What's inhumane and cruel is how Arab countries treated these refugees to meet their agenda and exploit them in the larger conflict with Israel which they see as intrusive to Arab conquest in the middle east. I do feel though we're getting too carried away to WP:SOAPBOX territory with this discussion. Amoruso 06:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement about the settlements, they show Israel is going to be there indefinitely. See above about International law and indefinite settlement/annexation of land and how it relates to citizenship/democracy for the local population being annexed. I've lived in 5 countries that have experienced ethnic cleansing. There is nothing humane about it. I think there is a place in this article for information about the hebron massacre as well as the history of the Palestinian people. This is the point of the discussion, there is very little mention of the Palestinian side of the conflict in this article. I understand there is a feeling that Arab states should have taken Palestinian refugees into their country, but I disagree and go back to the fact that those refugees had the right to return to their homes in Israel/Palestine. If Jordan wanted to take them in that would be humane. If the Swedish wanted to take them in that too would be humane, the Swedish had as much obligation as Jordan. 2000 year old history is moot. If my Gaelic ancestors from Ireland wanted to claim the right to their 2000 year old homeland they would be making a claim to Switzerland, that is where the Irish were 2000 years ago (Just what the Irish need, one more conflict). Modern history is the only thing that is relevant, particularly as it relates to the establishment of legal jursidictions, which is why the census info from the late 1800's to early 1900's is pertinent to the Israel article. I kindly disagree about the Soap Box, nothing I have written is Soap Boxish, it is all pertinent to why the Wikipedia article about Israel needs to have lots of input from Palestinian writers as well as Israeli. 07:24, 2 December 2006 Aburda (Talk | contribs)

That should be covered in the article about Palestine not Israel which is linked from this title. Harvardy 08:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel

I just want to Notice that the right Term is "The State of Israel", and not Israel as said in the title

Location

A small matter. It states Israel is located in Western Asia, while all the surrounding neighbors are located as the Middle East, except Egypt in Northern Africa. I'm not sure there are many "Western Asian" countries and I think this could be stated as to divert attention that it is located in the heart of the Middle East. I'm a new user, could someone change this please?

• Maybe I'm not sure what you mean. The lede paragraph says, "(Israel) is a country in Western Asia on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon in the north, Syria and Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south-west". All those countries are in the "Middle East", and also all but one are in Western Asia. Am I missing your point? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the confusion as to the location of Israel is based on the whole confusion to many people on what exactly "Middle East" means. For example, Egypt, which borders Israel is an African Country - as are other "Middle Eastern" countries such as Libya. The article in a few places compares Israel to other places in Asia (such as the education system) which really doesn't make much sense. It appears that the article is written as if Israel is an Asian country - which it isn't.68.161.165.82 12:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)AR
  • Yes it is, inasmuch as it's on the continent of Asia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just curious, do you really think it makes the most relevant sense to compare Israel's educational system to a country like South Korea just because Israel is at the western fringe of the continent of Asia rather than simply compare it to other countries that fit into the "Middle East" catergory? I mean, I would get more of an understanding if the article compared Israel's educational system to Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and other countries in that region. I mean, why stop at South Korea, why not Japan and China? 68.161.178.148 19:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC) AR

"Zionists arming themselves"

I've reverted that edit, for the reason that the source doesn't support the claim. The source only quotes what some Arabs said - it doesn't say it was actually so. And saying "serious allegations" doesn't solve that.

Saying "the natives and the immigrants" is used to push an agenda. There were quite a few Jews living in Palestine before the first Aliyah, and were just as "native" as the Arabs (and some were there from before the Arab conquests).

"with serious allegations of discrimination..." - What discrimination? By who? The zionists were but a small minority, living under the rule of the Ottoman empire.

okedem 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your objection looks exceedingly thin. You're right in one sense, Morris only quotes that particular piece of evidence, he doesn't further comment on it. However, it's only part of a catalogue about which he says there is "little room for doubt".

And of course there's nothing wrong with speaking of "the natives and the immigrants", on two counts. The number of Jews living in Palestine before 1880 seems to have been tiny - and the Zionists caused them lots of grief too.

PalestineRemembered 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit was non-neutral and seriously misrepresented its source. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what evidence you'd allow to stand in this article about the violent ways of Zionists, right from their first arrival. Little has survived from the very earliest days, other than letters from the new arrivals - but they were very clear, the aim was to seize the land and expel the natives. And Jabotinsky wasn't talking about self-defense in 1923 when he spoke of colonising and the vital importance of being able to shoot.

Note - you could bring some balance by providing evidence that other Zionists were far less aggressive - but their kind was far smaller in numbers and presently disappeared.

PalestineRemembered 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By 1923 the Arabs proved to very aggressive (attacking the Zionists that lawfully purchased land and came to work it), which is why the Haganah was formed in 1921. Jabotinsky said that unless the Jews defended themselves with strength, the Arabs would continue to try to kill them, and drive them off. He also spoke of living side by side, peacefully, as two peoples in the land of Palestine. But you conveniently ignore that, right? You only quote the parts you wanted for your own agenda. And by the way, he didn't say "colonize", but "settle" (if one wishes to correctly translate from the Hebrew source).

You continually claim that Zionists "seized" land from the Arabs - but bring absolutely no proof for that claim. Try sticking to the facts. Even your source doesn't say Zionists "stole" land. They just buy it. The value of that source seems clear when it brings up the silly claim of "taking all the commerce into their hands" - It's a free market. I guess the Jews gave better value to the buyer.

These arguments are getting old. Try bringing actual sources, not obscure claims, that prove nothing (and don't even claim that much). okedem 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Zionists arrived determined to seize the land (letters from them prove it, the alarm of Palestinians prove it was no great secret). It's nonsense to accuse the Palestinians of racist aggression, when the fault for which they're being so terribly punished is failing to act together to stop the immigrants.

Lots of excellent sources to prove it, but every attempt to introduce them will be summararily reverted.

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." - Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 at the funeral of mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

PalestineRemembered 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have no intention of bringing sources or any evidence for your claims.

The Jews purchased land from the Arabs, and came to live on it. Your claims of "seize" are baseless.

"nonsense to accuse the Palestinians of racist aggression"? The other part of your sentence doesn't refute the first part. The Arabs attacked Jews, plenty of times (like the 1929 Hebron riots).

And your usage of a quote from some extreme right wing nut is appalling. I can bring you thousands of such quotes from Arabs, and not just extremist fanatics, but leaders. I guess that's what one does when they can't support their claims rationally. okedem 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have excellent references and sources - ...... For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt. ..... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones." The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.""The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, covertly, bit by bit .... We can only do this covertly, quietly ... We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy"

PalestineRemembered 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, so we can end this. Buying land EQUALS a legal, legitimate practice. Buying land NOT EQUAL to seizing land, NOT EQUAL to taking land by force. Unless you want to claim (and prove) that the Zionists took land by means other than lawful purchase, this discussion is over. okedem 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

- Much of Native American land was bought by the invading Europeans. Just because there is legality doesn't mean that somebody didn't get ripped off. Ciderlout, 28/11/06

"Palestineremembered", if you keep vandalising pages of Israeli related issues you will be reported. That includes turning talk pages of articles to your personal WP:SOAPBOX of false arab propaganda. Amoruso 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I note your objection to good information and genuinally WP:RS brought to the discussion. How much easier it would be if we stuck to laughable propaganda provided by the likes of Shmuel Katz, public relations officer of the most violent militants and alleged terrorists of 1948.

PalestineRemembered 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I value the contributions of PalestineRemembered. This article needs balance. As it stands it seems very pro-Jew and anti-Palestinian. 160.39.240.81

I agree, Palestineremembered is not "vandalising" these pages. His is a valid viewpoint that represents the MAJORITY of the population in the middle east.

Is the veracity of something determined by a majority vote? Even if most Arabs believe Jews are devilish creatures plotting to take over the world, that doesn't make it true, or even worth discussing. PR can't seem to bring any evidence for his bold claims, and that's what matters here. okedem 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism and Immigration

I'd like to submit the following facts to improve this area. Reading this section without facts and figures is contradictory to the aims of neutrality. Circa 1850 Palestine had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns. Roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.

1849 Jerusalem Jews 895 Christians 4,804 Muslims 24,177

Gaza Jews 0 Christians 276 Muslims 30,279

Hebron Jews 54 Christians 0 Muslims 7,269

The Demographic Development of Palestine, 1850-1882, by Alexander Scholch International Journal of Middle East Studies © 1985 Cambridge University Press

1920 700,000 people Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were animated by religious motives; they came to pray and to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil. After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. [1]

That last reference of yours is particularily valuable, because it's about the earliest "bureaucratic" or "modern-style" estimate we have. The writer is Herbert Samuel, who is known to have become a Zionist only around 6 years earlier (1915) and is accused of giving the immigrants much aid and secret advantage in Palestine (land-ownership laws, adding "Eretz Israel" added to the postage stamps). Note how he speaks of "large proportions", when they were still less in number than Christians in the same land. He was clearly not in the business of understating the number! "Contrary to the facts that the military administration knew only too well,[17] Samuel reported that there was no genuine Arab hostility to Zionism. He added that Palestine, under populated and underdeveloped, could support millions of Jewish immigrants. At the same time as he was misleading the British government, he warned Weizmann that the Zionist Commission had the effect of an "alien body in living flesh" and that he did not expect to convert Arabs"[2].

PalestineRemembered 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Id like to ask why these figures have not ben added to this section? There's considerable discussion on Jews living in the Diaspora have sought to emigrate into Israel throughout the centuries. Yet, there is no discussion on how many were there. This is a critical ommission of evidence. Some of this evidence is presented above. If you cannot let unregistered or new users to modify the articles, (I'm not that familiar with wikipedia) how does the occasional editor get to add information to improve the article in an attempt to eliminate bias within this article?

Also, the excerpt In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration that "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain. is incorrect, and indicitive of the ambiguity that often leads to bias within the article. What is ommitted from the rest of the Balfour document is the component that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Since this is one of the key issues extending back to the 1880's and since the section placed seems to lean towards an implication of the creation of a wholly Jewish state in Palestine, there should have already been clarification in the article to remove bias. Moreover, what is actually discussed from the British mandate is that it is "not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State" -taken directly from the White Paper of 1939[3]. This document cites the 1922 Command paper. It was also written more than a decade after the split of Transjordan and Palestine, therefore the 1939 paper is not conflating transjordan in the following excerpt. Quote below.

"The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine. Their views and proposals are set forth below under three heads, Section I, "The Constitution", Section II. Immigration and Section III. Land.

Section I. "The Constitution"

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. "

You say: "...the excerpt In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration that "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain. is incorrect...".

How is it incorrect? The first part talks of the Balfour declaration, quoting directly from it. No one is claiming that Britain said they would harm other people's rights for this, and I don't see any need for a longer quote, not do I see cause for confusion, or any ambiguity.

The second part ("In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain.") is merely factual, and I don't see what possible problem you could have with it. The mandate itself, by the way, was explicitly granted for the implementation of the Balfour declaration, as one can read in the original text ([4]).

To be honest - I don't really understand what you want. You bring long quotes, but don't clarify what you think should be done. If you think these (very few) sentences can be phrased better, write your suggestion here, and we can discuss it. okedem 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The ambiguity of the phrase the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people is addressed and clarified at great length by the British for very important historical and contemporaneous reasons related to the conflict before the creation of the state of Israel. Many of these important points are listed at great length within the British mandate documents, some of which I have pasted above. As it sits now, the phrase the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people omits very important clarifications provided within the Balfour document and, more importantly, the points posted above. This excerpt is admittedly long, but very important to reveal how misleading the phrase "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" is to the actual intentions of the British government.

Ill work on a replacement in a few days for everyone's scrutiny.

-Also, I would like to add that the points related to the population figures I post above should be also added in to improve the article. I'll submit those replacements here as well.

- Section from my long excerpt above "The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews.

-Also, adding "In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain" was an error. I was looking to only cut and paste the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

Very One sided

Let me preface this by saying not every nutcase with a different idea deserves to have their views presented as legitimate. However the user PalestineRemembered presents quite a bit of information in the discussion board. Don't write me off as some crazy revionist or NWO/Illuminati type - I just feel that a balanced view of Isreal should be presented in Wikipedia. Only presenting the "tourist brochure" version of Isreal on the main page, then seeing legitimate information brought up in the discussion that is ignored definitely piqued my interest. 209.250.215.32 14:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User PalestineRemembered is actively pushing an agenda, using questionable sources, and sources that don't actually support his claims. If you can bring respectable sources for such claims, they can be included, but as long as the article remains NPOV, and Israel is not treated unfairly compared to other country articles. okedem 15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered is barred from editting this article (as a newly-registered editor?), despite scrupulous attention to using WP:RS sources and a refusal to partake in edit-warring.

User:PalestineRemembered wishes it be recorded that some Palestinians were seriously alarmed by the violent and gun-slinging ways of the Zionists since at least 1891, about the end of the First Aliyah.

User:PalestineRemembered notes how laughably non-historical material from the likes of Shmuel Katz is shovelled into some articles, while far better referenced material from real researchers is reverted in dozens of articles without discussion or excuse.

PalestineRemembered 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you will gain more trust if you change that politically charged username? mirageinred 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. It is much easier to support claims of neutrality when you aren't wearing your POV on your sleeve, so to speak. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Amoruso thinks this shouldn't be turned into one of Palestineremembered soapboxes. Amoruso 10:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry my question caused you this distress. How will you deal with my next question - what do you think about David Ben-Gurion telling his fellow Zionists in 1937 that Israel should include Southern Lebanon. How do you feel about his later statement "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai".

Of course, in the light of recent actions aimed to "Smash Lebanon", if you feel unable to answer my questions, I will quite understand. I'm used to Zionists not answering my questions.

PalestineRemembered 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You prove Amoruso's claim in its entirety. You're not here to improve the article, you treat this as a discussion forum. Well, it's not one, and it won't be one, so stop looking for fights. okedem 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why I seem to repeatedly need to remind people in discussions with PalestineRemembered to remain civil and to refrain from personal attacks. PR, there was ZERO need for the ad hominem attacks against Zionists as a group. Furthermore, the quotes you have continually used as examples of 'imperialism' or 'aggression' are all taken massively out of context and do nothing to advance this otherwise constructive discussion. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is "politically charged" about my username. It's more of an admission that I carry some baggage - but then everyone else here does the same. What is "politically charged" about saying "Let the people back to their homes first, then let's discuss punishing the criminals who kept them out for so long"?

PalestineRemembered 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is that deliberate disingenuity, or is a true lack of understanding about what "politically charged" might mean? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's politically charged about saying "Let's prosecute criminals against whom we have evidence sufficent". If you're opposed to crime carried out by gunmen, then we can move forward and maybe even start pointing fingers. PalestineRemembered 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While it is clear that a number of people in this discussion have a personally biased view here, I think PR may be right in saying there is a disparity in the viewpoints in the article. To use opinionative information to highlight one half of the argument and not the other, is misleading to say the least. I do certainly agree that PR has chosen to wrongly use this discussion forum as a personal soapbox as it was aptly referred to earlier, but in my opinion, that does not excuse ignoring the side of the argument that he represents. The way I look at it, we need to be thinking about what this article will say to someone who is looking for information on something they know nothing about. It is unfortuante, but in politically charged, controversial matters such as these, it is impossible to simply ignore that these things exist but rather, we should be shedding light on both sides of the controversy. I simply feel that the information used and the tone in which it is used, does not fully explain the situation impartially. --Keen 3 17:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue for both sides here. If PR can't argue to the point, I won't make his case for him. I can't sort out whatever relevant claims he may have from his jumble of soap-boxing ramblings. If a relevant, good faith, suggestion were to be made, I will discuss it, and try to reach a compromise. I've already proven this, I think, while trying to get to a compromise on the lead a few weeks ago (when I had to argue more with an avid Israel supporter than with anyone else). okedem 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a tour guide. However, keep in mind that Israel has a prosperous economy, a democracy (theocracy-free), and a very impressive education system. It's only natural that it looks like a tour guide. (except for its conflict with the middle east, and possible violation of human rights) mirageinred 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Theocracy-free? Not entirely. This is a pretty controversial issue (or complex of issues) in Israeli politics. Palmiro | Talk 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The only existing religious laws are in marriage and divorce and it has christian laws for Chrisitans and muslim laws for muslims for this too. More and more high court decisions have also almost obliterated it and created alternate civil solutions for this. Everything else is civil. Amoruso 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with 209.250.215.32 that this topic is more of a Israel promotional than factual reference material. Advancing a position through the omission of facts serves no ones best interest. Provide all the facts, without emotion or agenda, and allow the reader to draw there own conclusions. Dead0 12:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What is being omitted? If you want something to be included that is relevant and isn't, then propose changes. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for adding interwiki link to the Bosnian language page

Could I ask someone to add the following interwiki link to Bosnian page [[bs:Izrael]]? -- Benjamin, 20061113

Done. okedem 11:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- Benjamin 20061113

Inappropriate Picture in Religion Section

The picture in the section entitled 'Religion in Israel' with the caption 'Young Haredi men on Purim in Jerusalem' is completely inappropriate. It is not at all representative of Haredi -- or even just religious-- society and is offensive.

Unfortunately, I cannot remove this picture as I am a newly-registered user.

An appropriate replacement would be something along the lines of a street scene depicting a broad cross-section of the Orthodox-Jewish community in Jerusalem. --Eitz Chayim 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it offensive again, didn't understand (I'm not dismissing it, just asking). Cheers. Amoruso 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sephardi Jew discrimination claim

I've removed that claim (which has since been restored) because without any further treatment, it's little more than a red herring. Neither this section, nor the main article, deal with this, and the reader is left without any substantial information.

The claim is discrimination is known, but is not very credible. Little, if any, evidence is ever brought by the claimers.

To make such claims would be quite silly, given the current persons in power:

Moshe Katzav, the President of Israel, was born in Iran. So was Shaul Mofaz, the vice PM, and minister of transportation (former Chief of Staff, former Minister of Defence). Dan Halutz, the current Chief of Staff, is Iranian descent. Meir Sheetrit, Min. of Housing and temporary Min. of Justice, was born in Morocco. Elli Yishai, Vice PM and Min. of Commerce/Industry/Labor is of Mizrachi descent. Amir Peretz, Vice PM, Min. of Defense was born in Morocco. Dahlia Itzik, Knesset chairman, is of Iraqi descent. Yaakov Edri, Min. of Jerusalem affairs was born in Iraq. Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Min. of Infrastructure, was born in Iraq.

Do I need to go on?

okedem 10:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your examples prove your case. There are lots of reports of severe discrimination against Sephardics (and even reports of anti-semitism!).

PalestineRemembered 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can't prove that there's no discrimination, for the simple fact that you can't really prove a negative. I can only bring examples of why I can't find discrimination, and find the claims absurd. ::The whole "Mizrachi vs. Ashkenazi" thing is completely blown out of proportion, and used by several parties for their own political gains. It's especially annoying to me that the statistics and data completely ignore the huge population of mixed descent, categorizing people by the origin of the father. This only furthers the supposed "rift" between population, which doesn't really exist (I, for example, would be considered a "Mizrachi", since my father is of Iraqi descent, but I'm also half Ashkenazi).

If you have evidence of well documented cases of discrimination (and anti-semitism?), please bring them forth. The only thing I know of is that some private ultra-orthodox yeshivas won't accept more than a certain number of students from mizrachi descent. However, they're not part of the state's education system, and no one has to go there - it'd be better if the parents sent their kids to real schools. okedem 08:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to start .... [5] "Reports of anti-Semitic acts have turned into a regular feature in Israeli newspapers, mainly Russian-language ones. The movement "Dmir – Assistance in Absorption" has carried out an investigation of the problem and found that the scourge of anti-Semitism had penetrated the society fabric much deeper than predicted in most grim estimates."

And that's on top of the endemic racism of Israel eg [6] "I have heard countless racial slurs, talked to Ethiopian youth about their experiences, .... I am appalled by a Jewish homeland which secretly throws out untested Ethiopian blood for fear of AIDS. I am ashamed of a Jewish people which prevents an Ethiopian child from going to school with other Israeli children."

Okedem claims that Iraqi Jews have flourished, but that's not what they themselves have often claimed, check out the Israeli Black Panthers, 1972: "One of the most splendid and rich communities [in Iraq] was destroyed, its members reduced to indigents--a community that ruled over most of the resources of Iraq was turned into a ruled group, discriminated against and oppressed in every aspect [in Israel]. A community that prided itself on its scholarship subsequently produced fewer academics, in Israeli universities, than it brought with it from Iraq."

(And on top of the fact that Israel is the most dangerous place on earth to be Jewish!).

PalestineRemembered 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, then. So from all your serious claims, all you have to say is:

1. There are some anti semites in Israel. Big deal. But having a few, rare, anti semites, doesn't mean there's any meaningful "anti semitism". Anyway, how is this relevant to anything? What does this have to do with the government? With discrimination?
2. Again, what does some people's racism have to do with anything? There's some racism everywhere, and even Israel is not immune from that. Everywhere in the world people dislike people who aren't like themselves.
3. The blood thing is really stupid policy by the blood bank (which is a PRIVATE organization, just to be clear). They should have just not let people born in Ethiopia donate blood. The risk is extremely high. But they didn't want to hurt their feelings, so they thought taking the blood, and then secretly destroying it would be the best solution, so as not to make the Ethiopians seem "dirty" to others. Of course, that policy blew up in their faces.
4. "prevents an Ethiopian child from going to school with other Israeli children" - A baseless claim. I went to school with many Ethiopian children. We don't have segregation here, you know.
5. Iraqi Jews - Great, you quote from a radical group, but again - what about the evidence?! Can you bring me evidence of discrimination? Can you prove anything at all?

My little list just went to show you that the discrimination claims don't stand up to reality. And I actually know the Iraqi Jews first hand, being of half Iraqi descent - there's no discrimination, and there never was. The whole "discrimination" thing stems from the new immigrants coming to Israel in the '50s, and living in the government built shantytowns, seeing the older residents, most of them Ashkenazi, living in better homes and apartments. Of course, they had better homes because they came to Israel much earlier, and had time to work and save up for apartments. The people who came to Israel before the state was established didn't get anything, not even a hut, and had to make it on their own. The new immigrants got a lot more than any Ashkenazi ever did.

In conclusion, if you can't bring evidence to support your "discrimination" claims, stop wasting everybody's time. okedem 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You challenged me "If you have evidence of well documented cases of discrimination (and anti-semitism?), please bring them forth.".

I've produced well-documented cases and you're upset ..... I feel your pain. I'm sure I must have demanded evidence of things in the past and thrown a hissy-fit when someone proved they were right and I was wrong.

Good thing I didn't waste my time proving that the Zionists cheated the Palestinians of some of their land, before going ahead and robbing them of all of it, isn't it? That might really have upset you!

PalestineRemembered 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep it clean, PR, and don't patronize.

You have not brought one piece of evidence for discrimination against Mizrachi Jews. Stop pretending you did, and stop wasting our time. okedem 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/palestinian-territories Jewish Land ownership in 1947 was no more than 6.6% of the land, not 28% as the author claims.

this? [7] Amoruso 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Every report I've seen says around 7% for the Zionists, despite Herbert Samuel having written the new land laws of the Mandate to make acquisition as easy as possible for them.

PalestineRemembered 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The racist White papers forbade almost in total the acquistion of land by Jews... Amoruso 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So Katz and the other book you have, the novel about Lehi, don't mention that Herbert Samuel and his Attorney General were both keen Zionists, and made 10 new Land Laws between 1920 and 1925, aimed at making the Zionist colonial enterprise as easy as possible?

Gee - who would have thunk it?

The Zionists tore up the old system of village ownership of land and granted "legal deeds of ownership" to wealthy tax-collectors from the Ottoman era (preferably the ones who'd moved abroad). They did this on condition that these so-called "owners" sold the land straight back to the Zionists. Money really only had to change hands because the Zionists needed hired Palestinians (now jobless tax collectors left over from the Ottomans) to ethnically cleanse the farmers with clubs first.

I'd reference all of these things, knowing what high regard you have for proper Reliable Source.

PalestineRemembered 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do try to prove those claims. I'd like to see your "reliable sources". okedem 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

-Okedem: As an intrested, hopefuly neutral party, I have often seen information passed by evidently pro-palestinians like PR that make the formation of Israel into a cynical/pragmatic takeover of land - rather than denounce his ideas and demand to see source material - why don't you tell us exactly what happened. How did this area of the Middle East transfer from a (80% Muslim + 20% mixed) to a (the) Jewish State in the space of 100 years? Ciderlout

The history of the matter is quite clearly written in the articles in wikipedia (Israel, history of israel, etc). The gist of it is that Jews came to Palestine, purchased land, built settlements, developed the land, and after getting international recognition for the necessity of a Jewish state, established the country after the UN 1947 partition plan. okedem 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote 69.156.78.50 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

User:okedem, the lead is not a travel or ranking guide. If you have specific objections to the changes, please raise them. Instintive, blind reversions are unhelpful. El_C 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below. I've been working on this article for a long time. Don't just come in and do whatever you feel like. There are reasons for the current status. okedem 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead

User:El C has completely rewritten the lead, and I object to this. The lead has been the focal point of several discussions here, and its form was the result of long arguments. To just come in and trample it like this is almost insulting. The only reason I'm not reverting his edit is because of 3RR.

El C - if you make changes to a stable section, and someone objects - you shouldn't force your view - you should use the talk page. While the discussions are held, the last stable version should remain. The changes need justification, and in an article as hotly debated as this, making unilateral changes is unacceptable. Go see the discussion over the lead in the archives - no point in repeating all the old arguments.

Oh, and please don't use the hidden comments for explanations - we can't have a discussion there, that's what this page is for. okedem 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific objections, or not? El_C 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My third revert. I'm out. Samir! and Okedem, your blind reversions (without retaining additions you do not dispute) reflects poorly on you. Censoring-out any mention of history & conflict is driven by POV efforts to idealize reality. El_C 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do:

1. The population figure is important for the lead, to give the reader a feeling of what he's reading about, the scale of it ("does it have 100 million people? a 100,000?").
2. The deletion of the UN HDI index - it's relevant, and again - gives helpful information ("Is it a third world country, with all the wars? Is it like Europe? Africa? Scandinavia?").
3. Considering Israel's neighbors, the civil and political liberties are germane to the lead.
4. You mention immigration, independence, and wars, but don't bother mentioning that Israel was founded based on a UN resolution (29/11/1947).
5. If you have a problem with "vibrant cultural life", you can delete it. I don't like that phrase anyway.

I'm mostly annoyed with your conduct in this. Don't come in and fight. If you want to change things, and people object, don't start an edit war. Discuss the changes you wish to make on the talk page, and we'll reach some agreement.

And don't accuse people of POV. You're the one acting unilaterally, instead of using the consensus building ways Wikipedia is founded upon. okedem 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Had you just added a couple of things, maybe your claims of "blind reverts" would be more relevant - but you've deleted quite a few things as well.

Use discussions, not force. My record here shows I'm willing to compromise, but I won't accept these actions, this manner. okedem 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. As mentioned, the populations of countries are not mentioned in country leads; they're already mentioned in the infobox.
2. UN HDI index is not appropriate for the lead, this detail belongs in the body. Lead needs to remain concise.
3. I don't mention any UN resolutions, for or against Israel, nor the UN itself. Just that wars took place.
4. Liberal democracy should be sufficient for the lead.
5. That is a minor aside, but symptomatic as to the poor state I found the lead in.
6. Everything removed is in the body. Again, the lead should be much more concise. El_C 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mass migrations are not that uncommon. WP should not espouse the POV that "immigration waves by Jews ... brought increasing tension with local Arabs" - Arabs migrated en masse too, and another scholarly view is that the Arab hostilities are at least in part inspired by Jihadist leadership (see Amin al-Husayni, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, etc.) In any case, I am with those who do not think that these controversies belong in the intro. This is not an article on the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the State of Israel whose existence has been very much defined by the Aliyas and by extension, conflict with the Arabs. This does not preclude prior Arab migration nor does it make value judgments. It's just an account as to what led to the rise of the State of Israel, which should not be censored out. Perhaps a brief mention of earlier history is warranted, though. El_C 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why should "WP should not espouse the [view] that "immigration waves by Jews ... brought increasing tension with local Arabs," is that not what took place? El_C 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, my above comment notwithstanding, I do appreciate your point that the Aliyahs are mentioned in isolation (in terms of periodization). I tried to address that oversight by noting that they began in the late 19th Century. El_C 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost every state had their share of wars and migrations. This article's intro should not concentrate on the Arab-Israeli conflict - leave that for another article. What defines Israel and what caused Arab hostitlies are POVs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I think we can safely say that had there not been any Jewish Aliyah migrations... You get the point. That is not POV. The wars are especially pertinent for the State of Israel, enough to warrant mention in the lead. Not mentioning them in this case is, in fact, POV. Granted the War of 1812 would be unsuited in the leads of Canada/United States. El_C 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think El C's version is good. It gives vital historic background instead of subjective and selective remarks. It is also much more in line with other country leads. However, I am not at all convinced that this article should state clearly, albeit implicitly, that Lebanon is not a liberal democracy. Stating that Israel is a liberal democracy is one thing; declaring that it is the only one in the region seems a most undesirable way of using the lead to establish comparisons with other states. Just as, for example, we say that the official state religion of Iran is Shia Islam, but not that Iran is the only state in the region (indeed, in the world) - and that's a case that is indisputable, whereas this one is at least open to question. Palmiro | Talk 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that potential conflict in Israel is always near by. For example: while in my youth, one could travel to the OT in relative safety, not to mention the cities in the Triangle, these days, things are much different and you can sarcesly find a place (save Eilat and parts of the Negev) where you can drive for 10-15 minutes without reaching a place that is not safe for the majority of the population (Israeli Jews) to be, because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I consider that a defining feature of the country, worthy of inclusion in the lead. El_C 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be wasting my time here. I will add the npov tag, though, to motivate editors to realize the benefit of real improvements over a poorly-written, biased and unprofessional status quo. El_C 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I find El_C's intro severely POV. From "local Arabs" and "immigrant Jews" to "occupation". So what came first, Arab hostilities or Jewish occupation? Again, this is not an article about the conflict. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that I did not mention a causal relation between "Arab hostilities or Jewish[?] occupation." The lead needs to touch on the history because Wikipedia should not be censored for the benefit of your notion of political correctness. El_C 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, can you envisage a version based on El C's that you would find acceptable? or to put it another way, are there edits you would consider making to El C's version as an alternative to going back to the other version? Palmiro | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect at this point that Humus sapiens is approaching the changes through POV-reflexes rather than careful reading of the material. Note his distortion: He turns "After successive Zionist-inspired immigration waves by Jews to the Land of Israel" (unimportant ^{{fact}}?) into "immigrant Jews." Not credible, HS. El_C 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The right-national POV should not be owning the intro, but this is exactly what seems to be happening here. El_C 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that sneaky cabal again. 6SJ7 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There's that diversionary TINC innunedo. El_C 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No diversion and no innuendo, I was reacting to the "right-national POV" remark. 6SJ7 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. El_C 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with the proposed change to the lead is that it was overly politicizing the introduction - in fact, making it essentially a polemic narrative, along the lines of "Israel is a country founded by European colonizers who invaded Palestine in the 19th and 20th centuries, and dispossessed the native Arabs, causing continuing wars. Their further occupation of Palestinian lands is causing even more misery for their victims". Again, it's expressing one particular, highly politicized political narrative, and making Israel all about that. The lead of United States doesn't talk about it European colonization and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, and its imperialist involvement in many wars, including currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lead of Argentina doesn't discuss the European colonization and ethnic cleansing of the Guaraní and Mapuche, and the Dirty War and Falklands War. I realize that Israel is continually singled out for special negative treatment on the world stage, but the Wikipedia article about Israel should try to adopt a more neutral, less politicized tone, in line with article leads on all other countries. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with some, but not all of these points; but if this article is to keep in line with the lead articles for other countries, surely it should, like those, eschew the making of all explicit as well as implicit comparisons with other countries? The comparison with the political systems of other Middle Eastern countries which your preferred version includes is far more overt and polemical than the implications you read into El C's (entirely factual and neutral) version. Palmiro | Talk 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we look at the lead for Germany, we see that it does not seem to mention anything about the country starting (and losing) two World Wars (surely far more significant that Israel's small local conflicts), but does mention that it is "a democratic parliamentary federal republic", "a founding member of the European Union", and "the European Union's most populous and most economically powerful member state." Brazil's lead notes that Brazil is "South America's leading economic power and a regional leader." Egypt's lead claims that it is "widely regarded as the main political and cultural centre of the Middle East." The interesting thing about Israel's lead is that rather than containing vague assertions like this, it actually has specific verifiable claims in the lead instead. If anything, it seems that the standard set for Israel is again higher than other countries. Which claims do you think are unreasonable, untrue, or not appropriate for a country article lead? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interim proposal and responses

Perhaps the narrative for paragraph 2 can be rephrased, but it looks farily straightforward to me:

1. Successives Zionist-inspired Aliyahs by Jews to the land of Israel, beginning in the late 19th Century
2. Increasing tension between Arab and Jewish populations
3. Independence declared
4. Wars fought with Arab countries
5. Territorries occupied, including Palestinian territories
6. conflict remains ongoing

---

Which is item from the above can be included? I notice that Morocco's lead at least mentions Western Sahara. Then again, I now notice that Sudan's lead dosen't even mention the Second Sudanese Civil War (more than the entire population of Palestine killed) or Darfur, which I think is worse than Israel not mentioning all of the above. I will try to attend to that. Key question is whether there is any willingness at all to bring up the origins and immediate history of the State of Israel (and a mention of prior history, Holocaust and ancient) in a paragraph or two, regardless if it's myself or Jay who writes it. All that for history and the second paragraphs, but what about my changes to the first and the third ones. Let us examine these. The changes to the first paragraphs were cosmetic, except for the population. Can we agree that there are no objections to it if the population is to be readded? (if there are, let me know) The third paragraph, as I maintained, has excess detail more suited for the body.

---

1. Vibrant Culture is unprofessional — show me another country article that has anything remotely similiar to that in its lead paragraph?
2. The only liberal-democracy in the ME — obviously this includes liberal-democratic institutions and practices, or it wouldn't be called one.
3. The most economically-advanced country in the ME — again, indexes are excessive to the lead, at least with that many comparisons.

Again, let's address everything point by point so we can attend to all the issues comprehensively and comprehensibly. So while we discuss the obviously most heated addition (the 2nd paragraph), are there any objection to having the following lead in the meantime (please be specific):

---

The State of Israel (Hebrew: , Medinat Yisra'el; Template:Lang-ar, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in the Western Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west. It has a population of over seven million people. Israel declared independence in 1948 and is the world's only Jewish state, although Israeli citizens include many other ethnic and religious backgrounds. Israel is the most industrially advanced country in the Middle East and the region's only liberal democracy.

---

So, let's clean up all that excess detail, and work toward expanding the intro from there. Thank you all in advance for your careful consideration. El_C 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggested interim lead. I agree with your comment on "vibrant culture", however I do think the HDI is useful.

My concern with your list of items is that it makes it look as if the Jews' connection to Israel began in the 19th century with Zionism, which would be completely misleading, and make the reader question why the Jews chose to come to Israel.

I don't mind mentioning the West bank in the lead, though the wording used would be very important. I'll try to make some more comments later on. okedem 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a risk and wrote something to replace "vibrant cultural life". It's a work in progress but I'd contend that what I've written is less flowery and more neutral...perhaps a better starting point than before, if people wish to improve it. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the United States article talk about successive waves of European immigration? Does the Argentina article? As for listing all the wars, conflicts, occupation, etc., I've dealt with that already. We don't talk about these kinds of things in other country intros, and we shouldn't be singling Israel out for wildly disproportionate criticism on Wikipedia - that's the job of the U.N. and world press. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When the lead of Syria mentions that it's a terrorist harbouring evil dictatorship state and the lead of Iran mentions that it's a country ruled by a maniac who wants to commit genocide in infidels and so on, then we will consider adding pov changes to israel's lead. Amoruso 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a bit out of touch on when it comes to the lead paragraphs of First World countries. Incidentally, the lead for Argentina includes territorial claims, the lead for Pakistan mentions the secession of East Pakistan, etc. It's obvious one could pick and choose which country leads to use as an example favouring their position. I'm generally in favour of some historical background in the lead. I'm dissapointed that none of my points were addressed. Namely, on whether historical background in the lead has to mean "pov changes" in every instance. At the very least that question desreves a direct response. Thanks again for reading. El_C 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive changes. I support minimalist leads to begin with which is why sensitive issues are problematic there. For example, think of the holocaust and mentions of it in the lead of Poland or Germany etc. There are none. Most countries have very basic facts only on leads. Some like you say have mentions of conflicts but usually they're reverted at one point or another by someone and it ends up begins minamilist, i tracked down histories of many articles at a time to have a comparison and it's true. Amoruso 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interim! The lead for the DRC has had a mention of the Second Congo War ever since ... ever since I wrote it, although it officially took place during 1998-2003 and claimed the lives of over half the population of Israel. I suppose my question is whether "Israel declared independence in 1948 and is the world's only Jewish state" is too minimalist. El_C 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO no, many have even less. Btw, check out Iran in the sense of giving "wrong impressions" - where is the revoultion, war with iraq, embassy hijacking, conflict with U.A.E, what not... Amoruso 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important for the leads to touch on history. For a long time, it did so here. El_C 13:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a bit of historical background, but then you have to start at the beginning - the Jewish kingdoms of old. okedem 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Only Democracy? Not again.

Could we stop this polemical and controversial comparative info in the lead please? Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy, so is Turkey, and both are located in the Middle East. Why are we espousing Zionist propaganda as though it is fact? Where is the source for this assertion? Why can't we simply note it is a liberal democracy and discuss its status vis-a-vis the region in detail in the body, noting the comparable systems in Turkey and Lebanon? Sorry if I sound frustrated but this has been a source of discussion for ages now (see archives) and there has never been consensus on the issue and yet the comparative formulation keeps getting reinserted in the lead despite repeated objections about its factuality. Thoughts? Feedback? Thanks. Tiamut

I partially agree.

The statement regarding the degree of Israel's democracy is based on the Freedom House report, and later in the article, it states such. I think that's fine. However, I agree that comparative info in the lead is out of place. The lead is supposed to be a primer for the article. Its status as the only Jewish state in the world is significant and worth putting in the lead. But saying that it's the only "liberal democracy" and "most industrialized nation" in the Middle East is out of place.

As for your comparisons, Lebanon is supposed to be a democracy, but is severly unstable. Moreover, there are restrictions in the Lebanese government in regards to what religion specific leaders must be (e.g. the President must be Christian while the Prime Minister must be Sunni), which would disqualify it as a "liberal democracy". Additionally, the influence of Hezbolah and Syria on the Lebanese democracy reduces its democratic ranking.

Meanwhile, Turkey is not considered a part of the Middle East by the G8, which is where the term "Middle East" really comes from in modern times.

All of that said, I still feel it's out of place in the lead (but not later in the article in the section about the government), and conflicts with WP:NPOV. I would propose changing the statement "Israel is the most industrially developed country in the Middle East and the region's only liberal democracy." to "Israel is an industrially developed country in the Middle East. It is a liberal democracy." in the lead, and leaving the part in the section about Government alone. If there are disagreements, please post them. Mjatucla 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia is "Owned" by Zionists

The only comprehensive and authoritative book in English on Israeli law is The Laws of the State of Israel. See, A Guide to the Israeli Legal System [8]. These books are available at the Library of Congress. [9]

If you Zionists agree to FAIRLY edit this page, I'll gladly go to the Library of Congress (a few blocks from my home in Zionist Wahsington, DC) and provide you with the citation to each and every racist law that exists in the State of Israel. And if you are really serious about this, I might even provide images of the actual pages from the law books as proof (because I'm sure you'll want to argue it otherwise).

Deal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.14.88 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

With that attitude, it seems you're only looking for a fight. If you can keep your slurs to yourself, maybe we could work together. okedem 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction: After seeing your actions in several articles, including this edit, it is clear you are not a helpful contributer. Go away. okedem 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Zionist" is a "slur"? New one on me. I thought Israel was proud of that term.

5.1 Nuclear capability

Would it be fair to include the statement made on 9th December 2006 by incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates claiming that Israel has nuclear weapons ? : Incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested at a Senate confirmation hearing that Israel had atomic weapons. Gates said Iran might want an atomic bomb because it is "surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf". (360aerial 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

It would seem pertinent to the nuclear capability section of the article. okedem 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Education Section Made NPOV

Many of the statements in the Education statement were far from meeting the WP:NPOV standards set forth by Wikipedia. I editted the entire section to make it more NPOV.

Things like touting Israel as "most educated" and then providing a reference to a school life expectancy ranking is inaccurate, as there is more to being "most educated" than just the number of years a country's citizens attend school (countries that offer more free education to their citizens tend to have citizens who attend school longer, but that doesn't make them "more educated").

In addition, things like the number of people from Israel who attend Yale are verging on completely irrelevent. Attending Yale has as much to do with financial capability as it does with education. I left it in (albeit in a more NPOV form), but please refrain from editting that kind of information in as an attempt to characterize the population as "more educated" than the surrounding nations.

I realize Israel is a hard subject for people to remain NPOV on, but that's your responsibility when you edit Wikipedia. Please refrain from making point-of-view statements in this article. Mjatucla 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Holocaust mentioning??

Israel is a post Holocaust state, and we don't see it in the article!! John Hyams 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

it's mentioned here a few times [10] Amoruso 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Citation needed

The last paragraph in the Human Rights section is POV if it does not have a citation. ie: "Some international human rights organizations, most notably Human Rights Watch and the United Nations' ... anti-Israel bias ... Owain Jones 14:24, 15 December 2006

The article to which the section links has citations for this. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Can someone please add the name of this country in most of the Muslim world is فلسطین falasteen as they do not recognize Israel as a state but an occupying force. The State of Falasteen is represented on maps throughout the Muslim world, not "Israel". It would be wise not to ignore this fact. MirzaGhalib 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where do you suggest putting it in the article? And what language do you recommend? And why would it be wise not to ignore that fact, just out of curiosity? (English doesn't seem to be your first language; idiomatically, "it would be wise" can interpreted as a threat or a warning. Hopefully that was not your intent.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Falsteen is just a transliteration of the arabic word for Palestine, which already has its own article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the Palestine article simply refers to the geographic region, known to Muslims as falasteen, Jews as Yisrael. This is about the perceptions of the current state in this region, which in the western world is viewed as "Israel w/ Palestinian insurgents" and the rest of the world as "Palestine w/ Israeli occupation". It would be wise not to ignore this fact, because Muslims constitute some 1.2 billion people and ignoring or marginalizing them would be very unwise. Take that how you wish, buddy. -MirzaGhalib 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, some sort of threat. OK, thanks for clarifying it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should start locking my door at night.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what are you both on. This is wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. I'm not threatening you, stop taking things so personally and make the change I requested since you both obviously have no issues with making it. *rolleyes* MirzaGhalib 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No. See how you have no power here? Maybe you should stop issuing worthless ultimatums. Palestine is currently a nation, not a state, and certainly not a state existing over all of Israel. Just because Canada is known as "Kanata" in some languages doesn't mean it needs to be called by that name in an english encyclopedia. Israel is a recognized UN state with an established english name. What 1.2 billion muslims, buddists, wiccans or weiner dogs think it should be called is utterly irrelevant. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Arab world generally refers to the area occupied by the state of Israel within the Green Line, along with the West Bank and Gaza, as Palestine (or the Arabic version of Palestine). They do not refer to the Jewish state established in that area as Palestine (or Falasteen). This isn't an issue of naming, but of the legitimacy of the Israeli state, which is a different question. I would submit that those Arab states that recognize Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Mauritania), do not accredit their ambassadors to "Falasteen." "Falasteen" is not the Arabic name for Israel. It is the Arabic name for Palestine, which many Arabs believe is the legitimate state which should exist where the illegitimate Jewish State of Israel has been established. But that has nothing to do with what the Arab name for Israel is. john k 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

hu:Izrael vi:Israel

Whats with the Big Space?

There's a big space that appears in the middle of HISTORY of Israel if you decide to hide the CONTENTS MENU. How can we fix that? I tried, but I couldn't do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Capital of Israel

It is my understanding, and that of many millions around the world, and of most groups and organisations that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem and so should be stated in the fact box. This should not be refrained from for anti-semetic reasons. Somethingoranother 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask the general public (and CIA) what the capital is, yes it is Jerusalem. However, according to the UN and most governments, Israel is capital-less. Jerusalem is still a disputed city because the Palestinians claim it to be the capital of the "future Palestine." (Which is why the UN can not recognize Jerusalem as the capital). Most people who argue that Jerusalem isn't the capital claim that Tel Aviv is. Not true. Most countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv, but niether Israel or the UN recognize it as the capital. The US has planned to move the embassy back to Jerusalem, but the presidents (past and present) have not done so. In short, Israel has not capital.Goalie1998 02:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Goalie1998

Jerusalem is the capital. The three branches of the government have their headquarters there, Israeli law says it is the capital, and Israel is in control of the city. Put those three facts together and you have a capital city, and all of the pronouncements by other nations, or the UN -- or Wikipedia editors, for that matter -- cannot change that. The difference between other nations, UN etc. and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, and the others do not. NPOV requires that Jerusalem be identified as the capital, with a mention of the controversy -- not some fiction where Israel has no capital. 6SJ7 05:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that the Palestinians claim it as the capital of a future Palestine, as far as I'm aware, although they do claim East Jerusalem as such. The basic issue, I believe, goes back to the 1947 UN partition plan, which left Jerusalem as an international city. No other countries recognized either Israel's annexation of West Jerusalem or Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem following the 1948-49 war, and they all established their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv. I don't believe there was ever a US embassy in Jerusalem, as you imply with that "moving it back to Jerusalem" remark, and there have never been any plans by the actual branch of government that controls foreign policy to move the embassy to Jerusalem - just non-binding resolutions by Congress. I don't think, either, that anyone claims that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Such a claim would be entirely ridiculous, given that all government functions are in Jerusalem, which is also the city that Israel itself calls its capital. Basically, the issue is that Jerusalem is Israel's de facto capital, and the de jure capital under domestic law. Under international law, Israel's territorial claim to East Jerusalem is universally rejected, and its claim to West Jerusalem (where the actual government stuff is located) has generally not been recognized de jure - certainly the UN has never recognized it. However, nobody has ever declared that anything else is the capital. They just have their embassies in Tel Aviv. Basically, whatever the de jure status of Jerusalem under international law, it is the only possible city that can be called the capital of Israel, and should stay. Saying that Israel has no capital is, I think, unacceptable. The controversy, though, should definitely be noted. john k 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jerusalem should be the internationally recognized capital, but going along with your NPOV policy, the only international body that is "truely" unbiased is the UN - its basic mission is to have NPOV. In my opinion, if you really want to be neutral, not Zionist, you can't list Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of Israel. And because Israel claims all of Jerusalem to be its capital, not Tel Aviv, the UN must say that Israel has none. It has been in every presidential plan to move the embassy to Israel since Clinton has been in office, but the move has been postponed every six months. While the resolutions by Congress are not binding, Congress can cease any funding to the embassy in Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, it hasn't done so.Goalie1998 21:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The UN is very biased. Anyway, the flaw in your logic is this - "...you can't list Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital..." - No one says it's internationally recognized. It's just the capital, with or without international recognition, and that's the point here. We are not the UN website, and so we strive to report facts, not what global politics thinks of things. okedem 21:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"the only international body that is "truely" unbiased is the UN - its basic mission is to have NPOV." - that was cynical I presume ? U.N is POV in nature because of the way it works with countries supporting one another for future interest. 22 Arab countries will do that. See the article of U.N to see why it's inherhently biased against Israel. Amoruso 21:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

and the other 11 that supported it? My point in the argument was to add in the notes that internationally, Jerusalem is not recognized. For all intensive purposes, it is the capital, but the rest of the world refuses to accept it. I know its the capital, and I also know that the rest of the world should too.Goalie1998 22:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's in the footnote isn't it and always was. Amoruso 23:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What okedem and Amoruso say is correct. International recognition, whether by the UN or individual nations, is not required in order to designate the capital of a state. Where other nations choose to have their embassies is equally irrelevant. Usually they have them in the capital city for purposes of convenience in conducting diplomatic business. In the case of Israel they have them elsewhere for political purposes. However, I believe that Tel Aviv is only a short drive from Jerusalem anyway (those of you who have been there, or are always there, please correct me if I am incorrect), so I am sure that diplomatic business goes on, the nations of the world get to make their political statements, the UN gets to wag its finger at Israel, and everybody is happy. Well, nobody is happy, but you know what I mean. Meanwhile, the article and its footnotes -- not to mention a separate article on Positions on Jerusalem -- cover the dispute more than adequately. 6SJ7 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Roughly a 40 minute drive with a special direct code. Passing from Modiin it can be even faster. In fact, you cat get faster from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem than some places inside Jerusalem (from Jerusalem) or inside Gush Dan from Tel Aviv because of the infrastructure. The new train will take it down to 25 minutes I think. Amoruso 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with these suggestions that the UN is biased against Israel. The UN recognises Israel's right to exist, contrary the widely held view among other inhabitants of the Middle East. Viewfinder 02:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it also recognises that 6 million jews were killed in the Holocaust which is alsoc contrary to the widely held view among Arab and Muslim leaders in the Middle East. Amoruso 02:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what's the capital of Burma?

[11] There are NO embassies in Burma's new capital, many countries like India explained they won't move their embassies there [12], and Burma itself told the embassies that they SHOULDN'T move and : ".....foreign and UN embassies have been told there are currently no plans for them to follow. "If you need to communicate on urgent matters, you can send a fax to Pyinmana," the foreign ministry said in its statement on Monday". (!) so what's going on here ? Amoruso 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

the world is a little crazy. not that anyone cares what the UN thinks (apparantly), but it recognizes Yangon as the capital. I cant even find Naypyidaw on the UN map of Burma. quite funny reallyGoalie1998 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"World's only Jewish State.."

I call into question the reason for the remark that Israel "is the world's only Jewish state", in the beginning of the article. There is one and only Hungarian state, Finnish state, there is just one Irish state, despite the presence of Irish communities in many countries, and just one Italian state, though Italians are found in dispersion across the globe. The remark seems aimed at invoking some specific sympathy for Israel, and even so there's little necessity for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuriy Krynytskyy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

No, Israel was the only country established in modern times as a nation state for a scattered people, and probably the only country established according to a specific UN resolution. It should be made clear that there are no more Jewish states, in stark contrast with the dozens of Arab states, for instance. okedem 09:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was only one scattered people, and it obtained its statehood; by saying that it has only one state, you give an impression that it is entitled to more than one. That Israel was established "according to a specific UN resolution" doesn't provide any reason for specifically remarking it is the only state of a specific ethnicity (BTW, the 181 details the exact border of the two proposed states, and Israel was established not at all "according" to that part of the Resolution). It is not an argument that Jews have only one state while Arabs have two dozens, like it is not an argument that Arabs have 200 times more land than Jews, etc. The logic is that if Arabs have two dozens state, Jews are allowed to have at least one, - at the cost of the Arabs. Thus the Arabs are "taxed" in favour of Jews like the rich are taxed in favour of the poor, - you have too much, share with those who have nothing. Apart from all this, the comment about "the only Jewsish state" sounds simply bizarre.Yuriy Krynytskyy 00:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yuriy, the text is correct and is neutral. There were many alternative proposals to create Jewish state(s). The article doesn't say anymore than is said, the rest is in your head. Let's not try to fix something that is not broken. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the text is correct, - redundantly so. It is probably important to the Jews to emphasize that Israel is the only Jewish state; to non-Jews, it may sound as redundant as "Ben Gurion wore only one pair of boots at a time". It doesn't sound neutral to me; Wikipedia may become a warehouse of sympathetic remarks of this kind. I value that Wikipedia is naturally more empathic than the dry scientific encyclopedias; but a line must be found between empathy and sympathy. I leave the passage as it is, in face of the opposition to my view. Yuriy Krynytskyy 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

it's worth noting that "Jewish" can refer to both an ethnicity and a religion. Judaism is considered a major world religion, and Israel is the only state with a Jewish majority (or even with a significant percentage of the population which is Jewish - the United States has something like 1 or 2 %, and pretty much anywhere else, I would guess, has less. I don't see how this fact isn't significant. The other issue is that Israel is officially defined as a Jewish state. This should be mentioned in the article as well. I think the problem with the current wording, if there is one, is that it kind of conflates these issues. Why not something along the lines of:

The State of Israel (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (help·info), Medinat Yisra'el; Arabic: دَوْلَةْ إِسْرَائِيل‎, Dawlat Isrā'īl) is a country in the Western Asian Levant, on the southeastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon on the north, Syria and Jordan on the east, and Egypt on the south-west. It has a population of over seven million people.[2] Israel declared independence in 1948, and since its founding has been officially defined as a Jewish state. It is also the only state in the world with a majority Jewish population, although its citizens include many other religious backgrounds, among whom Christians and Muslims make up the most notable percentage.

That seems to indicate the uniqueness of Israel as both a Jewish state and as the only majority Jewish state, without conflating these issues. john k 06:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that, lets's see what others think. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. okedem 09:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing "the Jewish state" to "a Jewish state" or vice-versa really is a non-issue IMO. Amoruso 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Few points.
1). Instead of "declared independence in 1948" I'd prefer "established (founded) in 1948"; Israel's independence was quickly recognized. I'd use the "declared independence" phrase for the cases of failed or unrecognized statehood. Also, the formula of a state declaring its independence is grammatically questionable: it presumes that the state pre-existed the act and was the actor itself, while in fact the state is not the actor but the result of the act of the Declaration. The formulation from the 1948 Declaration was : "...WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT,... HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE.." Thus the actor was "members of the people's council", and the Jewish state was the result of the act. Israel could not declare herself like a child cannot born itself.
2). Regarding the official definition as a Jewish state, I'd insert a brief quote from the correspondent law, whether it is the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
3). The paragraph as it is now implicitly defines Jewishness as Judaism, - neither a common nor the official notion. Thus contrasting Jews with Muslims and Christians may be comparing phenomena of different categories; when the question of Palestine was considered internationally, the discourse was that of "Jews and Arabs", both being ethnicities, not religious groups.
I suggest the following in reference to the founding and the Jewishness of Israel:

"Established in 1948 as "a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel", Israel adheres to the policy of preserving her distinctly Jewish character." Yuriy Krynytskyy 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with "Established in 1948 as "a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel" but not the second part because it's too intricate... you're right about referencing to the Declaration of Independence - it appears there and also in some Basic Laws of the Knesset (Israel doesn't have a constitution, similar to the UK). You're also right about the religion/ethnicity. Amoruso 02:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, thanks for the comments. It came to me that a section on this issue of preserving Jewish character is needed, - confirming or refuting the allegation. There seems to be a broad agreement in Israel on the question. Israel has cited the danger to her Jewish character as the major reason for disallowing any massive Palestinian return, and the country's immigration policy is probably the most ethnically exlusivist in the world. Yuriy Krynytskyy 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I just point out that as well as a Jewish state there are also Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates, and the League of Arab States is the umbrellla body of those ethnically defined Arab states. Might it be the case that Israel defines itself (like the UAE) as an ethnic state but because of the very small numbers of Jews worldwide (13 million approx), the history of attempted total genocide against the Jews, and the lack of any other Jewish states, this might determine the desire for the ethnnically exclusive nature of the state. As I understand it, the desire for an ethnic majority stems for the desire for national self-determination of the Jewish people after the Shoah. (Robfoster 14:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)).

This is not a discussion of justifiability of the policy of ethnic purity of the state; I am interested in detecting whether such policy is at place in Israel, and I think it is.

It's definitely not a policy of "ethnic purity" as there are non-Jews in Israel. I think Robfoster is correct regarding a desire for national self-determination -- and in a democracy, that requires that a large majority belong to the nationality in question. But not "purity." 6SJ7 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the הכרזת העצמאות (Declaration of Establishmnet), it pretty clearly describes Israel as being a Jewish State.

"ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL."

Direct translation from the Hebrew text. (It was in caps too)

Goalie1998 07:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What caps? Hebrew doesn't have capital letters. okedem 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

you are correct, sorry, caps was not the correct word, but that paragraph of the declaration is written bigger than the others, and the only way i could show that was to put it in caps. Goalie1998 03:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bigger, yes, but it is important to show that here? You only translated the first paragraph anyway... Nevermind... okedem 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

that paragraph is one of the middle ones - It is located about 1/3 of the way down. I was just showing that Israel was declared as a Jewish State. sorry for any issues with my choice of type-face.Goalie1998 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Article

This article, which is apparently closed to editing, contains some strongly misleading statements, among them (in the "Historical Roots" section), "Nevertheless, the Jewish presence in Palestine remained constant," and, (in the "Zionism and Immigration" section), "Jews living in the Diaspora have sought to emigrate into Israel throughout the centuries."

In the first example, the language "Jewish presence in Palestine remained constant" suggests that similar numbers of Jewish people lived in Palestine throughout the period considered, which is false.

In the second example, the use of the word "Jews" without any modification suggests that all or at least most Jews are the subject of the sentence, but in fact very few Jews, during the period considered, emigrated to Israel. I believe the Jewish population of Palestine prior to the modern Zionist movement was well under 100,000, and less than 10% of the total population, while several million Jews lived elsewhere in the world, and indeed were often a fairly mobile population while rarely having Israel as a destination. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.62 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, this article has remained misleading for almost two days now. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia. -- DLH

You don't have to attack, you know. The "constant" just means to say that there have been Jews in Israel all this time.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked. This was not my intent. If the meaning is what you say, then it could be written much better, no? -- DLH

Jews in the Diaspora did look to Israel, but most of them chose not to go there, for various reasons - some of them couldn't (for political reasons - many of the rulers wouldn't let them), some of them - for personal reasons, some - for religious reasons - apparently, the kingdom of Israel should not be re-established before the coming of the Messiah.

Why doesn't the article just stick to the facts, and steer away from presuming an intent that, for whatever reason, was not followed up on? There were almost two thousand years between the Roman expulsion of the Jews from Israel and the modern Zionist movement; if "Jews living in the Diaspora have sought to emigrate into Israel" over all that time, how many actually did it? Some very basic facts suggests that very few did. -- DLH

If you'd like to suggest alternative phrasings, please go ahead. Understand - this article is heavily edited, and some bad wording can creep in, especially considering the fact that most of the editors working on the article are not native english speakers. okedem 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "constant presence" sentence should be completely eliminated: what does it add? And I think the entire paragraph about "seeking to emigrate" should be eliminated: its only effect seems to be to bolster a Jewish claim for the territory through a profound exaggeration; it is, really, pure propaganda. -- DLH

It shows the historical connection of Jews to Israel. Jews pray with their face to Jerusalem. Jews have been saying in their prayers - "If I forgot you, Jerusalem, may I lose my right hand". Zion/Israel/Jerusalem has been the focal point of Jewish traditions and cultural creation. It is germane to the subject.

The historical connection of Jews to Israel is also shown in about 18 other ways in the article, and chronicling a few very minor emigrations to Israel is misplacing emphasis; there were almost certainly more significant Arab migrations to the area over the same period, as well as probably Armenian and even Greek. -- DLH

Many claims about Israel go along the lines of making the Jews seem like some European people, choosing a land and colonizing it, for no real reason at all. These sentences are needed to dispel that false notion, and that's why they're so important.

Are any of these claims made in this article? Not that I see. You seem to be insisting on refuting an argument that has not been made here; there is such a thing as protesting too much, don't you think? Should this article also dispel the false notions that Jews have always been the major ethnic group in the territory, which arguably IS suggested by the article? -- DLH

Again - If you can phrase it better - please suggest something. I agree the current phrasing is not ideal. okedem 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I made my suggestions. See above. -- DLH

In the meantime, would someone please put a flag on the article to indicate that its neutrality is disputed? Thanks. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.73 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, please don't enter your comments in the middle of mine, it makes it kind of confusing.

1. I'm sure there were many other migrations, but this article is about Israel, which was founded by Jews, as a Jewish homeland. Thus, only the Jewish migrations are relevant. There's an article about the history of Palestine, and it should document all the migrations.
2. I'm not "refuting an argument that has not been made". The article is supplying information, and that is important information, if the reader is to understand the historical context of events. It seems a fairly obvious question if someone doesn't know the history - "why did the Jews establish their country there, of all places?"
3. Your suggestion was to delete the whole thing. I'd like a suggestion for rephrasing. I'll make one myself - "Nevertheless, there remained a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine". We can also mention the fact they were a minority, though I'm not sure that's correct for the time that exact sentence is talking about. Something like - "Nevertheless, there remained a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine, though as a minority."

You see - I think we can reach a compromise, but not with you demanding deletion of things. If something seems problematic, like the reader possibly thinking that Jews were a majority, we can just clarify that, not delete the whole thing, or place POV tags. okedem 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Making a note about a persistent Jewish minority in Palestine could invoke an image of a divided society; Palestine remained thru centuries almost entirely Arab in population and language, Jews constituting probably less than 5% and rising to 7% by early 20th century. Just mentioning a constant Jewish presence would suffice to make the point that there always lived some Jews on that land. Yuriy Krynytskyy 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)