Talk:Israel

Non neutral sentence

It says in the lead: "Portions of these territories, including east Jerusalem, have been annexed by Israel, but the border with the neighboring West Bank has not yet been permanently defined."

This implies that East Jerusalem is Israel and is so permanently. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs. At least as it reads to me it states simple facts that Israel has annexed portions of the west bank (which includes East Jerusalem) but nothing has been set in stone because of world wide opposition. The sentence specifically states that nothing has been "permanently defined", so I am not sure how you think it implies that East Jerusalem is permanently part of Israel?

While the pre-1967 borders are commonly mentioned by various interest groups, I think a fair number of organizations and governments agree that the status of the borders of the west bank and even all of Jerusalem have yet to be determined. Like the CIA world fact book says: "The current status of the West Bank is subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation". This is just my thought on the issue.

Thanks,

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotokan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This phrase is poor and should be removed or changed. The phrase implies that east jerusalem is permatently defined as part of Israel, which is a breach of neutral point of view. I did not see anything claiming that nothing has been "premantly defined" as you claim. meitme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Vandalism

all links here with vandalism. פארוק (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand that to a meaningful English sentence? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

my english is not so good. but i see that now it is fixed. פארוק (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

The article's second paragraph reads like so, in reference to the Israeli War of Independence: "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states"; sentence one holds an incredibly biased view of Arab motives, which at the time and ever since have always been publicly declared to be "the elimination of the Zionist entity," and not "support for Palestinian Arabs." Proof of this lies partially in the many recorded & written sources declaring such motives, and also partially in the fact that the War ended with Jordan annexing the West Bank instead of establishing there a Palestinian state, which could easily have been done by allowing the thousands of Palestinian refugees who'd left instead of staying to return to the West Bank and set up a state.

Secondly, Israel has a history of being invaded by its neighboring Arab states, in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Only in 1982 did Israel engage in an offensive action, and although it went horribly wrong due to the actions of Christian Phalangist massacres of Palestinians, which Israel was not wise enough to guard against but by its own admission takes as its own indirect fault, the action was a necessary attempt to eliminate the violence caused by PLO terrorists that had been attacking civilian targets throughout Northern Israel from bases in Lebanon. All this needs to be pointed out; defensive wars are quite different from wars of aggression, and the expression of anti-Semitism formerly directed at Jews by European Christians in the form of violence must not be allowed to define Israel now that there are few Jews left in post-WW2 Europe, as it continues in the European press's attempts to label any and all Israeli defensive maneuvers as war crimes, but to cheerfully legitimize Palestinian murders of Israeli citizens. Palestinians have had numerous chances to seriously negotiate with Israel and establish a state for themselves, but have constantly refused to do so, believing the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian mandate to be Arab lands, a "waqf" given to them to rule "until Judgment Day." This appears in Palestinian charters, but always is ignored by the European powers who would be just as happy with no Israel.

Please, let's eliminate this biased reading. Remember, the Arab states who surround her (with the exception of Jordan and pre-Arab Spring Egypt) have still refused vehemently to recognized her very right to exist, frequently call for her destruction, and still say "the Jews are our dogs" when speaking in Arabic to their peoples. This although Israel has been there for over 60 years. (I say "pre-Arab Spring Egypt" because the Muslim Brotherhood in that country holds a majority in its parliament, and has sworn to annihilate Israel despite the Sadat/Begin peace treaty. Were the military of Egypt to submit to civilian control, its parliament would obviously, according to a majority of its members, therefore void said peace treaty, and leave Jordan as the sole Arab state recognizing her right to exist. BarakZ (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is not the appropriate forum to promulgate your particular point of view and expound upon historical events. Please specify the text that you object to and what you would rather it was replaced with, and supply a reliable source to support this viewpoint.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia

QRpedia is a WikimediaUK project which uses QR codes to deliver Wikipedia articles to users, in their preferred language. We need versions of the article about it, in Hebrew and Arabic. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

Extended content
israel terrorist Israel seized Palestinian state Israel savage israel what kind of creature that? --120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)--120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

120.166.18.211 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an inflammatory statement rather than a request to make any edit. I have collapsed per Behavior that is unacceptable. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Acceptance and rejection of 1947 Plan of Partition

In the talk article of the article on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, I got into discussion on the extent to which the Jews accepted rhe Plan. On balance the paragraph Jewish reaction now seem satisfactory.

In the current article it is stated quite baldly that the Jews accpted the Plan. That is clearly too simplistic.

My second problem is that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not in any event an appropriate reference. Has anyone any suggestions on what to do?Trahelliven (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, remove the information as unsourced political statement by a contender in the conflict.Biraqleet (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced and correct. The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Since this article is protected, I can't edit it, since I don't have an account. However, the second paragraph of etymology needs to be modified a bit. The changes that need to be made are underlined.

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[29] According to the book of Genesis, the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "struggle with God"[30]) after he successfully wrestled with the angel of the Lord.[31] Jacob's twelve sons became the ancestors of the Israelites, also known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Children of Israel. Jacob and his sons had lived in Canaan, but were forced by famine to go into Egypt for four generations until Moses, a great-great grandson of Jacob,[32] led the Israelites back into Canaan in the "Exodus". The earliest archaeological artifact to mention the word "Israel" is the Merneptah Stele of ancient Egypt (dated to the late 13th century BCE).[33]

96.242.163.228 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Common name

Is there any objection to beginning this article, "Israel, officially the State of Israel,..."? This is what similar articles do, and WP:PLACE supports it. As this is a sensitive article, I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and ask here before changing it. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I went ahead and changed it. Please let me know if anything is amiss. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the article on Palestine found it necessary to indicate that it is “also known as Land of Israel“ in both English and in Hebrew among the names of Palestine, wouldn’t it be fair to add “also known as Occupied Palestine ‘filistin al-muhtallah’” to the glorious names of the state at the beginning of the article? Hundreds of millions of people know it only with that name.173.74.22.141 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and we can add "Zionist entity" too. (eye-roll)

Palestine is about a geographic region that is sometimes called the Land of Israel. Palestinian territories, Palestinian National Authority, or State of Palestine might be analogous to this article, and none of them use that phrase. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, the state of Israel as such is not recognized by many states and by hundreds of millions of people. To them, the state of Israel is "Occupied Palestine," and when they refer to the Israeli governement they say "The Occupation Regime in Palestine," when they refer to the Israeli establishment they say the "Zionist Entitiy," (no eye-roll) and so on. That is something somehow unique to Israel because of its nature as colony of foreigners in a historical region and it should be stated clearly to comply with the wikipolicy of including all valid POVs. And before you give me some rhetorical argument, I give you a few pointers. First, Israelis and Zionists themselves hold this view to be true when they complain that Israel's own existence is not recognized by so many countries and so many people. Second, contrary to the propagated pro-Israeli view which makes the conlict between the Arabs and Israel about "disputed territories" in Gaza and the West Bank, the real conflict (apart from the Occupied Territories which in that view is only a matter of necessary pragmatism) is the DISPUTED STATE itself. It is simply either a State of Israel, or a State of Palestine. Those who recognize the first as a de facto state look for the State of Palestine somewhere else on portions of historical Palestine. Those who do not accept colonization and occupation as valid and permanent consider it "Occupied Palestine."173.74.22.141 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

People can call Pluto "cheese" and we'd still call it Pluto on Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, State of Palestine does not call itself "Israel" in that article despite it having the same (if not worse) limited recognition problem. Palestine does, but that is describing a geographic area, not a national entity. Land of Israel similarly describes a geographic area, and that article does state that it is additionally called "Palestine." That works for a geographic area, but not for the article on a national entity. Those that do not call the State of Israel "Israel" have a lot more of an issue than just the name. They probably also don't recognize the currency, or the language, or the flag, or the... are you suggesting we change all of these to have the alternative for those that don't use what this article is about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know about Pluto but I know that even though the article is about Israel, it should be stated that some countries and some people do not recognize that it exists as a state but as an occupation. A country can exist or not exist but its status as such can still be disputed. For example, Taiwan exits as an independent state but it should be made clear in that page that Taiwan as a state is diputed by China which considers it just a renegade province. Tibet, which is part of China and not independent, should be clarified as being considered occupied by many and viewed as should be independent. Northern Cyprus is independent as a matter of fact and recognized by Turkey, but everyone else considers it either occupied by Turkey or a renegade province. Etc. Therefore, it is quite important to state that the State of Israel is not recognized as existing at all and does not figure in the minds of many. It even does not appear on their maps. Don't you think this is a unique and an important aspect to include?173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not intended for the propagation of Western, American or Israeli views, but rather to provide a balanced universal view.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another P.S. I tried taking a picture with my subject saying Pluto and it did not come out looking good. Thus, by experiment, Pluto does not equal Cheese.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue of recognition is separate from what this should be stated for the name. This article is about the State of Israel. If countries choose not to recognize it, then that is an issue that is covered separately from "what is the State of Israel called." That is an issue discussed in the foreign relations section of this article, and the full page on Foreign relations of Israel, and International recognition of Israel. Thus, despite any posturing to the contrary, we do cover the issue of recognition. It just is not an issue relevant to the name of the state those countries are or are not choosing to recognize.

To go with your example of Taiwan, that article does discuss recognition issues and Chinese claims, but does not put "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" as one of the names, as that is not what the article is about. There is more weight given to the recognition issue in the Taiwan article, but that is because it is far more of a glaring issue. Taiwan does not have the recognition of the United Nations and is recognized by only 23 out of 193 nations of the world, less than 12%. Not one of these is a major power, western or otherwise, none even approaching growing powers such as Brazil. Israel, on the other hand, has full UN recognition and is recognized by some 157 nations out of 193, or more than 80%. This includes the major world powers, both Eastern and Western, and growing powers such as Brazil, India, Turkey, etc. The issue of Israeli recognition should be and already is covered. It does not need to be covered with the same weight as that of Taiwan as their two situations are entirely different in scope and scale. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are telling me that if, say, I make an article about Yahweh I should not say that other people call Him God the father or Allah or El or whatever becuase since I used the name Yahweh, and He is recognized by a major world religion(s), then I have to talk about Him only from a Jewish POV? Or if we talk aboyt Allah then we can only say what Arabs say He is? Of course not. You point about Tawian is well taken. However, be it that Tawian is independent state or a renegade province still does not raise the issue of it being called Taiwan but the argument is about its classification. With Israel, like I said before, the argument of both camps revolve around if we have a state called Israel or its complete negation and calling it Occupied Palestine. Notice that in the second name, again, Israel does not exist, and we are still talking about the same political entity, defines as the same geography with certain borders, same population, same resources in the ground, etc. So what I am asking about is not related primarily to recognition and how many for vs. against, but the fact that for Israel there some countries for, some countries against, and some countries do not even know that it exists on the face of earth. To them, and they are many, it is simply called something else in reflection to a different but valid view of reality.173.74.22.141 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel article

Hello, The first line of the "Israel" article should be edited. Israel is a "Nation", not a "state". It should read the "Nation of Israel". Thank you, 12.192.177.117 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the modern State of Israel. There are several articles about the nation of Israel, including Israelites and Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could this picture be added?

To the tourism section?, it's an img of Ein Bokek, currently the only hotel resort in the Israeli coastline of the Dead Sea, as for 2012, the resort becomes more invested.[1] thanks. 79.183.0.47 (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)