Talk:Israel/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Suggestion to improve the article

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, Wikipedia can't take sides. Israel has full control over Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights, Wikipedia is not being neutral when it claims that Israel is occupying those places. Israel won control over those places after winning battles. Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles! None of those expansions are considered occupation. As such, it should be noted in the article that Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights are part of Israel, but are claimed by others.--Avner Kushner (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

First, you misunderstand WP:NPOV. It requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

Do you have reliable sources that support your opinion? In fact, do you have reliable sources that indicate your view is anything but a WP:FRINGE viewpoint? Does Israel even claim the West Bank is "part of Israel"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources, and I can provide a few if you want. Hon. Prime Minister Netanyahu time and again said that Land of Israel has been the homeland of Jews for over 3,000 years, and that is why Israel is building settlements in West Bank. And for Golan Heights, as seen in many sources (I can provide the sources if you want), several ministers of Israel said throughout the years that Golan Heights is a war trophy of Israel and Assad should give up hope of taking it back. Israel even officially annexed it.--Avner Kushner (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You want "reliable sources" about the fact that Israel won these territories during a war or that most countries expanded by winning battles ? You are expanding the rules to the limits of absurdity. Maybe that's your goal. Benjil (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the article should say that all of Jerusalem as well as West Bank and Golan Heights are controlled by and therefore are part of Israel, but some homeless people claim these places for themselves, and some argue that these places are "occupied" by Israel.--Avner Kushner (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

West Bank is quite different because Israel neither controls nor claims all of it. I agree regarding Golan and East Jerusalem - it's a simple objective fact easily supported by sources that de-facto they are part of Israel. The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is a matter of POV, and both POVs should be represented.

There are many sources that say that Israel will soon annex West Bank as majority in Israeli Government and in Israel advocate for it:[1][2] etc--Avner Kushner (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no majority and no will to annex the West Bank in the current Knesset and your sources do not say otherwise. This is not something that will happen "soon". Benjil (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion relates largely to the unilateral views of members of the Israeli political system. The only long term plan that had wide international support was the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Following that we have the 1949 Armistice Agreements but these only go as far as to relate to the needed "armistice". An agreement of this form is only meant as a temporary fix to be used while genuine negotiations continue. Neutrality demands that we do not present Israel in ways that go beyond the facts. It is only when agreement is reached between opposing sides that neutrality will no longer be an issue. GregKaye 09:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked by the comments of the user: Avner Kushner above. He says: "I agree regarding Golan and East Jerusalem - it's a simple objective fact easily supported by sources that de-facto they are part of Israel. The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is a matter of POV, and both POVs should be represented."

You are WRONG! The disagreement whether this state of affairs is legal and should remain so is NOT a matter of POV (Point of View). This "state of affairs" is NOT legal in terms of international law and is NOT legal according to the United Nations - of which Israel is a member state to the UN. It is known as an illegal occupation.

You have a very poor understanding of international law - UN obligations that Israel, as a member country, is obliged to abide by. You even go as far as saying (before the quote above) that: "Israel won control over those places after winning battles. Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles! None of those expansions are considered occupation. As such, it should be noted in the article that Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights are part of Israel, but are claimed by others." This is truly an unbelievably incorrect statement! You seem to think that THAT is international law, i.e. Israel is justified in being a law unto itself!!! Those other countries "expansions" WERE considered occupations when they first happened (eg. when the allied forces occupied Germany in WW2.) - the only question with regard to "other nations" was whether their occupations were legitimate (especially with regard to what the UN considered legitimate). If they were legitimate occupations, then YES, those countries were thereafter considered legitimate expansion territory, and NOT - or at least NO LONGER - considered occupation. Israel has fulfilled none of that which is why it's occupations are still considered occupations of other people's countries (illegal occupations as per the UN). You say: "Most countries expanded throughout history by winning battles!" That is true, but that does not make all modern battles legitimate. That was before the UN was established as an international peace keeping organization by hundreds of member countries, including Israel, which as a member refuses to abide by the rules of the organization it has chosen to belong to. That was BEFORE there were modern laws that prevented countries from occupying / colonizing other independent countries, simply because they had the military power to do so. You seem to be living in the 1600's, or maybe even the times of the Romans. --41.146.141.254 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that is wishful thinking, but there is, just for one example, the small matter of China invading India. Now Israel was invaded by Jordan and now has gained that territory which Jordan renounced. Seems the only sovereign state is Israel....(cough cough cough Odesa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

...and has the one of the highest life expectancies... Grammar error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.171.118.67 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

International humanitarian efforts

I'm surprised that this subject is broached on the main Wikipedia page for a country when this does not seem to be the case for any of other countries I looked at both in Europe and the Middle East. Does this section lend an editorial slant to the article? It does seem like a notable topic, but perhaps has been given disproportionate coverage to show a more positive view of Israel. Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit has has now been reverted without discussion by User:‎WarKosign. Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. It is fine that you made a bold edit, but it as fine for anyone to revert the edit if it is not seen as constructive. Now the onus is on you to convince other editors that it actually improves the article.

More to the point, it seems to me that the intent of your edit was to ensure that Israel is not shown too positively, even when it does something positive. “WarKosign” 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Whether or not the removal of the opening sentence is due to WP:IDL is debatable, but at any rate, I don't see an issue with the revert of it because said sentence pretty much summarizes the following paragraph. That sentence might benefit from a source, however, because it's just skirting the line of WP:SYN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Actually, the sentence is sourced. The source already referenced in the paragraph says "Through various governmental organizations like MASHAV, Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation, and non-governmental organizations, Israel has a long-standing tradition of coordinating relief to alleviate disease, hunger, and poverty." “WarKosign” 10:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing the statement. At the very least, the onus is on those wanting to remove a sourced statement to make a strong case for its removal. The least that can be said is that no such case has been made. Can I also point out, generally, that saying "It's WP:UNDUE", "It's WP:POV" etc. is not making a case, it's just namedropping a policy. Making a case would necessitate a compelling case for why it would be undue or POV. Jeppiz (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel has a history of providing emergency aid and humanitarian response teams to disasters across the world.

That sentence is factually correct and shouldn't be removed. That it also has a long policy of impoverishing its immediate neighbours (Sara Roy's monographs on Israel's strategic dedevelopment in Gaza since the 1970s underline the policy, for example) has nothing to do with this section, which is about emergency aid to disasters 'across the world'.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, is the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website for such exceptional claims a reliable source for such information? It's self-published and certainly isn't independent. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, that source should be replaced by a third-party source. Zero^talk 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE can be used, as long as "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". I do not think that this applies. Israel's participation in international rescue operations is well-covered by media, for example IsraAid provides references to several recent operations. I will try finding an independent source, the trouble is to find one that covers the whole history and not a specific effort.

Meanwhile I came upon "The Bystander's Duty to Rescue in Jewish Law" so I'm considering adding material from this or similar sources to explain religious motivation that is partially behind Israel's rescue operations. “WarKosign” 06:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't unless you can find sources where the people organising the rescue efforts say specifically that they are doing it to adhere to Jewish religious law. Even then, I'd be cautious if I were you. What is the implication here? That Israeli humanitarian efforts are made because they care about some law in Judaism rather than because they really care about helping? Do non-Jewish Israelis help too? Are they motivated by religious rules as well? —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, I would say that this is content is indeed self-serving and an exceptional claim. If Israel's participation in international rescue operations is well-covered by media then there should be independent, third party supporting the content. However, if there isn't a source that covers the whole history rather than specific efforts than what is mentioned within these sources should only be included within the section. In absence of secondary sources sources I think the content should be removed. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the claim is exceptional, but it is certainly self-serving. Even if it wasn't, the general principle that third-party sources are preferred should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. The most exceptional thing I see here is the inclusion of the section at all. Do the main articles on any other countries have such a section? To @WarKosign:, it would be a very clear SYNTH violation to include an essay on halacha that doesn't even mention Israeli international humanitarianism. Zero^talk 13:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this source: "... few countries are as fast as Israel in mobilizing entire delegations to rush to the other side of the world. It has been proved time and again in recent years, after the earthquake in Haiti, the typhoon in the Philippines and the quake/tsunami/nuclear disaster in Japan. For a country of Israel’s size and resources, without conveniently located aircraft carriers and overseas bases, it is quite an impressive achievement." “WarKosign” 16:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So lets use the word tradition then, not the word history.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think tradition is too strong a word. Something that happened (especially repeatedly) is certainly history. Tradition is defined as "A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another". So far the only source using this term is MFA and it can be considered self-indulging. I'd be more comfortable with using the word here if there is a neutral source for it. “WarKosign” 15:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the point in the {{Self-published inline}} tags scattered in the section ? Yes, the data comes from a self-published source, but is there any reason to suspect it's unreliable ? The complaint about the opening sentence was that it's self-indulging, but it doesn't seem to be the case with these tags. “WarKosign” 17:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You've just answered your own question. The majority of the section is self-published making its verifiability questionable therefore the sources are not adequate for the content to be included in the article. The discussion may've originally been about the opening sentence but this has now been extended to the sources.

Therefore, (as Zero has pointed out) these self-serving claims from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website need to be replaced with reliable, third-party sources. We need to see The Guardian, The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post etc. All the information within this section needs to be directly from these sources only, NOT www.mfa.gov.il.

If all this content is accurate, then there's no reason why a major nation such as Israel wouldn't have significant media or literary coverage for it. If such sources aren't available then we'd have to assume that the content isn't adequate for inclusion. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted a question at WP:RSN, let's see if they consider the existing source sufficient. “WarKosign” 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tanbircdq Stop polluting the article with scare tags. If you believe some facts are not supported properly, please tell which specific fact you think is missing. “WarKosign” 12:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your behaviour seems to violate WP:POINT. Is your goal to improve the article, or to remove (or tag as unsupported) as much information as you can ? “WarKosign” 12:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the tags to the section to encourage better content supporting sources to be added rather than outright removing content which is inadequately sourced or not event sourced at all. I have removed content which is not supported by any of the sources and removed irrelevant sources which do not support the content. Please avoid wholesale reverting as you did here, thank you. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You removed "Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital" which was supported by MFA. While tagging it as self-sourced can be justified, removing supported statements cannot. This or this sources can be added to support the statement, as long as you do not delete it.

You tagged sources as {{Failed verification}} without filling the reason field or stating the reason on the talk page. If you had a reason to put the tag, kindly share this reason with the rest of us so it can be addressed. “WarKosign” 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably the mfa site, carrying as it does, a load of political speeches, is not the best source, esp. since most of Israel's medical mission to disaster zones are written up and published in the relevant health journals (Kreiss, I think, on Haiti, for all statistics, for example). As far as I know, the Argentines has the first field hospital set up, within hours of the quake, because they already had a unit there looking after troops. This is what the chronology implicit in the verb tenses of Lee H. Harvis's, Rescue from Chaos: Usaf Responds to Disaster in Haiti, Dog Wear Publishing 2012 p.53.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A note. The background editing stuff (Bandung Conference etc) could probably now be shifted to the Mashav page which is poorly developed, and needs some work. Some of my additions may be WP:Undue. I'll leave that to other editors to figure out. The book links I provided, and there are many more available, give much more substantial material on Israel's contributions abroad however, and should be read more thoroughly than I can manage at the moment. Generally, in sourcing, we should use Google Books or Google scholar as the primary research vehicle, and only when we fail to come up with useful results should be scour newspaper or general web sources. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see that's already done, without my pompous nudging. Good.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added the source of Israel being the first on scene. The refs are ABC and Israel's MFA. The original revert was done with a claim that Argentina's field hospital was the first on the scene. However, Argentina's Air Force Mobile Field Hospital was on scene because it was already deployed to Haiti for UN MINUSTAH reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force_Mobile_Field_Hospital#2010_Haiti_earthquake Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There is some disagreement regarding what constitutes a hospital; one could argue that Argentinian medical facility was the first hospital. I changed the claim to be "first hospital capable of surgery", there doesn't seem to be any doubt about that. “WarKosign” 07:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, they were the first hospital, because they were already there for years, Israel was the first hospital deployed after the quake. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This all looks like hype, I'm afraid, and I'm making these comments out of distaste for any risk that what should be a purely humanitarian operations be spun to flatter a national amour-propre (I heard about the shenanigans of the aid organizations using the boat people disaster for such ends from one of the embassy people directly involved, in the early 1980s, and with Haiti, it was deplorable to see the huge coverage given the least effective 'actors', like the US, while Cuba and groups like MSF did far more long lasting work, and beat everyone statistically, for promptness of interventions, numbers of surgical operations, and money directed at saving Haitian lives. Even the Kurihara intervention left the local council with a huge financial burden, though I don't think anyone should note that, though it was covered in Japanese newspapers.

As to the specific meat of the claim, many hospitals were damaged, and field hospitals and tents were set up on the 13th in tents by Cuba, which had 344 doctors in Haiti already but Within hours of the earthquake, sent airplanes ferrying in complete field hospitals. If you want 'complex surgery' then a day before the excellent Israeli team arrived Médecins Sans Frontières was providing major surgery in tents around the MSF-supported Carrefour Hospital. The UMGI/PM field hospital was established on January 13, 2010. During the first 9 days, the hospital functioned in the United Nations compound in two storage tents capable of holding up to 250 patients. ..though it had no organized operating rooms.Within hours of the earthquake, airplanes from Cuba were bringing complete field hospitals, some some 60 doctors were flown in the next day and 1,500 more medical personnel followed quickly afterwards. Our text says Israel had the first field hospital capable of complex surgery set up. Sure, for 4 days, the Dominican Republic (first in) Argentine, Cuba, did no complex surgery serious in tent wards which mushroomed everywhere? Cuban medicos set up a trauma field hospital by converting a local eye clinic, and were doing surgery there in the first twelve hours. No one among the 350 disaster specialists of the Cuban Henry Reeve Medical Brigade there on the 13th was capable of doing more than a few swabs and stiches?. They had the largest medical team on the ground and 'Public health experts say the Cubans were the first to set up medical facilities among the debris and to revamp hospitals immediately after the earthquake struck.. The article Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, though defective (nothing substantial about Cuba's hugely disproportionate effort) but it does mention that Argentine already had a field hospital operative there earlier. This has nothing to do with Israel, for me. On a day recently celebrating my country's birth as a nation, I happened to be with several other people of my generation, oldies, and we were all shocked to see something we'd never seen: hundreds of young kids in the streets standing wrapped in the national flag. We felt no less intensely about the country, but it was alien, historically, to flaunt one's pride so visibly, and was mocked spontaneously as another example of detrimental Americanization. One shouldn't wear one's patriotism on one's sleeve, nor insert it into articles, esp when, as here, it is a matter of delicacy, of helping other countries without blowing a trumpet: the Cubans, Icelanders, and others, in covering this, didn't brag or boast (Tom Fawthrop. Cuba's aid ignored by the media? Al Jazeera 16 Feb 2010), and they were ignored by the Anglo-American/Eurocentric press coverage.

At the time by the way, a controversy blew up in Israel, reflected in the New York Times, that Israel could do miracles in Haiti, while ignoring the disasters on its doorstep, and if you mention Haiti, and want this mfa hype in you would probably have to balance it by noting that. eg

Israeli rescue teams' efforts have been second to none, and their staff have shown true humanity in a time when it is so desperately needed by the victims. If there be among you a needy man, one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates, in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother" Deuteronomy 15:7 However, for all that Israel's sterling work overseas deserves to be praised, it highlights the lack of compassion shown by the country's leaders to those suffering on its own doorstep. Israel's insistence on doing next to nothing to alleviate the suffering in Gaza while rushing to Haiti's aid exposes just how far they are prepared to stray from the religious teachings to which they claim to adhere. Likewise, when Zionist movements such as Bnei Akiva trumpet the achievements of Israel's relief teams as representative of the entire Jewish people, they inadvertently tar all Jews with the same brush when Israel's frequent violations of international law are brought to light.'Seth Freedman,'Israel's double standards over Haiti,' 22 January 2010

.

Some week ago, ahead of most countries, Israel sent scores of doctors and other professionals to Haiti. Years of dealing with terrorist attacks combined with an advanced medical technology sector have made Israel one of the most nimble countries in disaster relief — a factor that Western television news correspondents have highlighted. But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need — Gaza is an hour away. The right has argued that those who accuse Israel of inhumanity should take note of its selfless efforts and achievements in Haiti. Many commentators argued that the work in Haiti was a reflection of a central Jewish value. Michael Freund, a columnist in The Jerusalem Post, wrote on Thursday, “Though a vast gulf separates Israel from Haiti, with more than 10,500 kilometers of ocean lying between us, the Jewish people demonstrated that their extended hand can bridge any gap and traverse any chasm when it comes to saving lives.” But on the same page, another commentator, Larry Derfner, argued that while Israel’s field hospital in Haiti is a reflection of something deep in the nation’s character, “so is everything that’s summed up in the name of ‘Gaza.’ ” He wrote: “It’s the Haiti side of Israel that makes the Gaza side so inexpressibly tragic. And more and more, the Haiti part of the national character has been dwarfed by the Gaza part.”ETHAN BRONNER For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort New York Times 21 January, 2010

If only Israel had opened a field hospital to help wounded in Gaza... oh, wait, it had: Under Hamas Fire, Israel Keeps Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Flowing

The officer also noted, however, that Hamas has prevented Israeli humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza, and that a field hospital erected by Israel near the Erez border crossing to treat Palestinian wounded has not seen much use. Indeed, COGAT reports that fewer than 50 injured people have sought treatment at the field hospital, due to Hamas’ opposition to it.

“WarKosign” 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The mfa in any case is not a reliable source for a claim like this.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are opinion pieces that don't seem to comment that Gaza is not a natural disaster but 1) a man-made disaster of Hamas' doing, and 2) Israel sends in truckloads of humanitarian goods daily. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the mfa source, as per the RS/N comments. I would note that I consulted the Cuban Foreign Ministry site to see how they commented on Cuba's commitment, and the text read:

"En este momento están trabajando dos hospitales de campaña cubanos en instalaciones de alojamiento de nuestro personal médico allí",.

but since that is a government source, I discarded it as not RS for such claims.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering what the purpose of the following source is that Sir Joseph readded here; Dr. Besser Assists in Haitian Baby's Birth. The only information I can see in this source is; "Dr. Richard Besser helps a woman deliver her child amid the chaos in Haiti." This doesn't appear to support any of the content on this page.

If no one has any objections, I suggest removing the MFA citations where better sources are available, with the exception of the few claims that still need to be addressed. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The link above doesn't work for me. This seems to be the same video. It supports the fact that Israeli hospital was equipped to assist in a complicated childbirth, but now there are better sources so we don't need to keep it.

I prefer keeping the MFA citations, backed up by an independent source.

If you see unaddressed claims, please specify them here. “WarKosign” 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should keep the mfa, unless the RSN request favours its retention.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Map captions

• (Undid revision 693137370 by Nishidani (talk) That seems to be a WP:OR, or conjecture on your part.)
• Undid revision 693196216 by Zero0000 (talk) See Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#Archaeological record.)

Maps based on inferences from the Bible abound on wiki articles. It's a long-standing disgrace on wikipedia that these maps as flogged off as factual representations of an historic period. When I noted this in the caption, Sir Joseph dismisses the obvious by saying that my caption itself, unlike the map, was a conjecture. Anyone who has stepped out of his intellectual nappies to actually read ancient history knows that these areas are all matters of conjecture, and that the BHible as written centuries later was subject to massive inflation. Likewise WarKoSign made an wholly unacceptable edit summary by reverting with a reference to a parallel wiki article, which doesn't even support anything relevant to these maps. Everyone knows wiki is not RS; most wiki articles on antiquity are worthless.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If the map is presented at all, which I would argue against, saying that the boundaries are according to the Bible is essential. I don't think it is necessary to further state that it is conjectural. Zero^talk 09:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources quoted in Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#Archaeological record show that there is (disputed) archeological evidence to the existence and location of Kingdom of Israel. Writing "according to the bible" dismisses all the evidence and misleads the reader to think it's pure fiction. “WarKosign” 09:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So it is better to violate WP:V by presenting disputed information as fact? Anyway, no source is cited in that article saying that the boundaries shown in the map are historical so your case doesn't hold water. Zero^talk 10:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It is disastrous to cite wiki articles on these subjects, since they are mainly rehashes, with a selective use of some academic books, of the Bible narrative, If you want some illumination as to why the Biblical accounts, written several centuries later, are deeply problematical, and why scholarship has been infected by careless assumptions, read Donald Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, (1992) ch.10 pp.257-280, for starters. A similar problem arises if one tries to read the Western Anatolian geography of the Iliad against the Hittite archives of Hattusa.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You have a vey selective view of the issue. There are different views among historians and archeologists from Minimalists who believe that the Bible is a work of fiction to the Maximalists who believe it is mostly an accurate depiction of the historical events (from Abraham, not before). See for example Prof Kenneth Kitchen's "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", 2003, that supports these views with strong evidence. Benjil (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a minimalist view, except in the sense that I think ancient books are not prima facie believable for anything. We have just several tidbits of external information contemporaneous with this ostensibly huge Davidic empire which otherwise left extremely exiguous (so far) stelic and monumental traces that might permit empirical verification, as opposed to an immensely intimately detailed canvas of late 'historical' writing full of details crafted by an interested, highly theologically motivated priestly caste, with repeated anachronisms which presumes to tell the inside story. Everyone knows that the Abrahamic narrative, the Mosaic story, the Joseph romance, is, like much, late embroidery patched up out of legends, or invented for moral purposes, which undoubtedly have many core elements which, suitably analysed, can yield up important historical fact probabilities. The split between maximalists and minimalists has profound ideological overtones. Kitchen, though a great scholar, is an evangelical Christian, a true believer, like so many others in that field. the whole method of true believers assumes an act of faith, but pretends to reconcile a theological tale with the methods we apply to any other ancient book, and the result is nonsense pp.485-504 All of this however is irrelevant, since the issue is, how can we have a map of 1,000 BCE presented as a fact when it is simply a guess based on a religious book written several centuries later?Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Everyone knows" - is not an argument and is factually false since I gave you at least one expert (and one of the greatest if not the greatest specialist of the ancient near-eastern world) who does not agree with what you wrote and on the contrary thinks that these books were written when they say they were written and not centuries later (and even if that was true, it does not mean they are wrong), and brings evidence, to prove his point while you resort to name-calling to invalidate his claims. The fact that most minimalists are militant atheists is also interesting but irrelevant, only evidences are to be discussed. Benjil (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel can refer to a number of different entities. The title should be Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). I propose to change this later, as i have just used my revert.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959 and Zero0000: Please follow WP:BRD and discuss instead of edit-warring. Nishidani made a WP:BOLD edit and it has been reverted. Now we are discussing, but as long as a new consensus has not been achieved, please leave the article as it was before the bold change. “WarKosign” 20:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Would the caption "Kingdom of Israel, 1020 BCE–930 BCE, inferred from the Bible and some archeological evidence" work for you ? “WarKosign” 08:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing 'bold' in the revert. It is well-known that the extent of David's kingdom is highly controversial, and yet I see versions of that map everywhere, and have been doing so for years. Since, unlike many, I am not someone who goes around striking out stuff like there on a campaign trail, I merely rewrote one caption. I appreciate your readiness to make some proposal to fix it. The only problem, unless I am mistaken, is that 'some' is indefinite, and 'archaeological evidence' for that extension of a Davidic empire is lacking. We have inferencesNishidani (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what we're discussing, as the case seems so obvious. Are there WP:RS sources supporting the map? If there are, please present them. If not, please restore Nishidani's version. Needless to say (I'd hope), Wikipedia articles are not RS. Jeppiz (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

One might question Nur Masalha's remarks on this, but he is, throughout, using the relevant archaeological and historical literature in his summary (using Finkelstein and Silberman, which states:

there is no archaeological evidence around 1005-960 BC for David's empire or conquests, nor for Solomon's (legendary) empire (970-931 BC).' (The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine- Israel, Zed Books 2007 p.250.

'Another problem is the lack of archaeological evidence for the Davidic and Solomonic empires. The absence of epigraphical testimonies from the two kings is remarkable. There seem to be no traces of the cities claimed to be built by Solomon. Judaea, the province said to have been the basis of the David conquest, seems to have been practically uninhabited in the tenth century B.C. The scanty archaeological remains show Jerusalem as a small hamlet of peasants rather than the centre of a empire.'(Jan Retso, The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads, Routledge, 2013 pp.123f)

Retso is summing up the archaeological data, and, having stated this, says that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of an empire. On similar grounds, one could, he argues, deny the foundations of the Islamic empire. But again analogy is used in lieu of evidence to challenge the archaeological record which is the basis of the minimalist claim: I use this phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' because it is a recurrent meme in the defensive Biblical literalist camp, as Keith Whitelam, has noted.

Even the middle ground accepts that this whole period is vastly inflated by the compilers of the bible centuries later.

'In contrast to the biblical tradition, a modest Jerusalem emerges from the archaeological record . .there was no splendid Jerusalem before the eighth century B.C.E. . it is possible that the masters of Jerusalem ruled in some form over the central hill country and even beyond. They did this, however, only in accordance and agreement with the kinship alliances of the communities of the hill country. . .The land of Judah, the home base of David and Solomon, was neither rich nor densely populated in the tenth century B.C.E. . .While most, even minimalist, scholars, agree today on the historicity of David and Solomon, the social and economic environment of these men must have been modest. The tremendous power and great wealth that was ascribed to David and Solomon was a product of much later times that longed for an earlier golden age of a united monarchy.' (Andrew G. Vaughn, Ann E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period,Society of Biblical Literature, 2003 pp.161ff. )

Of course others like William Dever, and Kenneth Kitchen challenge this. Nadav Na'aman argue the opposite, but not on archaeological evidence. Na'aman's argument is that it is not implausible that a Davidic figure created a large empire, whose limits crumbled on his death. Niels Lemche estimates that the number of warriors in Jerusalem at the putative time of this Davidic empire was abourt 250, wholly inadequate for the idea of ruling a far-flung empire. The nucleus of the story seems to be that he established a 'small empire' centered on Jerusalem. Kitchen himself, since his name was mentioned, emphasizes that the Davidic empire was possibly a 'small one.' (p.225 n.43)

The same goes for the biblical account of Jerusalem, and the United Monarchy.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Before summarizing opinions of others you should maybe read them. Kitchen does challenge this on archeological evidence. In fact you are turning the facts upside down. Finkelstein is the one who is challenging the established archeological data because he decided that all that had been attributed to the 10th century BCE (the century of David and Salomon) was to be moved to the 9th century. This theory has *not* been accepted by the majority of archeologists (not for example by the Hebrew University School) and Kitchen for example very seriously undermines it and proves that it does not make any sense (according to him). Kitchen argues for a plausible Davidic and Solomonic mini-Empire ("On the Reliability of the Old Testament", chapter 4). So the point is there is no scientific consensus and no validity to your claims. Benjil (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Benjil, you really need to start providing sources. Not your interpretation of sources, but the actual sources, like Nishidani has done. This far, the evidence based on sources is entirely in favor of Nishidani's version, as nothing has been provided to the contrary. Jeppiz (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe you can learn to read since you write that just under "("On the Reliability of the Old Testament", chapter 4)". Benjil (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So lacking any factual arguments, you decide to resort to personal attacks instead? How mature. Yes, I saw that you mentioned a source and then summarized it yourself. I asked you to either provide a link to the claims to refer to or put them in here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who started with personal attacks. I provided a source and yes I resumed it unless you want me to copy a full chapter here which is ridiculous. I was not aware that everything needs to be online to be true. You can check the book yourself if you do not believe me. This is not an obscure pamphlet from an unknown author, you should have no problem finding it, online or in the real world. Benjil (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean asking you to provide sources is a personal attack? Seriously? And nobody said the source needs to be online, you're perfectly welcome to say at what page in the book Kitchen gives these borders. Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not talking about a map here and I gave the chapter, the whole chapter deals with the issue. Once again, read before you comment and make attacks. Benjil (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I might add that selectively quoting the Hebrew University School as if it represented some Israeli consensus is misleading. They insist on a 10th century and earlier city in Jerusalem. Their colleagues in TAU deny the proposition, and say it is a century or two out of whack with the archaeological data. Israeli intellectual and academic culture is, as one would expect, far less consensual that readers of Wikipedia would be given to believe. If forgot to link Niels Peter Lemche's Ancient Israel: A New History of Israel, Bloomsbury Publishing (1988) 2015 p.8 on this.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the Hebrew U school just to remind you that the views you were presenting where not consensual. I see that you agree with me and now have withdrawn your "everybody knows" position. I have been stating since the beginning that there is a wide range of scholarly opinions on the issue, not just one. Benjil (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed to Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)#Archaeological record: Textual analysis of the Bible "discloses some archival and other details that can be correlated with the archeological record and are consistent with the framework of events presupposed by the narrative. Thus, skepticism of some modern historians, who argue that the biblical accounts of the United Monarchy are totally fictional retroversions from a much later time, seems unwarranted." "the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain". “WarKosign” 13:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my proposal. Since there are (disputed) sources supporting the historicity of David's kingdom, does anyone object to the map caption being "Kingdom of Israel, 1020 BCE–930 BCE, inferred from the Bible and some archeological evidence" ? “WarKosign” 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it for two reasons. One is that the "archeological evidence" some claim is for the existence of the kingdom and is rarely presented as confirming the particular boundaries shown on the map. (In fact different maps based on the bible show a wide variety of boundaries.) The other reason is that your proposal only states reasons for the map, ignoring reasons against the map; ergo it's an NPOV violation. Zero^talk 13:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a fundamental problem in such a caption I haven't mentioned. As far as my old memory recalls, maps with that extension were commonplace in 17th.century historical works, and way precede the archaeological work on that area. It's just not, in terms of cognitive science, healthy to have a pre-modern geographical projection from a religious text recycled with a caption which states modern archaeology substantiates it. This is known as fundamentalism, and is like creation science.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To emphasise my parenthetical point, compare our map to this one, or this one, or this one and it's easy to find plenty more. They differ from each other in major fundamental ways. So which of them shows the boundaries supported by "some archeological evidence"? I'm leaning away from '"according to the bible" as it is obviously too strong a claim. A correct caption would state that experts disagree on the existence of the kingdom and even those which believe it existed don't agree on its boundaries. Or just go back to Nish's "conjectural depiction" caption as the one closest to the truth suggested so far. Zero^talk 13:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since archeologists didn't find a 3000 year old map of the kingdom, the next best thing they can have is scattered dig sites where evidence of belonging to the kingdom was found. Those can never provide exact borders but only hint at the area. Any such map will be by its nature conjectural or inferred. My objection to writing only "according to the bible" is that it implies that there is no historicity to the map, while in reality there could be. “WarKosign” 14:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless one can come up with examples of 'scattered dig sites where evidence of belonging to the kingdom was found' for the David/Solomonic period coterminous with that map, all we have is the Biblical testimony, i.e., 'evidence' from post-exilic rewritings finalized down to half a millennium later. Some familiarity with the Bible and reality would suggest that such writings, which cite huge swathes of the ipsissima verba of non-existent figures (Abraham, Joseph etc.etc.,) as if a preliterate population had scribes present from Eden down to two centuries before the formation of the Hebrew alphabet (after the Davidic/Solomonic period) cannot be used, nor can maps conjectured from them be presented as factual in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Unless someone can come up with archaelogical arguments saying that Moab, Ammon etc., were ruled from a Davidic Jerusalem, centre of a unified monarchic kingdom (for which there are no inscriptional or artefactual proofs) we are left only with the Biblical claim. I would remind some here that these same minimalist arguments are standard for all cases where we have early chronicles measured against the empirical realities on the hard ground of archaeological research (Japan, China, India, Greece) All ancient reportage of prehistorical or early historical time is deeply contaminated by the contemporary political interests of the house or victorious power producing them, suffer from gross inflation, and systematic distortions. In this, there is nothing unique about what happened with the Bible.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You should really update your knowledge of the issue. We have for example discovered Hebrew inscriptions from the Judge Period and quite a few from the 10th century, among other things. Anyway please stop presenting one point of view as fact when we already proved you there is no academic and scientific consensus about these issues. Benjil (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec):: I beg your pardon but that is not helpful, and obscure. What do you mean by the Judge Period? Who is we in those two contexts? In the first it refers I presume to you as a member of a scholarly community, and in the second it refers to a non-existent majority in this section of the talk page. Have you discovered something others don't know? Are you aware that the claims of a distinctively Hebrew script for the earliest period are arguments in favour of discerning in early inscriptions minute foreshadowings of features typical of 8th-7th century Hebrew, inscriptions which others (Christopher Rollston for one) defend as typically Phoenician? Do me a favour and don't personalize the issue, or, to use an antipodean idiom, come the raw prawn (Kitchen reported as arguing the books of the Bible 'were written when they say they were written, is sheer nonsense). Focus on the evidence of modern scholarship regarding the David/Solomonic empire and maps of its putative extent.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Your information is outdated and very selective to say the least. In the last few years Hebrew inscriptions from the united monarchy period and before have been discovered. Rollston defends his opinion and ùany others have different opinions. The fact that some scholar has an opinion that you agree with does not make it a fact. In the case of the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscriptions for example Rollston is clearly in the minority. And regarding Kitchen, why don't you read his book instead of writing about thing you ignore. Benjil (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. You just chat back, and ignore everything documented by multiple sources and harp on Kenneth Kitchen as though he were as solid an authority as the Bible. This is quite pointless, and unless you can actually make a cogent argument in reply to what is stated and cited, I will ignore your chitchat.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not speak of Kenneth Kitchen here and you are the one who ignores "everything documented" apparently. I invite you to just read about the issue even on wikipedia, you are just not updated about the latest discoveries. Anyway the issue since the beginning is your insistance that only your opinion is valid, and you have been proven wrong many times now. Benjil (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'For future use'. 'your insistance that only your opinion is valid, and you have been proven wrong many times now,' (WP:AGF) meaning the editor approaches my edits in the belief that I am often wrong, and therefore wrong in this or that later edit, or to be contradicted/opposed with a mechanical faith in my customary errancy.Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am starting to believe you are writing in bad faith and not with the intention of improving the article. You constantly ignore arguments that contradict your POV and distort what other people say. The issue here is very simple: we are not debating about the historicity of the Bible, that is not our task. We are debating about the state of the academic research on this issue. You are making claims and presenting one side of the argument as if it was an accepted fact. I, and some others, showed you that this is not the case. There is ample debate in the field, very serious scholars who have views that contradict your claims. I am not saying your claims are wrong, I am saying your are wrong to present them as facts. Te question now is what to write under the map knowing that some scholars do think it represents a realistic or possible view of the borders of the united monarchy and some do not. Benjil (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are wasting your time and mine with a crusade against me. I presented both arguments, so you obviously haven't read my remarks above, duly documented with reference to sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel, 1020 BCE–930 BCE, inferred from the Bible and some archeological evidence" I object to this it should be Kingdom of Israel and Judah (United Monarchy), 1020 BCE–930 BCE, based on the Bible. The archaeological evidence refers to the existence of such a kingdom and can be covered in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is archeological evidence of David's kingdom at today Israeln's northern border. There is plentiful evidence in Jerusalem. One can collect all such points and then draw a border that would surround all of them, this sounds like a subject to very interesting research that we shouldn't be doing here. “WarKosign” 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That is as bad a source as one could imagine. Daniel Gavron?Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if it was a reliable source, it does not confirm the Kingdom of Israel as existing at Tel Dan but only that it was (maybe) mentioned in an inscription found at Tel Dan. So you can't add Tel Dan as a location where the Kingdom of Israel lay. Quite the opposite, since the inscription is attributed to the Kingdom of Aram. (By the way, see yet another contradictory map in that article.) Regarding our map: (1) What is it's source? (2) Can you tell us about the archaeology which supports the extent of the Kingdom of Israel right up the coast to Sidon? Zero^talk 08:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If no sources are presented, the maps should be removed

The discussion has been quite long, and most users seem to favour removing the maps as they are not based on any sources. WarKosign has, as always, been perfectly factual and polite and I respect their opinion, but no source for these maps has been presented. A source saying that David's kingdom existed is not the same as a source saying that it existed with these borders. The only other user who has spoken out for keeping the map has mainly done so by repeated WP:NPA-violations and a refusal to WP:HEAR anyone else. Much has been made of Kitchen, but Kitchen gives these maps. On page 158 (which was provided as a justification), Kitchen says the archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain. Apart from that view being the academic minority view, raising questions of whether it's due, it does not say where the borders were, that's the invention of Wikipedia users. So if no sources can be found for these maps (not for the general existence of a kingdom of David, please see WP:SYNTH), then the maps should be removed and the users reverting that removal should cease. Jeppiz (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I never spoke of keeping or not the maps, but of false claims about the state of research on the field and presenting opinions or theories as facts. I have no opinion about this particular map, and it indeed has no source. Benjil (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I don't see the problem. If we both think A) David's kingdom existed B) We don't know its borders, then I think the solution is to mention David's kingdom in the text, given sources supporting its existence, but not presenting a map that implies the borders are known. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been established that the map represents an approximation of the area described in the biblical text. Zero0000 found examples of several other such maps that while different in details show roughly the same area. It has also been established that some archaeologists consider bible's description of the area historically accurate and supported by evidence. Sources have been provided for both points and many more can be found if needed. I don't see any reason to remove the image, the question was how to label it properly. Zero0000's issue with my proposal was that it doesn't cover the position of the minimalists. What if we attribute the statement, so it becomes something like Kingdom of Israel, 1020 BCE–930 BCE, inferred from the Bible and according to maximalists supported by archaeological evidence ? “WarKosign” 21:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Either remove the map or caption it Kingdom of Israel and Judah (United Monarchy), 1020 BCE–930 BCE, based on the Bible.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea those maps are correctly here to begin with. This article is about the modern state, not the historical one that no longer exists. As there is no consensus understanding of the extent of those borders, we should either refrain from presenting them, or then present a "minimalist" and "maximalist" version. Two versions would, IMO, be WP:UNDUE in this article even more than one version. This article could benefit from a trimming exercise overall. --Dailycare (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I go with Dailycare, remove the maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Anthem in the infobox

@ThecentreCZ: you wrote "country infobox is used with instrumental anthem only". Is there a policy or a style guide that you are quoting ? “WarKosign” 21:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Long or short stay in the transition camps

@Arminden and Cliftonian: I couldn't find the book to verify the quote, but this article by the author of the book and this article explain why the camps were bad and why remaining there for longer period was considered discrimination. Do you think we still need the dubious tag if we quote these articles ? “WarKosign” 16:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi WarKosign. The point here is that the article says:

Jews of European descent were treated more favorably than Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries and remained in transit camps for longer periods of time

Saying that the Jews of European descent were treated more favourably as they remained in these camps for longer periods of time seems to be a mistake, because as you point out these camps were not very nice. I read this and presumed it must be an error, with "shorter periods of time" being meant. I initially just went and changed it, but Arminden correctly put it back and added a "dubious" tag so we could check it against the source. What do you reckon? —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right and we should correct it, however I do not see a quote directly supporting the change in either article and couldn't check it against the quoted book. The Hebrew wikipedia has more articles dedicated to this subject, but I don't see a usable reference to this specific point. “WarKosign” 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have supplied one. Others are available, but it is not a controversial point, and though Segev opened up the issue, it is now well documented that the discrimination in housing and many other things was structural and intense.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job. “WarKosign” 17:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani, well done. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No probs. Just a few points. This remark is probably in the wrong section, since by the 1960s, the ma'aborot were almost wound down - I think the last was closed in 1962 or 1963. We shouldn't be giving an impression of a long state of affairs. Discrimination was certainly there, but, given the huge demographic problems, rather rapidly addressed at least in terms of these camps. The high tide of their deployment was 1952-1955, and by '55 the original pop. was more than halved, as investment in relocation in better housing came on stream. I think too that in the Israeli classification system, (at least as it emerges from the data in Dalia Ofer, 'Emigration and Aliyah: A Reassessment of Israeli and Jewish Policies,' in Robert Wistrich (ed.) Terms of Survival: The Jewish World Since 1945, Routledge, 2003 pp.56-81 p.67) is that there were (a) temporary transit camps, (b) settlement camps and (c) ma'aborot/temporarary settlement transit camps. Our link is to the third category (which had larger numbers), but perhaps the system, even regarding Mizrachi didn't exclude them from (a) or (b). It would be good if some one could get some time (I'm a bit like the time-pressed coney in Alice in Wonderland, though I behave more like the Mad Hatter, I guess) to do some expansion of the transit-camp article we link to via ma'aborot. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Ouch, looks like a started a storm in a teacup. I had no info, only noticed a leap taken on a hunch, almost certainly a correct one, but still, and I just marked my thought. Actually my first intention was to put in the War of Attrition, which had been almost completely pushed out (the only time the link appeared, it was hidden from the reader under the shapeless, generic word "attacks"!). Maybe not for those who want to see regiments on the march, but it was a very serious war in its own right, with implications not just for those who lost people they knew, which weren't that few either. Once I created the new heading, the transit camps remained pretty much the only issue mentioned for 1960-1967, and that's something you folks might want to address. Especially since, as Nishi writes, it's not even a 60s topic! If you're looking for irony on this page... 50 years on, and nothing much to report from Israel's 60s? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC) ... OK, and Eichmann.

You must be new to this article. If it ends without an edit war and a couple of RfCs, it's not a storm :) “WarKosign” 21:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)