Talk:Israel

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

Recent changes

Image prefrenes

per the following diff: [1]

Is there some policy regarding this issue? To quote "The Dude", "[The changes] really put the [article] toghether". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size: "Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style)." As for the number of images, this just amounts to common sense. In the case of the Geography section, they were intruding on the next section (depending on resolution, of course). In the case of the Culture section, they would have been had they not had the images forced. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, that is a guideline meant to protect users with 800x600 resolutions from oversized images. Clearly, there is more encyclopedic value in having the extra image in there rather than not. I believe this one falls outside the "generally" mentioned in the guideline but I'm open to hear other thoughts if you disagree (let me know).

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed the exact nature of the image "upright" extension. I'm thinking the 3 images can work well with one/two of them tagged 'upright'. Does this suggestion work for you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No; none of them are upright images. -- tariqabjotu 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Anyone else got some thoughts/suggestions regarding this version of the culture section? I'm thinking it might work well without the 200, 170 px constrains, and also that in case of a preference towards 2 images alone, that the hora dancing image takes precedency over the bat-sheva dance group. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical relevence and copyright

per the following diff: [2]

The Munich assasination is not 'marginally' relevent to the history of Israeli conflicts. It is an iconic event which cannot/should-not be downplayed. Just recently Sports minister Raaleb Majadle apologized and promised to correct and examine how a book about Israel's sports accidentaly had no mention of the event other than in the preface note.[3] I believe that the image is very relevent for a free educational purpouse and that there's no violation of the fair-use copyrights by adding it to an article about Israel as the image is iconing for both the event itself and Israeli history.

The image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic image. Use of this image to illustrate the event in question on the Wikipedia project where:

• (a) The image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, (b) No free alternative exists or can be created, (c) It's in low resolution, (d) The use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright.

Qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Basically, rather than have it removed from the article, fair use rationale should be added to the image. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other fair-use requirements, namely (from WP:FUP):

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

It doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and there are probably free images available that would be useful here. This article isn't on the Munich massacre; it's on Israel. That picture isn't needed to illustrate Israel, and more specifically, Israel's history. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. (a) The image is iconic and certainly conveys the encyclopedic importance of this event in a manner not explained in the text and does indeed enhance the reader's understanding of the topic (see it's related paragraph about early "non government" activity). (b) The article subsection is about israeli conflicts and an iconic event such as this is needed to illustrate a definitive moment in Israel's history, which the Munich massacre is a part of.

I'm open to hear other opinions and suggestions, but your current position seems to suggest that Israeli history has very little to do with this event and I believe this to be a mistake and I've provided an external reference to illustrate this.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) add link 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the external reference? The only source that follows discussion of the Munich massacre is Crowdy, and that isn't something you added, it's been there in previous versions of the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following the relevence of your comment. Are you asking for proof that this event is notable and that the image is iconic to Israeli history? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You refer in your previous comment (18:16) to an external reference. All I am asking is, which reference are you pointing to? Simple question... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The sports minister reference noted here.

Here it is again: link.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said the first time, the article is about Israel, the section is about Israel's history, and the sub-section is about Israel's conflict and treaties during this time period. None of those topics necessitate a picture related to the Munich massacre. I'm not disputing that the event was important; I dispute that the event is so important that its significance outweighs the fact that we have other, free images to illustrate Israel, its history, and this period of time. It really is not that important, even if people know about or reference the event today. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'm willing to concede this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

==

Code of the Sheqel

The article states the code of the Sheqel to be NIS, but as far as I can tell, it actually is ILS. Would someone please correct it? Vashekcz (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

NIS = New Israel Shekel (which replaced the Israeli Lira years ago)--Gilabrand (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe we should probably list both ILS(Ref) and NIS(Ref) down. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"ILS", not "NIS", is the currency code under the ISO 4217 standard.[4] However, it might still be useful to mention NIS, because it's a far more common abbreviation, if you can think of a good way to force the template to have it while still making the distinction clear. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe ILS is the more common abbreviation, but think we should probably mention both. Not really a templates expert so I can't make any suggestions here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a technical workaround: removing the currency_code field entirely and entering the appropriate WikiMarkup to link both ILS and NIS in the currency field. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NIS is the only abbreviation I've ever seen used in Israel. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

least popular country

I'd like to draw attention to a thread I started, for lack of a better idea where to put it, at Talk:Foreign relations of Israel#BBC survey. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve this article. sheesh... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Version

Out of curiosity, I used the google translator to check out the Arabic translation. Not only does it use many loaded terms, which may or may not be a translation issue, but it also contains factual errors. For example, it refears to the very creation of the Israeli state as a massacre of palestinians. Also, it says that Israel got 55% of the mandate, despite Jews being only 30% of the population-- this is simply not true! Israel actually got less than 20% of the mandate. You can't include Jordan in the population figure but not the land figure! Lastly, the article doesn't site very many sources, if any.

Granted, the translation is crude, but if you try it, it's obvious there are severe problems. Somebody open minded, NPOV who knows Arabic should get over there!

go to http://translate.google.com/translate_t and put in the Arabic URL for translation to see what I mean.

--Lophoole (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you address those questions at the talkpage of the arabic article? the only reasonable way would be to work out an agreement at ar.wiki, seeking to canvass on other wikis is not helpfull. --Soman (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Lophoole! It's actually a known issue and it was only thanks to a few Israeli editors that the article was renamed from Filastin, as it was for a long time, to Isra'il. Unfortunately, there are almost no Arabic-speaking editors with a neutral POV on arwiki, so it's a bit hard to tackle issues like this. I don't think bringing it up on arwiki will help much, but it's worth a shot. In the end, there's not much we can do about this :( -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... when was the article named Palestine, instead of Israel? The article seems to begin "Israel is..." all the way through the history. -- tariqabjotu 20:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I wasn't able to find it. But having visited that page many times out of curiosity, I distinctly remember this issue. The explanation could be that the article was named Palestine, but the text said Israel. Alternatively, it could be that the version is actually part of the current Palestine (فلسطين) article. I'm not really sure, to be honest. Maybe Drork can shed light on this. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them any less true. The mandate did give more land to the Jews despite their having a smaller percentage of the population (Jordan was not included in the land given to the Palestinians). And as for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (Muslim and Christian alike), that did occur. They were forced from their homes in what is now modern Israel, then the Israelis declared their property abandoned and confiscated it. Who do you think the millions of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon and Jordan are descended from? You may not like these facts, and you can do your best to try and erase them from Wikipedia, but the Israelis themselves recorded their ethnic cleansing. Ben Gurion himself wrote about such things in his own papers. This stuff is documented by the Israelis. If you have any real respect for history, I recommend that you not try and rewrite it but to tell what really happened. To this day, the human rights abuses continue in the West Bank and Gaza, yet this page is meticulusly clean of any mention of such things. The theft of Palestinian property, the bulldozing of the houses of people who already live in poverty due to the constriction of their economy within the West Bank. There is only a cursory mention of the apartheid wall, and that mention is not factually correct. The wall is almost completely built WITHIN the West Bank and it cuts deeply into former Palestinian territory in many areas. I am sure what I have written here will either be promptly deleted, flamed, or violently rebuffed with claims of anti-semetism and a lack of referrences in my argument (the proof and documentation of such things, however, is easily available to anyone who is willing to look for it). That being said, you can try to keep the truth of the situation hidden for a hundred years, but history will not be suppressed and the truth of these things will be known. You complain because the arabic version of this page says things which you do not like, however your english version is so biased in favor of the Israeli government's point of view, that it barely mentions the situation or history of the West Bank or Gaza. Just because those places are not technically part of Israel does not mean that the government of Israel is not responsible for what its military does there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.36.241 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Israel

I am disturbed and perplexed as to why the page for Israel does not contain a section or stub outlining common criticisms of the country. I for one would like to opt to have a small section in the article outlining current criticisms of the country, for example the human rights violations currently being investigated by the United Nations, or the treatment of Palestine citizens inside the country. It should also be noted that several countries refuse to recognize Israel as a country. Chemtype (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are whole articles about that. Some of them are linked in the box at the bottom of the article and others are linked from those articles. There is no shortage of coverage on Wikipedia of criticisms of Israel. The project is fairly overflowing with it. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the human rights record of Israel, the number of issues under dispute, and lots of other controversies regarding the country, I think it is more than essential to include a section on criticisms. Simply including a few links in a box at the bottom of the article is certainly not a fair reflection. --82.109.84.254 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

More on the meaning behind the "State of..."

Why is Israel officially referred to as the State of Israel and not just Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.106.153 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it United States of America and not just America? Why is it Bundesrepublik Deutschland and not just Deutschland? Who cares? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Israel" is the name of the Jewish people, not of a land or a country. So the State of the Jewish people is called "The State of Israel". That's why. Benjil (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I've moved detailed speculations on meaning of the name to the etymology section in Land of Israel which already had a lengthy section on the etymology, it seemed off topic to discuss speculations on ancient meanings of the name as the first paragraph of an article on the modern state of Israel. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I tmight be worth mentioning that the Jewish state established during the revolts against the Romans in 66 and 135 AD both called themselves Israel. I can prvide a reference for this if necessary. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Earliest History

This is not factual “, known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael, has been sacred to the Jewish people since the time of the biblical patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” So those people existed? what proof is there? How could a featured article have such info? And when exactly was this time? 5000 B.C.? 3000 B.C.? Seektrue (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Population Percent of Israel

according to the "CIA World Factbook" Israel actually has a 76.4% Jewish population. Survent2 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The CIA fackbook is an unreliable, out-dated source. Don't count on statistics from there. okedem (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the CIA is a bad secondary source. The Israeli Census Bureau is the (only) primary source - if you read that carefully you will find that the "Jewish Population of Israel" includes Russian Christians and anyone with a "jewish" ancestor who has ever visited Israel. Fourtildas (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"modern state of Israel has its roots"

I have added "citation needed" because there is no indication what this god story has to do with the modern state. (I expect certain people will say: "everybody knows that - no need for a citation"). Fourtildas (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In Haaretz I find "... ultranationalist Israelis who believe that the West Bank is part of the biblical land of Israel promised to the Jewish people by God" - that would make clear to the reader the connection to the modern state. I will cite that unless someone can find a better one. Fourtildas (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then make sure to say "ultranationalist Israelis believe the modern state of Israel has its roots..." in the article. Otherwise, you're right it's just a "god" story. Beam 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the essence of Zionism, a topic I expect all editors here to know something about. okedem (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Homeland for the Jewish people says "Secular Zionism, the historically dominant stream, is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a people that has a right to self-determination" Not about god-given promised land. Well, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that says articles should be consistent with each other. Fourtildas (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit arrogant for you to "expect" editors to know about your ethno-religious ultranationalist gang. Do you also "expect" our readers (remember them?) to know all about it so you are exempted from providing citations? I find it offensive that Jewish religious legends are "history", while mine are "mythology". Fourtildas (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, I know a bit about zionism and, yes, the statement is the "essence of zionism". Do you think the "essence of zionism" qualifies as Neutral and unbiased wikipedia content? Shouldn't this political doctrine (or slogan) be preceded by "XXX believes" as Beam suggests? Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet.

Anyway, editors who know nothing of Zionism, the ideology behind the establishment of Israel, shouldn't make claims here.

For editors who deserve relevant answers - regardless of the veracity of the biblical claims (God's promise, the unified monarchy, etc.), Jews have been in Israel/Palestine for at least close to 3,000 years (supported by archaeological evidence from other sources), and the concept of has indeed been central to Judaism for a very long time. This is the background for the Zionist aspiration, and has nothing to do with God's supposed promise. okedem (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you agree with me. If you follow the Land of Israel link you will find it is entirely about God's promise. (except for some random ramblings about coins and jewish law). Perhaps you are thinking about some other "Land of Israel" which is not a bible story.

And is this "archaeological evidence" cited in Wikipedia? Possibly I wave missed it among all the bible stories. Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(moved down) by Ceedjee (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"it was the main point in 19th and 20th century Zionism". Look in the Wikipedia zionism articles. You won't find a source for that. If you have a source, please put it in the articles. Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has vandalized the "citation needed" so I put it back. Also put a "citation needed" on "three thousand years" and changed it to 3000. Fourtildas (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish among the different tendencies in Israel, we could write Zionists / Neo-Zionisists or Post-Zionists.

I think here it is typically Neo-Zionists. Ceedjee (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Root of Israel and Zionism

Okedem,

Jews have been there for 3000 years. Nobody could deny that.

In the Israeli society there are 3 main waves of thoughts who consider themselves as inheritars of Zionism but who do not share the same values : secular zionists, post-zionists and neo-zionists.

Only those influenced by the later category consider that what occurred 3000 years ago is relevant or worth mentionning. Ceedjee (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaism wasn't even invented 3000 years ago, (if you say otherwise please cite reliable secondary sources, not bible stories) so it is a bit problematic to say that "Jews" have been there - perhaps their pagan ancestors were there? Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In Israeli discourse, there are only two types usually discussed. Zionists (as the classical Zionists), and Post-Zionists, who are essentially not Zionists. There little use of terms like "secular zionists" or "neo-zionists".

But that's an aside. The passage discusses the roots of Israel. Those roots aren't dependent on modern-day thinking, among Israelis or otherwise. Discussing the roots means discussing how Israel came to be. What was the driving force, the ideology, etc. The Land of Israel's importance to Judaism was the reason and justification for the modern state's establishment here. Even if some in today's Israel don't think it should have been so, it was the main point in 19th and 20th century Zionism, which created the State of Israel.

"worth mentioning" - you don't have to agree with something to mention it. The thing is, a reader asking themselves why Israel was established in this location (or at all) needs this information. okedem (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said I agreed or not with anything about this ideology, on the contrary :-)

I don't agree partially with what two claims :

1. Neo-zionism is not used. It is maybe not by the "man of the street" but it is by sociologists who study Israeli culture. See the article.

2. "It was the main point in 19th and 20th century Zionism, which created the State of Israel." Israel was created on the land of Eretz Yisrael/Palestine because of the links of this with Judaism. Right and correct. BUT this must not be shorten. It would be false to claim "Israel was created (...) because of (...) Judaism." First Zionists were mostely secular Zionists with some "socialist" agenda but not at all religious. Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not religious, but traditional. The very reason they came to Palestine was due to its importance to Judaism and the the Jewish history. They wanted to rebuild the state, return to the only place Jews were ever sovereign, and try to get to that situation again.

The Declaration of Independence states this very well, and I encourage you to read it. okedem (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you agree with me, the Declaration of Independence is just zionist political doctrine which you can't cite as a reliable secondary source in wikipedia. Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not discussing anything with you. okedem (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okedem,

There are facts that point out the (obvious) links between :

• Zionism and religeous Judaism and the importance of Eretz Yisrael as a 3000 years old Kingdom;
• Zionism and a new socialist ideology with the aim of giving birth to a new society and a new man (sabra), "strong and courageous" in front of the "old jew" (from Galoud), "weak and coward".
• Zionism and the importance to escape to European's antisemitism.

Read carefully the Declaration of Independence. You will these 3 points are pointed out, in that order.

I don't know if you distinguish Historiography from History : historiography is the history of the history ie, the way history's tale evolves during time.

In the historiography of zionism, point 1 is put forward by some as the main reason for the creation of Israel and Zionism, particularly after the 6 famous days. Point 3 has long been pointed out, particularly in Europe and in Israel after Kippur (in front of the death). Point 2 was the credo of secular zionism (Founding Fathers, such as David Ben Gurion) but has been rejected both by post-zionists (as immoral - and they now militate so that Israel become a "state like all others") and neo-zionists (who reject the "secular approach" as naieve in front of Arab and Islamic antisemitism and who militate so that "tradional values" of Judaism and nationalism are put forward in Israel's society).

I personaly don't mind much and don't take party in this debate. That is history that interests me.

An Israli sociologist recently wrote : "the future of the past in Israel thus depends on the future of its politics. […] History writing was, and will continue to be, a servant of history making. And it is history makers, not history writers, who in the future will craft Israel's past." (Uri Ram, The Future of the Past in Israel - A Sociology of Knowledge Approach, in Benny Morris, Making Israel, the University of Michigan Press, 2007.)

Ceedjee (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see what that has to do with the particular sentence we're discussing. There were several reasons to come to Palestine and strive for independence, and you've listed them. However, that doesn't preclude the point that "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel". What I mean is - the reasons listed were the motivation for the rebuilding of the state, something like - "We can't continue to live in fear; we should be independent again, like we were back then, and let's do it in Palestine too" (not an actual quote, just to clarify). okedem (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The sentence is : "The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism for over 3000 years.[7]"

The link between this sentence and what I pointed out is that is not respecting NPoV

• for post-zionist, that is wp:undue and considered retrograde a modern state has nothing to deal with religion
• for secular-zionist, that is true but there is more important (main pov lacks)
• for neo-zionist, that is right in the middle.

I would add that there are other pov's (such as Arab/Muslim or other countries even if less important than Israelis'pov for the article : Israel ; the Palestinian pov is maybe also to be taken into account given they claim the same land as theirs).

Finally, Eretz Yisrael could also be misperceived because it is wider than Israel.

I think that is the reason why some editors disagreed with that sentence.

But on the other side, it cannot be denied that links between Israel and Judaism are deep and inalienable. Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me as though you're misinterpreting the words "has its roots". Your comments would seem more pertinent to me if the sentence was something like "The modern state of Israel is the successor of the Jewish Kingdoms of yore" or something similar. That's not what it means. It's not about current day affairs, but about how the State of Israel came to be. The fact is, the whole concept of establishing a state here was directly inspired by the importance of this land of the Jewish people. The people working for it, the immigrants, the Zionist activists etc, viewed their whole enterprise in this light. This is expressed well in the declaration of independence (as I've said earlier), written and signed by the founders, explaining their view and vision regarding this. That is the reasoning for this sentence, and has nothing to do with current day Post-Zionist (or Arab, or European, or anyone) views. okedem (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You say The fact is, the whole concept of establishing a state here was directly inspired by the importance of this land of the Jewish people. The people working for it, the immigrants, the Zionist activists etc, viewed their whole enterprise in this light.

Wikipedia is not about "facts" or truth, it is about verifiable sources. You keep repeating your political and religious beliefs beliefs but are unable to cite reliable secondary sources. Most people outside Israel and USA regard the zionist invasion of Palestine as just another example of Euro/American colonialism/imperialism, like the French in Algeria or the British in Iraq in the 1920's or the US in Iraq and Afghanistan currently. I repeat, no source which meets Wikipedia standards for the statement in question has been given.

Pardon me for being tiresomely repetitive, but you guys just don't seem to get it.

In Wikipedia we don't base our articles on Communism on communist manifestos or speeches by lenin or castro or mao.

We don't base our articles on the current Iraq war on speeches by bush and his neocon-likudist puppeters.

But you guys want to base articles on zionisn and the zionist regime on zionist beliefs - and you don't even want to provide citations for these beliefs, much less citations which meet wikipedia standards. Fourtildas (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you waste your energies on fourtildas comments.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Should one respond to something like this or just hope it slithers back to whatever disgusting place it came from? Fourtildas (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Fourtildas' agenda may or may not be, zionism was conceived as a secular movement. Zionists have considered other countries - among them Argentina and Uganda - as the final destination for a Jewish state. Zionism is supported by Judaistic interpretations but Judaism is not the sole or the most important cause for it. The modern state of Israel is not rooted in or inspired by "Old Jewish Kingdoms" and their archeologic evidence is irrelevant; the state of Israel is rooted in zionist understanding of necessity of such state, and cultural preferences were not the only important part of this understanding. It is plain incorrect to attribute Israel's creation to religious motive when there were other important motives. Please correct me if I misunderstand the premises - I'm new here. Zombiestan (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian People were original settlers 20,000 years ago

According to "Traces of a distant past" by Gary Stix, Scientific American, July , 2008, the Palestinian People were the original settlers of the region 20,000 years ago. This should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph beside the statement about the jews being there 3000 years (this seems to be purely a religious belief - no sources other than the jewish bible are given). We really need to work on getting all this religious mumbo-jumbo out of Wikipedia Fourtildas (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Traces of a distant past" does not mention the Palestinian People anywhere. The only mention appears in an artist's graphic illustration of the common ancestor lineage tree, referring to the group simply as "Palestinians". Nowhere does the author suggest that people whom we call palestinians today (or, specifically, Palestinian arabs) are the same people refered to by the illustration. There is also no statement anywhere in the work connecting this group to a specific period of time, and the only mention of 20,000 years appears in another illustration, which illustrates, vaguely and without any specifity, ethnic or geographical, migration paths of various groups and periods. Considering that, a statement that "the Palestinian People were the original settlers of the region 20,000 years ago" is not supported by the source you provide. A simple google search reveals that no one else has produced an interpretation of this work that is similar to yours. Zombiestan (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: According to the BBC "Recent DNA research shows that the Canaanites and Israelites were not just similar in their cultures, they were genetically identical" (Unfortunately no source provided). So we can say that the jewish presence also goes back 20,000 years (assuming that ancestors of jews are jews). Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Too true, but then again if you're dealing with the subject of a group of people saying 'We now own all your land because our religion says we do' Logic pretty much flys out the window. I hope this comment does not get deleted for being too truthful and if i am wrong please feel free to tell me why.--78.145.193.160 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what is totally disgusting about these people is that they claim to have such high standards of honesty and intellectual integrity but they try to pass off superstitious rubbish like Land of Israel as historical fact. What a (sad) joke. (And I stand behind my use of the words "superstitious" and "rubbish" if any zionistas need them explained). Fourtildas (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why beat around the bush. Why disguise your racist views? Everyone can see where you're coming from. Just blank the page again with 'Fuck Israel, as brief and clear as that.' --Gilabrand (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's good archeological evidence for Jewish kingdoms in the region for close to 3,000 years.

No, there is not, because the "Jewish" did not exist 3,000 years ago. There is archeological evidence for something there, but you cannot simply call it "Jewish." 128.59.143.41 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And... That's not what that articles says. But don't let that confuse you. Facts are over-rated. Forget it. You've shown already you're nothing but a hateful POV-pusher, bent on spreading propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Your personal attacks show you're not close to being a contributor. okedem (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "good archeological evidence" cited in Wikipedia?

In "Early Roots" there is a "traditional view" (which I take to mean "hebrew bible story") that "Israelite kingdoms and states" existed (there is no definition of Israelite in the article). In the next paragraph we have "Between the time of the Jewish kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests ..." implying these actually existed. Does "Jewish" = "Israelite"? We are supposed to avoid cultural bias. How is a reader from China with a secular education supposed to make sense of any of this?

I have not made any personal attacks. I may be guilty of using slightly uncivil language, but not as bad as the above 2 comments. Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article bothering fourtildas is this one: http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 However this related largely to stuff in the first 5 books, the later biblical stuff has more coroboration. This debate does not belong in this article but I hsould point out that if you go to a later period, about 800 BC, the evidence for the aauthroity fo the bible is not so bad: see Hezekiah Tunnel and Sennacherib#War_with_Judah and that aspect of biblical history is not discussed in the article. The return decree of Cyrus is also interesting Cyrus (Bible), although its hard to provide full coroboration, it clearly agrees witht he evidence. The same can be said for David's kingdom: maybe they had an over-inflated sense of themselves and perhaps it got exaggerated by later scribes but the basic information agrees with the facts on the ground. The bible is a mixture of history, myth and all sorts fo stuff and it is certianly authentic writing from the period.

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall reading that article. I would be interested to read an article by a historian who argues for the historicity of the bible (preferably currently employed doing teaching and research in the history department of a university, not just a bible scholar please. I mean someone who is putting their professional reputation as a historian on the line.)

The Wikipedia article Hezekiah Tunnel is a good example of what I'm complaining about. With the exception of the existence of a tunnel and a fragmentary inscription with controversial translation and unknown date, the article is entirely bible story. Is there even any evidence that the people in jlam at that time were ancestors of the jews? Are ancestors of jews automatically "jews"? (Again, cultural bias - remember the poor reader from China, they don't teach this stuff in school there). And were these alleged jews the first people in 3000 years to think of digging a tunnel to the nearby spring to provide water in case of a protracted seige? The Hebrew bible says so, but it tends to inflate as you say. Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia is supposed to work is that historians study the primary sources and make interpretations and judgments about their authroity, coroboration and authenticity. Then we encyclopedists base our articles on the historians' writings ("reliable secondary sources"). We should be citing historians who have made a case for the authenticity of the bible. We should not be playing amateur historian by trying to make these interpretations and judgments about primary sources ourselves.

24.64.165.176 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have hard time to understand why you are even bothring to discuss with Fourtildas, he is undoubtly a racist-and has proved it here many times. He clearly has a POV, even that he is trying to look as he is speaking "in the name of science". Just don't let him change anything in Israel's article contant.--Gilisa (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention that since 1948 the Zionists have used violent means to prevent the native Palestinians from returning to their historic homeland? This is the "root" and "essence" (if you like these silly metaphorical terms) of the conflict in the region. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (something is broken - only my IP appears here. Supposedly we have more privacy if we login but my IP appears here anyway) 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, sports fans- let's try to keep it civil, please. There's already been an AN/I report on User:Fourtildas. If he continues his behavior, he will eventually be blocked. It would be great if we could move on and stick to constructive discussion, please. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

These accusations are offensive. I do not believe in any form of religious mythology and I object to people trying to represent their myths as facts (e.g. "Jewish kingdoms" - Dever has decreed that the bible is "history" so these religious beliefs get morphed into factual statements in Wikipedia).

Also I am opposed to ethnic nationalism and religious nationalism, and I think in Wikipedia we are not supposed to be promoting nationalism. I would have no problem if the article said something like "Zionism, an ethno-religious nationalist movement, claims that the modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism for over 3000 year". But I have a problem with stating the bolded part as fact - it is just a zionist slogan. Fourtildas (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not feed the troll. Do NOT feed the troll. DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLL. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Science and education

Two things regarding this entry:

1. How does Illan Ramon being the first Israeli astronaut have to do with Israel's research abilities? I think that he should be mentioned outside the entry, in different context.

2. What about mentioning that Israel's 6 big universities are all been ranked among the world top 500 universities (out of 11,000 ranked universities)-btw, the Chinese survey is considered to be the most reliable among all available surveys in terms of method and etc and it stands as a proof for what I just wrote.--Gilisa (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Ramon has to do with science, as the space program is a scientific endeavor. If you'd like to suggest a better place in the article - go ahead.
2. Added. Actually it's all seven research universities. okedem (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I think that you are wrong for the following reasons: Ramon was trained to be an astronaut by NASA, his space shuttle was built and launched by and in the USA and etc-meaning, Ramon was sent to his last mission as a gesture of the American president much more than he reflects Israel's science-even that he was in charge of an Israeli designed experiment whose details are still classified. Secondly, Israel achievements in space science are vast and significant-especially for a small country like it. It includes the independent designing, development and building of nearly two dozen communication and espionage satellites, some of them are considered to be among the best, or the best, of their kind. It includes the independent designing and building of a highly sophisticated space launch vehicles and it includes a strong experimental and theoretical scientific knowledge contribution of Israeli astronomers to the world. I guess that it is much more suitable to this entry.--Gilisa (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page - you've convinced me. Your suggestion sounds good - go ahead. okedem (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, :) sorry-I didn't read your reply until now --Gilisa (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I find nothing about Israels nuclear arsenal in this article

the star-tag on this article must be removed if there is noting about the countrys nuclear arsenal. --Ezzex (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Undue weight. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just reviewd the featured Norwegian (Bokmal) entry on Israel, and it seems to have an entire paragraph dedicated to nuclear weapons, as well as delivery systems. I guess the Bokmal Wikipedia doesn't have a developed WP:NPOV policy. This does not mean much for us at the English Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

there's nothing in the Pakistan article too. What's the situation in the norwegian version of Pakistan? Does it mention the ethnic cleansing in 1948?

you haven't read the article: there is a paragraph on nucelar arms in the military section. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you just love when people just come to yell, and don't even bother reading the article? okedem (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

:Israels nuclear arsenal have played a significant role in the Middle east for the last 3 decades, and especially since the Vanunu arrest in 1986. Israel is one of very few nations that haven't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If this don't get a more attention in the article - then the article should be degraded.--Ezzex (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

S/he doesn't read the discussion either. Its mentioned in the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK message taken--Ezzex (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heraclius

I don't know anything about Heraclius but what it says about him in this article doesn't jibe with the Heraclius article. Fourtildas (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

this is what you want: Revolt against Heraclius. you seem to assume that this page is edited by people who deliberately mislead.

I will correct the link.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. Neither article supports the statement "Byzantine Emperor Heraclius conducted a massacre and expulsion of the Jews" as stated in this article. Reference in the "Revolt" article is "Eutychius". Searching for "Eutychius" doesn't turn up anything relevant. The subsequent references 3,4,5 are over a century old. Do modern academic historians take these writings seriously? Fourtildas (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

After writing the above I find we have the Monumenta Germaniae Historica of reference 4, which despite it's Latin name, is in German only. Fourtildas (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy right now, but I find this interesting, so if you give a few days I'll see what I can find. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

this seems to be the source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=B&artid=1642 There are plenty of references to it in google books. I will give you some more when I have time.

Telaviv1 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern scholarship:

Heraclius experienced a most exquisite triumph as he knelt in the rebuilt church to recieve the blessings of the patriarch that extraordinary day. Apologists would say afterwards that only because of the adamant demands of the patriarch and the local clergy did the emperor rescind his pledge of amnesty and reluctantly authorize the foced baptism and massacre of the empire's Jews.

source: God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 by David Lewis, publisher Norton 2008 page 69

The source for this information seems to be this guy:

http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/05639a.htm but it has support from other sources too. Historians don't like to rely on a single source.

Any more complaints? Telaviv1 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada

Please insert this more historically accurate paragraph. Thank you.

"After the collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace talks, Ariel Sharon, who was then the head of the Likud party, visited the Haram al-Sharif-Temple Mount Compound in 2000 (which in itself was a violation of Jewish law). This action instigated the Second Intifada by Muslums who considered it an insult to their beliefs. This action resulted in loss of confidance in the Baruk government and resulted in Barak losing a subsequent Prime Ministerial election by a landslide. In 2003, Sharon's Likud party subsequently won the Knesset elections."24.168.155.61 (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this paragraph warrants inclusion (it has a lot of speculation and seems a bit POV) but I wonder if others think a mention of the Sharon visit to Temple Mount as a flashpoint for the following violence should be mentioned. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My ex-wife was told by a friend of hers who worked for Medecin Sans Frontieres that they were notified that the Palestinians were planning a big event for that month and had requests for extra funding already written out before the intifada began. Based on this (admittedly personal) information I believe that it was an excuse, that the violence was planned before they knew of his visit. However this inquiry: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mitchell_plan.htm concluded that there was no evidence that it was either planned or that Sharon was the direct cause of the violence. An insertion of the reference might be justified.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence in the lead

The Arab League rejected the plan, but on May 14, 1948, the Jewish provisional government declared Israel's independence. Subsequently, Israel's Arab neighbors invaded the new nation with the hope of regaining territory previously held by the Ottoman Empire and preventing the creation of an independent Jewish state.The Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan.

This sentence seems to me to be problematic. Firstly the intro doesn't need to discuss the causes of the 1948 war, secondly how can Arab states "regain territory" if it was previously held by the Ottomans? Also it repeats itself - if the arab league rejected the plan why say they invaded to prevent the creation of a jewish state? The whole sentence could be much shorter and simpler, so I suggest...

On May 14 1948 the state of Israel declared independence in accordance with the UN decision and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume the sentence refers to the territory conquered by Faisal's troops (among others, of course) in the Battle of Megiddo (1918). But you're right in that we should not assume the Arabs' "hopes" and choose a more factual language, similar to what you're suggesting. -- Nudve (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both your comments.

In TelAviv1 proposal, I would suggest to add 2 small modifications :

On May 14 1948 the state of Israel declared independence in accordance with the UN decision and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis defeated military the Arabs in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan.

• Some scholars and observers argue that this (overwhelming) "military" victory is a political defeat. Yom Kippur is also considered as an Egyptian "diplomatic" victory by some observers (I don't mind if this is true or not, this is just a question of NPoV)
• I do not deny the Jewish character of Israel :-) but some Israelis consider that Israel is also "a state like the others". The Jewish character is known and so, no need to repeat this to many times.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Military" is redundant. Every victory in a war is military. Historiographical interpretations of post-war diplomacy is irrelevant and, in a way, POV. -- Nudve (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree.

You can win a war military but lose it. See : Pyrrhic victory.

Referring to Yom Kippur War, Howard Sachar, A History of Israel, 2007, pp.788-789 : "[Meir asked to Kissinger] by what moral obligation (...) was Israel to pay a higher price than Egypt for accommodation, since the Egyptians had lounched the war and had failed subsequently to win it? Kissinger appreciated Mrs. Meir's reasonning. (...) But the secretary knew, too, that the victory had left the Israelis with ashed in their mouths. The cost in blood and treasure had been far too high. Moreover, Israel now found itsef in a state of virtual diplomatic isolation. Support for the Arabs cause had been expressed not alone by the Communist nations but by nearly the entire Third World, including -in Asia- India, Paksintan, Ceylon and Burma, Turkey and Iran, even Japan".

Howard Sachar is a traditionnal historian, perfectly reliable and even with some pro-Israli bias...

By the way, I don't understand what you mean exactly when you write : "Historiographical interpretations of post-war diplomacy is irrelevant and, in a way, pov" ? Could explain with other words ? Ceedjee (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pyrrhic victory" is perhaps the opposite of "Decisive victory", and can be juxtaposed against "strategic victory" or "tactical victory". There is no way for an army to win a war other then militarily. As for Sachar, that's my point: This is Kissinger's POV (whom I respect greatly, BTW). -- Nudve (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

In military jargon, there are :

• Decisive victory, Marginal victory, Draw, Marginal defeat, Decisive defeat
• Strategic and Tactical victories rather refer to the importance of the battle or the military operation

Pyrrhic victory is not used I think in military context. In practice it only refers to battle and not to war (as here)

Let's assume Kissinger and Sachar's analysis is a minority POV. Does not NPoV ask us to take care of all pov's ? Kissinger and Sachar would not be relevant ?

Whatever, I don't think to add the word military is really important, because in practice, I am not sure reader will be aware of what is behing that word in our minds. So it is useless.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I agree. Certainly it's possible for country A to defeat Country B and yet end up worse off than country B. I just don't think the word "military" helps make things clearer in the context of the sentence in question. Perhaps we could say something like "the IDF defeated the Arab armies..." to clarify that it was a military victory but not necessarily a political one. -- Nudve (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we cannot put a note, longer than TelAviv's proposal, just to explain the meaning of the word military. This is a lead. I think here I focus too much on details here. We must keep a broader view.

Your last proposal seems ok for me. That solves the issue a simple way.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then, let's wait a little longer, mostly for telaviv1's comment, since he's the one who proposed the change in the first place. Unless there's some objection, I believe we'll have a consensus. -- Nudve (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should say "defeated the Arabs" because Israel only defeated a number of Arab states, not all the Arab peoples. Also the word military seems to me incorrect grammatically and sounds awkward. Shouldn't it be "militarily"? How about simply sayig "The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence..."

Telaviv1 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. -- Nudve (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ok for me too. Ceedjee (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it... Telaviv1 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

reverts

Some editors continue to revert this section for apparently no particular reason. {from the intro paragraphs}

“ Subsequently, Israel's Arab neighbors invaded the nascent state with the hope of regaining territory previously held by the Ottoman Empire, preventing the creation of an independent Jewish country and forcibly eradicating the Jewish population. ”

Here's the source http://www.contenderministries.org/

Whats the problem here?

Cheers --Fatal!ty (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One problem is the source -- at least two of us think this does not meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In more, the link to "genocide" doesn't respect NPoV.

A proposal here above has been made. The best way is to discuss there instead of performing edit war.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at this source myself, it includes a section condemning evolution. May we take it that its claims about the Middle East are of similar plausibility? PatGallacher (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of this source. In general you can not state as fact that which never happened, or would have happened but didn't. Zombiestan (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight concern on wording

First off let me start by saying that I know this is a touchy subject so I'm going to keep my comments as neutral and short as possible.

With that being said, I am concerned about the statement that reads, "In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War...." The rest of that sentance reads fine, granted that it is substanciated, but isn't intervened a tad POV? It certainly was an invasion. The article on the 1982 Lebanon war refers to Israel's actions as an invasion, as well as most other sources. In "From Beirut to Jerusalem" it is called an invasion as well, and in case you are not familiar with the book it was written by Mark Friedman, who is Jewish, so I think its neutrality can be reasonably assumed. --67.234.211.211 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Are Druze and arabic muslims able to vote for knesset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.4.199 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens can. Zombiestan (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they can, and do. There are 4 Arab parties in the Knesset, with 10 Knesset members. About half of Arabs vote for non-Arab parties, like Israeli Labor Party, Likud, Kadima, Meretz and others, and those parties have Arab/Druze representatives. okedem (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Samples: Majalli Wahabi, Raleb Majadele. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question related to voting: How does one go about joining an Israeli political party? I have always assumed you had to be an Israeli citizen, but someone has challenged me on that. Anyone know for sure?--Gilabrand (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can join a political party based on that party's charter. Being a Knesset member, now that's another thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)