Talk:Israel

Old archives
Israel and the Occupied Territories Jerusalem as capital

Jewish ethnicity?

Is there such a thing as being "ethnically" Jewish? In my understanding of things, isn't Judaism a religion and not an ethnic group? Because I know there are a lot of followers of Judaism from different backgrounds (including Arabic, African, Iranian, German, Russian, etc.), so I don't think there should be a separate "make-up" (specifically the side bar stating that 75% of Israel's population is Jewish, with around 20% being Arab, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.85.40 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

judaism is very special in the fact that it is both a nation and a religion. its like 2 for the price of 1. so yes judaism is an ethnicity. and you are also correct there are jews all over the world, but they are all ethnically jews. the point for israel was to create a home for the jewish people, not the jewish religion. so there should be a special side bar recognizing that israel is a jewish state and that 75% of israels populace are jews.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And another 4% have Jewish ancestry (the non-halakhically Jewish new immigrants mostly from the former USSR). And some Muslim Arabs may have Jewish ancestry also. Benjil (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jews are both, a religion and an ethnicity, children of Isaac's son Jacob are Jews, the Israelites / Hebrews] started to be called as Jews in the book of Esther, yet, a German that converts to Judaism is as much a Jew as an Ethiopian black Jew, Yes, some Jews have been forced to convert to Islam, like about 5,000 in Morocco, for example.Rilahag (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations

The article states that the USA was the first to recognize israel followed by the USSR but cites no sources. In Montefiore's book on Stalin (Stalin: the red tsar) he claims the USSR recognized Israel first. I think either a source should be provided or the statement rephrased. Telaviv1 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the book "The Arab-Israeli Conflict" (second edition 2004) T.G. Fraser writes on page 43 that "The new state was proclaimed at 6 p.m. Washington time; Trumans's de facto recognition followed 11 minutes later [...] An American recognition was quickly followed by that of the Soviet Union". This of course does not rule out that a third country recognised Israel within those 11 minutes. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Canada should be included in the list of countries mentioned as having extremely strong ties with Israel. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/2010527184439863164.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another "RS" The anti-Israel bigoted: 'The Guardian,' LOL

Wow, what a "reliable source" on Israel, that same biased anti-Israel The Guardian that Promotes Apartheid Slur [1], lies [2] about this "story" as well. note the "coincidence" in a stubborn trend in promoting the "apartheid" epithet - association.Rilahag (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

controversy

With all that is going on, shouldn't there be a "controversy" section, considering that Israel has been doing and lying about things, not to mention all the video around showing Israeli settlers in places like Hebron attacking children and so forth?

99.145.123.223 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Every country in the world has "controversies" around it, but other country articles do not have such biased sections, and so neither does this one. okedem (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a section of criticising the "obsessed-critics" of Israel. Starting with what (some-of-them) their real motives are, given their pattern of "criticism." Rilahag (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Facts at a glance

Historical facts of Bulgaria present a more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population.

I have added key facts onto Israel's historical facts at a glance to reflect this more accurate history.

The question is not why is Bulgaria different.

Its why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that the State of Israel is not a direct continuation of the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is not the same entity that evolved along time but a new entity created in 1948 even if the Jews that live in Israel today or more or less the same people than the Jews of the past. But this can be discussed. Benjil (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The years of the distinctly different entities are listed for nations such as France and Germany. Why is this meeting resistance with Israel? It fits within the infobox if done correctly with the "established_event#" parameter.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing your comment Benjil. Direct succession does make it slightly different. I assume (not totally clear on it) that modern Israel links its past with the ancient kingdom. If the modern government and historians give it any play then we should too. It is clear that it is not the same thing just like it is cear that the Holy Roman Empire is not Germany.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As Benjil says, this article is about the modern State of Israel not the Biblical Land of Israel. The question is not 'why other countries haven't adopted this more accurate approach', the question is why Sagi Nahor is putting Biblical history in an infobox for the modern State of Israel, describing Biblical history as 'historical facts' and referring to it as a 'more accurate representation of its history and the history of its population'. I personally find this genuinely bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

______________

Thank you all for your input.

The First Bulgarian Empire was formed in 681. This year, and this momentous event in the annals of this nation, is recorded, as it should be, in the quick-glance historical facts section of Bulgaria.

A Second Bulgarian Empire was formed in 1185. This momentous occasion, and the year in which it occurred, are likewise displayed in the key facts section of Bulgaria, as they should be.

Bulgaria lost independence in 1396. This event, and the year in which it occurred, is recorded, as it should be, in Bulgaria's key facts box.

Bulgaria lost its independence to the Ottomon Turks for almost 500 years.

After almost 500 years, Bulgaria formed an autonomous government again in 1878. This event and the year in which it occurred, is once again recorded in the key facts box of Bulgaria, as it should be, because this is accurate and vital historic information.

The Jewish people have had a continuous connection with the land of Israel since the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel.

Since this time, the Jews were either active rulers of the land of Israel, such as the Hasmoneans , or were in exile from their homeland, awaiting the time they could re-establish independence.

Key historical facts, like those pertaining to Bulgaria, should also be recorded for Israel.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not key historical facts about the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right.

The point is that just as Bulgaria did not appear magically through independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, rather was a pre-existing national entity from centuries prior, so too Israel did not magically appear in 1948, but forms a continuous national entity from the one formed centuries prior.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a continuous connection of indigenous Australians going back 40,000+ years with the land of the modern state of Australia. So what ? It doesn't make it pertinent to the infobox in the Australia article. And your non-Bulgarian based POV pushing arguments 'Israel is the inheritance of Jacob, of the Jewish people. It is the will of Allah' don't make it pertinent either. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And I have reverted. So that is the third revert of this material by three different editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

__________________

Should the Australian Aboriginals gain independence from the Commonwealth, they would most definitely have dates in their key facts box relating to their original establishment, their period of self-rule, period of foreign rule, and period of renewed independence. This is in part what has happened with Israel. Surely you can see how this is a more factual representation of the history of the land and its people? With this in mind - ie more factual representation - I revert back to the more factual representation, unless, Sean, you have no interest in relaying factual history? As I've said earlier, any nation that can provide strong evidence of continuation from a previous kingdom should do so, as it provides ... a more factual representation of its history. With regards to my comment on fatima's page, I talk to different people in the language they understand. Sagi Nahor (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at France and Germany, some of this could be open to interpretation. Is Germany a straight continuation of the Holy Roman Empire? Does France date specifically from the baptism of Clovis? (Although there could be a French state largely continuously from around this time.) It could be a quagmire trying to deal with alleged continuity of countries over that length of time e.g. does modern Italy have some continuity with the Roman Empire? PatGallacher (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All these comparisons are completely irrelevant. This article is about the State of Israel which was founded in 1948. If somebody wants to throw in Herzl or the Zionist Congress of the late 1800s, fine. Anything else doesn't belong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well no. The article is about Israel which can encompass the State of Israel but also the land and the people of Israel. The article deals with the past and the former kingdoms. We are here debating about an info box. Benjil (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the actual edit and reading this section, I thought this was one of the worst ideas I've seen on WP. But I've looked around at number of country articles and many are worse than this. Portugal starts with the County of Portugal, Iran ties the modern state to the Median Empire, the Czech Rep. to ninth century Bohemian principality, etc. Lithuania starts off with the "First mention of Lithuania" in 1009 and follows while Poland starts off with "Christianisation" (966). Japan was the worst I saw, starting with the mythical National Foundation Day, from the (semi?)mythical reign of Emperor Jimmu which that infobox dates to Feb. 11, 660 BC. This seems like a very bad idea to me but it isn't Sagi's bad idea. Just another infobox problem with editors trying to cram nuanced information into single-word categories. Somebody should probably fix that.

That said, the circa 1050 BC founding is mythological and shouldn't be included even by the loose standards of those other articles. Even the Japanese example I mentioned links to the celebration of the mythological founding without swallowing it whole. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The history of ISrael is not just about a piece of territory but also about the Jewish people, as such the history needs to have two seperate threads. This is unusual and one of the things that makes it different from other countries. I think the expulsion from Spain and the holocaust may deserve a larger mention - definitely the Holocaust - but I also think the history should be kept short. Perhaps the stuff on Zionism should be made shorter. Do people really need to know about each 'aliya'? Telaviv1 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The modern State of Israel has its historical and religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel, also known as Zion, a concept central to Judaism since ancient times"

Thankfully, this sentence displays prominently in the introduction of the article.

Why not continue this factual representation into the key?

I refer you also to the country of Portugal where its key facts box reflects a more accurate picture of its past.

The Jewish nation did not appear out of thin air in 1948.

             Why not provide more key information regarding its roots?

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia made for furthering people's knowledge.

Maybe I was mistaken.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) ___

Jews' roots in/to Israel, general-historic and religious

It (Jews' roots in Israel) is both: 1) Historic AND 2) religious/Biblical = central to Judea-Christians (and to some Muslim scholars like Sheik Palazzi who areb not afraid to talk about Zionism, Jews (Bani-Israel) & the land of Israel in Muhammad's book the Koran.). Here's a publicized example of continuous Jewish presence for 2,000 Years.[3] Here's in general about it [4]Rilahag (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The state of Israel is connected to Kingdom of Judah, which all Jewish are part of the 2 last tribes. The 10 tribes have disapeared. So if there is kingdom which is connected to, its the kingdom of juda and not kigdom of Israel, although the name is confusing. --Sipio (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups: Jews in Ancient Japan?

http://www.moshiach.com/tribes/japan.html

What you think? 189.106.98.202 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (I am de facto portuguese brazilian speaker only)

Well, considering Jesus is buried in Japan ;) RomaC (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arimasa Kubo's writings are already mentioned here. I think you should probably read this as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC

incorrect statement

The sentence here is speaking about the variety of geographic features that Israel is home to, but this area is not in Israel:[5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

well, must be acknowledged here the fact that the Golan Heights as a security measure have been administered under Israeli law since the Yom Kippur war, and that if ever one wants to visit them s/he should better come through Israel; the article is descriptive of a geographical reality, don't consider that sentence as if it were a political declaration issued by the Israeli government, if you want to fight for their reconquest WP is not the right arena, cordially, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly "come through", but that's just it. It is not a part of it. The geography of the occupied territories can be described in their own articles. How is it a geographical reality if a region that is internationally recognized as in Syria is in "Israel is home to a variety of geographic features" That region is not Israel. This article is about Israel, not the Israeli-occupied territories, in the geography section it is describing the geography and climate of Israel, so this region that is not in Israel can not be in it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the golan heights is controlled by who? -israel. so when we speak about the geography of israel it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law. perhaps you dont recognize that but that doesn't matter its still part of israel. so until a peace treaty is signed with syria and israel officially gives back the golan the golan will remain as part of israel.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The Golan Heights is recognized as Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. Countless sources of the highest quality confirm that the Golan is Syrian territory. I am not aware of any state that recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory, excepting of course Israel. It is an extreme minority position that the Golan is "part of [I]srael". nableezy - 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument "it should be included as it is part of israel according to israeli law" has no merit whatsoever. The contents of articles aren't decided by Israeli law. That is a notion that flies in the face of policy and the discretionary sanctions. The Golan Heights aren't part of Israel because RS say that the Golan Heights aren't part of Israel. It's really very simple. Editor's inability to see this very obvious policy compliance issue is troubling. The Golan Heights material needs to be moved to its proper policy compliant location. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said it's simply descriptive. It's the reality on the ground, if you sit in a boat on the lake and look accross towards Syria you won't see any border, anyway one can't both describe it as administered by Israel and say it is in Syria -considering the friendly attitude of Syria towards Israel I'm pretty sure it would never accept that Israel puts up and enforces a lawful system -complete with army and police, etc.- on its territory! So even Syria acknowledges that this territory is not as for today in Syria, follow her example, wp is not dedicated to fantasies, sorry.... if ever any change occurs during your life time you will then make the relevant contribution, Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in what you said that has anything to do with policy based article content decisions. You might as well delete it. This is simply about compliance with mandatory Wiki policies. That's all. Wiki article content isn't based on 'the reality on the ground'. Yes, it is simply descriptive but it discribes a state of affairs that is inconsistent with state of affairs represented by reliable sources. It is therefore inconsistent with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

well, I guess that you wd have it that the State of Israel doesn't exist, it's really Palestine, or maybe southern Syria or a province of greater Syria, since "its existence is iconsistent with the state of affairs represented by some reliable sources", Syria lost twice and presently is not ready to try again or even to negociate, so it seems that you are on your own in this fight and that's probably why you feel so frustrated but as I already said wp is not the right arena for war, it's a collaborative entreprise, not confrontational, 'Israel' has been written with the necessary concensus and recently declared a featured article for its fine quality, don't try to spoil it, there exist lots of article where you can contribute constructively and peacefully, Hope&Act3! (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness you can yell how much you want "Golan is not in Israel" but the reality is, that Israel is the administrative country of the golan (as well as Jerusalem is the capital although it is not recognized as such). You have nothing to seek here, stop to corrupt the article by you're political points of view. --Sipio (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that all reliable sources and all countries in the world say it is in Syria. No country except Israel say its in Israel, so according to Wikipedia rules undue weight, we must follow the vast majority viewpoint and not the extreme minority. The same way the vast majority of people say the earth is round, so we do not say it is flat, see: Due and undue weight. And please also see this discussion:[6] So we can not say that the region is in Israel because that's not the truth, only an Israeli-occupied territory. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that: Wikipedia cannot apply just for "claims", but for the reality as well. Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel capital, but, does it makes the reality changes? no! Jerusalem is still the capital, the seat of the government. The Golan Height is administrative by Israel, and it is part of Israel, unlike West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many sources does refer to the territory of Israel as 22.072 including the Golan Heights, like "Factbook" which is highly used by wikipedia as believable source. It's funny you know, just on Israel article people let themselves the permission to edit by their own PoV's. For example, chaina article, although it has some dispute areas, they are still mentions in the articla as part of the country. You can't just come here and edit it by your're PoV's, you've got no permission for that. Do not edit again, and again, stop corrupt the article. --Sipio (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The comparison with the issue of Jerusalem as capital is misleading. International recognition does not hold the same weight for capitals as it does for international borders. This was discussed extensively in the Jerusalem as Capital discussions. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographics error on emigration

The article describes it as modest. The New York Times has reported it at 800,000. Hardly a modest number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP! I haven't read the NYT but you may have misread the number -being professionnals they cannot make such a big mistake-, you see the present population of the whole state of Israel is 7.5 millions, 800.000 is more than 10%, sure such a massive emigration would have been noticed ! no news so far about that other than your post, check again, thanks Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel's Defence policy

Where would I add an article on Israel's national Defence policy?120.16.255.31 (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) PS. Although I log in as Koakhtzvigad, when the window is refreshed after save, the log in is lost and only my IP address registers! Not sure why this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.255.31 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous

I feel sad the only mention of the word "indigenous" has to do with a satellite. Jews are indigenous to Judea, right? AThousandYoung (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading graph under Demographics section

Under the section Demographics there is a graph describing population distribution in Israel (Jews/Arabs/Druze/Others).

At a first glance, it appears that there is a trend towards equal distribution between Jews and Arabs in the last decade.

However, when looking closely at the graph, it is revealed that the Y-Axis intercepts with the X-Axis at 60% and not at 0% as expected, thus creating a misrepresentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.2.25 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it's pretty confusing, I think the graph should start from 0% to 100%, otherwise it's juts confusing and uncelar. I'll edit it for the full graph. --Sipio (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i also think the graph is misleading. --Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The barrier

The West Bank wall is not built "for the most part" within the West Bank. It is built entirely in the West Bank. Even those sections of the wall that follow the 1967 Green Line are on the Palestinian side of that line. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN says ~85% when it's completed. "When completed, the majority of the route, approximately 85%, will run inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem rather than along the 1949 Armistice Line (Green Line). The total area located between the Barrier and the Green Line amounts to 9.5% of the West Bank including East Jerusalem and No Man’s Land (See Barrier Facts and Figures, p. 8)" OCHA, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Five Years after the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, A Summary of the Humanitarian Impact of the Barrier, July 2009 Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Golan

@Supreme Deliciousness I guess you've got a short memory span but you still can read, can't you? so I refer you to the above section 'incorrect statement' (hope your condition will improve rapidly), stop pushing it can be construed as vandalism, all the relevant data concerning the political aspects are in the Golan article as I'm sure you already know, take care, Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing good will come from this kind of comment. I suggest you remove it or move it to Supreme Deliciousness's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be friends you can explain her/him that it is unadvised to sneak back and delete anything as a rule and this specific item in this article specially after such a lenghty dicussion which told her/him not to, have a good day both of you,Hope&Act3! (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See my previous comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Participation of Lebanese army in May 15 invasion

According to this edit the Lebanese army "attacked Israel" on May 15:

On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;

However, this does not appear to be the case: On page 258 in his book "1948" Benny Morris writes:

But at the last moment, Lebanon [...] opted out of the invasion.

I suggest this to be reverted. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Morris is referring to, but Lebanese and Israeli forces fought each other on May 15 in al-Malikiyya. okedem (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Morris the forces in al-Malikiyya were ALA supported by Lebanese artillery. So they attacked, by didn't invade. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Read Morris for yourself: [7] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you get a preview? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please double-check the page numbers cited in the article (page 50 in Karsh, The Arab–Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948; page 1058 in Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People). It appears to be on page 11 in Karsh, and I can't find the information in Ben-Sasson, but I'm using Google Books. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You can find the information on multiple pages in Karsh, including the ones I cited. Ben Sasson p.1058 (referring to the night between May 14 and 15): "On the following night five Arab armies simultaneously invaded Israel. ...The Lebanese did not cross the border at Rosh Hanikra, but entered Malkiyyah and Kadesh-Naphtali." okedem (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Arab armies entered Palestine, but that was not necessarily Israeli territory. According to the report made by the Government of Israel to the Security Council on 18 May 1948, Jordan did not invade the territory of the Jewish state and Lebanon had fired its artillery at settlements in northern Galilee from across the frontier. See UN Doc. S/766 22 May 1948 and also "Doubting the Yishuv-Hashemite Agreement" starting on page 7 of the .pdf file of "Refabricating 1948", by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies [8]

Declassified public records in the Israeli, British, and US state archives also say that the Israeli militias had been conducting full time offensive operations beyond the borders of the Jewish state for several weeks by 15 May:

• The British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, noted in his reports that by late April: "Recent Jewish military successes (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press. Jewish broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany." See Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Andrew Porter, Ronald Edward Robinson, Robert F. Holland, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461, page 142

• In March of 1948, Presidential Advisor Clark Clifford wrote a memo to President Truman advising that the United States should take the initiative in branding the Arab states as aggressors and move in the Security Council that Arab action constitutes a threat to peace. See American Zionism: Mission and Politics, Jeffrey S. Gurock, ISBN 0415919339 Taylor & Francis, 1998, page 17 [9]

• Internal US State Department memos reported on Israeli militia operations and predicted that the Arab armies would enter Palestine. They said the UN would be confronted by a very anomalous and intolerable situation: "The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days' time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.
  The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. ... Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN's telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention. See Memo from Rusk to the Under Secretary of State Lovett, May 4, 1948, Subject: Future Course of Events in Palestine. Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 -- cited in "The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951", William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

• On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an "act of aggression". The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946. harlan (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Long and irrelevant, as usual. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that reliable published sources say that Jordan never invaded Israel and that the Arabs were launching a counter-attack is certainly NOT irrelevant. It is a significant published viewpoint that isn't reflected in the content of the many Wikipedia articles on the subject. There have already been discussions about the Benny Morris article under "Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel" at I/PCOLL and during an RfC at the United Nations Partition Plan article. [10]. There has also been a discussion about the FRUS memos at the State of Palestine article [11] and the UN Partition Plan article [12] I suggest we add this material to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article as an opposing viewpoint to the existing narrative and put a sync tag on the other articles, like this one, with the information about the invasion of Israel by the five Arab armies. harlan (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are playing fast and loose both with wikipedia policy and your sources, as per usual.

Your first source talks about reports from April, unless Cunnigham was clairvoyant, how are these relevant to whether or not Arab states attacked Israel in May?

Your second source is from March. How is it relevant to whether or not Arab states attacked Israel in May?

Your third source is the opinion of Dean Rusk which you try to pretend is the opinion of the US by attributing it to FRUS. We've been over this little favorite trick of yours at least on half a dozen articles. Quoting extensively from primary sources in an attempt to lead the reader to the conclusions we want is not the way we do things around here.

Your last source is again from before May 15th and at best can be described as the French not minding if Abdallah invades. Not relevant to the issue at hand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG the published secondary sources that I cited above answer those questions. I cannot be "playing fast and loose" by quoting reliable secondary sources. The Rusk memo is self-explanatory. Morris, Louis, Flapan, Gurock, and Neff explain why the various governments predicted that the Arab states were going to counter-attack. By May 15th, there were already thousands of Palestinian refugees in all of the neighboring countries saying that Jewish militias had either threatened, attacked, or destroyed villages like Deir Yassin. Morris relates that UK Foreign Minister Bevin had long-since given the okay for the British-subsidized Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state after the British withdrawal. That was done in response to the many requests that Transjordan had received from Palestinians asking for protection.

The Foreign Relations of the United States is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions. The Office of the Historian selects the documents on US policy that appear in the series. Dean Rusk was the Under-Secretary of State who managed United Nations Affairs, including votes in the Security Council. I think that you already know that Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Eugene L. Rogan, David Tal, and dozens of other historians have written about the many declassified documents in the relevant state archives which say that the US, the UK, France, and other governments did not object to the actions taken by Transjordan.

The government of Jordan actually cited the works of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappé as evidence in its written statement to the Court in the 2004 ICJ Wall case. It noted that the declassified documents cited by those authors regarding Plan Dalet and etc. are now a matter of public record. The cited works also discussed the modus vivendi agreement with Abdullah. See Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and in particular Annex 1, "ORIGINS AND EARLY PHASES OF ISRAEL'S POLICY OF EXPULSION AND DISPLACEMENT OF PALESTINIANS [13]

Frederico1234, the article does not say Israel was invaded, it says Israel was attacked. I'm suggesting that it include the very relevant published viewpoints of the French, British, and US government officials who said the Arab states counter-attacked in response to Jewish armed attacks on Arab communities in Palestine. harlan (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the claim that Jordan attacked Israel is false. But still, it is a topic for another discussion. Creating a new section for that discussion would be a good idea. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You know how things work here. You can't provide a source that doesn't specifically say something and interpret it to say what you want. That's called WP:OR. All of the sources you provided above are about things that happened before the attack by the Arab states. Your OR that these things support the position you want to put in the article is just that, OR.

As I said above, you are playing fast and loose both with your sources and with wikipedia policy. You're doing it on purpose, too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG on page 65 of Fallen Pillars Donald Neff says that "The immediate result of Israel's declaration of a Jewish state in defiance of the Arab majority was the entry on 15 May of army units from the Arab countries. He says:

• "The Arab troops invaded in order to prevent Israeli forces from continuing their conquest of Arab land beyond the UN partition plan."
• "The US State Department had predicted such an intervention less than two weeks before the British withdrawal."
• He then quotes the Rusk memo cited above and says "Indeed, that was precisely what happened".

I believe you know the rules, and that material is certainly is NOT WP:OR. Frederico1234: at the moment, this article does not characterize it as an "invasion". It says Israel was attacked by five Arab armies. We are discussing the view of many that it was a counter-attack by the Arab armies. We have already established that Lebanon did not invade, but only fired artillery shells across the frontier. They were assisting the village of al-Malikiyya. harlan (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your new source doesn't say "counter-attack" either. They attacked. This is a fact. Why they attacked is another issue which is outside the scope of this article. There were several reasons given by the Arabs for their attack, which should be discussed in full in the appropriate article. For this article it's enough to note that the vast majority of RS specifically say that several Arab countries attacked Israel on May 15th.

You should stop trying to make the reader come to the conclusions you want by selectively using sources that don't quite say what you're claiming they say. As I mentioned above, that's WP:OR. I'm sure you know this by now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Neff is not a new source. I explained in my original post that he, Flapan and Louis each cited the Rusk memo in their books. He very definitely does say counter-attack:

In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.[44]
Indeed, that was precisely what happened."

You've made a regular habit of assuming bad faith and arguing about the content of sources without actually bothering to read them. I suggest you drop the matter. harlan (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to assume good faith when you provide a source that says Jewish broadcasts were like Nazi broadcasts and claim this supports the idea that the Arab states didn't attack Israel.

I will certainly not drop the subject. The vast majority of sources say that the Arab states attacked Israel. I think we both know this is a fact. The discussion of the minority views should go into the main article about the 1948 war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of published sources that compared the military operation against Deir Yassin, the pamphlets, and broadcasts of the Irgun, and the Herut party to the Nazis. Here for example is the Einstein, Arendt, et al letter to the New York Times which does exactly that: [14] Wikipedia policy is to let the published sources speak for themselves. The vast majority of sources were published before the official minutes of the Knesset cabinet meetings from May 1948 through April 1949 were opened for public inspection (in March of 1995). They were also published before all of the US, UK, and French archival records were published. Those viewpoints were not in the minority or insignificant. harlan (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please only discuss the question of Lebanese army involvement in May 15 invasion. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make a change which I think is in line with what has been discussed here. Please let me know what you think. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. This was just a WP:WEASEL worded way to say "attacked". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The current version of the text is divided into two parts. The first part lists the major Arab belligerents and the second the minor ones:

The following day, the armies of five Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; [75][76] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action.[77]

Based on Morris, I think it's fair to say Lebanon belongs to the second category. Quoting Morris:

Lebanon decided to deploy its army defensively. But to cover itself politically, in the inter-Arab arena, it also agreed to serve as a base for a small ALA "invasion" of Palestine and to provide that force with covering artillery fire, a handful of armored cars, "volunteers," and logistical support.

and later (HIS=Haganah Intelligence Service)

But the HIS had it right; one agent later reported that "the Lebanese army ... did not join the invasion

The current text leads the reader to believe that Lebanon was one of the major Arab belligerents when in fact it was not. Moving Lebanon to the second sentence gives the reader a more truthful picture. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's clear (including from Morris) that the Lebanese military attacked Israel. In the two other cases, either there was no participation at all in the case of Yemen, or a contingent fighting under some other state's military hierarchy like SA. I agree that Lebanon's part was relatively minor, but they did attack. The place to go into detail about this, again, is the article about the 1948 war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frederico1234, NMMNG says that Morris never mentioned Lebanon's aggressive actions. Morris did mention that, under Plan D, the Yishuv was engaged in a war of conquest weeks before 15 May. The Rusk memo cited Consul Wasson's telegram about the Deir Yassin massacre and the seige of Jaffa. Wasson mentioned that Irgun had started the operation against Jaffa, but that the Haganah had taken over the operation. Neff, Flapan, and Louis explained that the members of the Security Council found that situation intolerable and did not view the entry of the Arab armies as an act of aggression. They viewed it as a counter-attack.

Victor Kattan wrote that the United Nations Security Council never condemned the Arab intervention as an act of aggression. He cited Sir John Bagot Glubb's memoirs:

Yet although the British Army insisted on the withdrawal of the Arab Legion, war had already been in progress in Palestine for several weeks. The Jewish forces were already well across the United Nations partition line and were in occupation of considerable areas allotted to the Arabs, even while British troops were in nominal control.

Kattan also cited Benny Morris:

If there were any aggressors in 1948, it was the Yisbuv (the Jewish-settler community in Palestine) which initiated a large-scale assault on that part of Palestine which had been allotted to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan six weeks prior to its declaration of independence. In the words of Benny Morris: 'During the first half of April [1948], the Yishuv had gone over to the offensive and was engaged in a war of conquest. That war of conquest was prefigured in Plan D. Moreover, had Transjordan's Arab Legion not come to Palestine's defence on 15 May 1948, Israel could quite easily have gone on to conquer the remainder of it. -- See Victor Kattan, "From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1891-1949", Pluto Press, 2009, ISBN: 0745325785, page 176

David Ben Gurion noted that the Security Council had not taken any action in response to the Arab intervention

"The United Nations wiped out the credit due to it for its decision on November 29, 1947, on May 15, 1948. If the UN had been worthy of its name it should have defended its honour when certain countries tried to destroy the people of Israel in its Land. But there was not a single state -not even the United States or the Soviet Union- that lifted a finger on the 15th of May." -- See Michael Brecher, The Foreign Policy System of Israel, Yale UP, 1972, ISBN 019215186X, page 257

The general sanctions say that Wikipedia aims to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. We need to add this material to the 1948 article and apply a {{sync}} tag to articles, like this one, which supply a one-sided viewpoint. harlan (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this article is under general sanctions. Please keep that in mind when you continue to flood this talk page with irrelevant information. We do not need to add material just because you think it will lead the reader to the conclusions you want about what happened. That the civil war in Mandate Palestine was going on for months prior to 15 May is not in dispute. That this changes what the Arab states did from "attack" to something else is your personal OR. They announced they were going to attack for weeks prior for crying out loud. Stop trying to massage the facts and terminology to fit your POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

'Foreign relations' section

The 'Foreign relations' section counts Turkey as one of the nations with whom Israeli relations is strongest. Really? Maybe Wikipedians should try living on Planet Earth for a change, because they are only causing embarassment to themselves, and evoking ridicule and derision. Either that, or Wikipedia is deliberately lying to promote its own agenda, whatever that may be.

If anything can be gleaned from the events of the last few years, it is that Turkey has among the strongest relations with Israel's enemies. In fact, it behaves like a enemy of Israel. At the very least, take Turkey off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be nasty. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No way should Turkey appear as a "friend" of Israel. 86.176.105.58 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

First district is Jerusalem

Someone has decided to edit the districts table "by the map", although the map is wrong. Jerusalem district is counted as the first district just like most of the capital districts in the world (for example Beirut Governorate is the first Governorate and north is the next). I have made this table by myself and I know very well how the division in Israel is. Despite those reasons, I dont get "permission" by the viewer for this edit, for unknown reasons. --Sipio (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean this revert? I assume that was a mistake or at least it's not clear to me either what was wrong with the re-ordering. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was me, I was in my laptop so I didn't sight that I was log off with my account. Seems like the viewer just reverted my edit with no any explanation or reasons. --Sipio (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)