Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

per the following diff: [1]

I'm honestly not following why Nomoskedasticity is edit warring (2nd revert+no discussion) to remove well cited material. (A) Despite the "unsourced" edit summary, it is referenced that Hezbollah's activity indeed sparked the fighting and, best I'm aware, even Hezbollah signed an admission that they sparked the war (U.N. resolution 1701).

Putting it succinctly, The material is (a) cited, and (b) not controversial.

p.s. I request that reverts such as the last one, which is clearly a violation of the recent Arbcom ruling on dispute resolution and consensus building, would not be repeated. The material was on the page for quite some time and we can all be mature enough to not engage in edit-warring.
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the Israel page since 12 June; edit-warring indeed. Your own edit of 18:25 [2] added what I then reverted - thus not "on the page for quite some time". As for content - I don't necessarily dispute the claim that "Hizbollah started it" - I simply say that the reference that follows the assertion ([3]) doesn't support the claim "Hizbollah started it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that there were prior versions that included the claim "Hizbollah started it"; so I gather that the history here is that Tariqabjotu removed it and you re-added it, despite the absence of a following reference that supports it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) This was already on the article and Tariqabotju removed Hezbollah's initiative expressing it "seemed to add blame". This is an error since Hezbollah's initiative sparking the war is not controversial material and therefore I corrected his error requesting that he find reliable sources if he believes the long-standing information to be incorrect. I'll assume you hadn't noticed this "mini-exchange" while making your second revert but it's quite clear that this article change is an error on both your parts as there is no argument regarding this material being accurate. Tariq had not reverted or discussed because he accepted his error, and your reverts came off as edit-warring even if this was not your intention (and I accept your explanation).

Side note about the first Haaretz ref:

• "On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages"(Haaretz ref)

I'm assuming you missed this, but Haaretz was refering to the initiating part and not to the "sparked the war" section of the text... not that there's anything controversial about that part and, for example, the already used BBC reference cites the beggining of the "crisis" to the abduction.

Side note about the current version:

• "In the summer of 2006, after a series of skirmishes with Hezbollah fighters along Israel's northern border, the Second Lebanon War began."

"Series of skirmishes" - is innaccurate and the previous, long-standing version was clearly the better one even if the sources wern't as implicit as you'd prefer.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, "series of skirmishes" is just as lacking in sources as "Hizbollah started the war" - so I'm happy to contemplate the claim that the long-standing version is better. I'm still ambivalent, because abducting soldiers does not always lead to war - war in this case was Israel's chosen response to abduction of its soldiers (note I do not say it was an illegitimate response). The journalistic sources provided earlier in the paragraph establish a timeline of events; but in general, "x started the war" is a judgment better made by historians. Again, only the issue of sources is in question; I am no fan of Hizbollah and do not seek to defend them. I won't edit the paragraph again; I would only invite Tariq to weigh in, provide a more substantial defense of his own edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

When this became about sources is beyond me. It's not about sources; it's about weight. As it used to stand, the detail of coverage on what preceded the war was not in proportion to what is said -- or should be said -- about other events. It mentioned specific types of weapons and locations ("diversionary Katyusha"; "mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages"), a specific date (July 12, 2006), and an excessive number of sources. The first sentence essentially said Hezbollah attacked. The second sentence said Hezbollah attacked. The third sentence said Hezbollah attacked, and that's why the war started. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant; the point is given undue weight. Nothing is actually said about the war itself, and what happened during it, and so the reader finishes the paragraph with an oversimplified (and perhaps incorrect) "Hezbollah was the whole problem" and with confusion over why the Chief of Staff resigned. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and made a slightly bold move, returning the previous long-standing version (with an extra citation tag). I can see Tariq's concern when he explains it here. I don't mind a rephrase that keeps in mind the main issue which sparked the war -- i.e. Hezbollah's attacking Israeli border towns while abducting 2 soldiers -- but expresses it in a less detailed/blaming manner. Possibly post a suggestion here?

(Side note to Nomoskedasticity), even if Israel "chose" to respond to Hezbollah with war, it doesn't change the fact that what sparked the war was the Hezbollah "initiative". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, your edit summary, pointing to my post of 21:30 yesterday, misrepresents what I said. You have taken "I'm happy to contemplate the claim that the long-standing version is better. I'm still ambivalent..." and represented it as my saying "long-standing version is better." Moreover, making the same edit again yourself on this dishonest basis, less than 24 hours later and without replying to Tariqabjotu's concerns, strikes me as edit-warring according to your own definition. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood your position and I apologize if it felt like I'm edit warring. I believe the section I opened below explains that I was very much open to work with Tariq trying to work out the kinks which concerned him. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you "misunderstood", then you must be unfamiliar with the words contemplate and ambivalent. I still call it dishonest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology again: I am familiar with both but I have made a small error in reading (it happens) followed by a (possibly) slightly too quick return to the long standing version. Noting my error, I've apologized while pointing out that I've made some suggestions on how to resolve Tariq's concerns (and hopefully yours as well).

Personal attacks: I don't see how this "exchange" (calling me 'dishonest') benefits the project and just as I havn't made any suggestions to your character/motives when you edit warred to remove well enough cited material, I would expect similar courtesy in response.

Current discussion: I've added the 1701 reference to my suggestion below, which hopefully is a reasonable start to fix Tariq's concerns. Both of you are welcome to comment on my text and/or make suggestions as well.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages.[94][95][96][97][98][99] Hezbollah fighters crossed the border into Israeli territory and abducted two Israeli soldiers.[100]. Hezbollah shelling of Israeli border towns, along with the seizure of two Israeli soldiers sparked the Second Lebanon War.

On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and border villages,[94][95][96][97][98][99] accompanied with Hezbollah fighters crossing the border into Israeli territory and abducting two Israeli soldiers.[100] The Hezbollah shelling of Israeli border towns, along with the seizure of two Israeli soldiers sparked the Second Lebanon War.(new ref)

From the new ref: escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006 [4]

In mid 2006, a Hezbollah artillery assault and a cross border abduction of two Israeli soldiers sparked the Second Lebanon War.

Side comment: I would not object to the removal of Dan Halutz's resignation from the following paragrah.

• I've made some minor changes in my initial proposal. I'm sure there might be better suggestions out there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  I just added a ref to the security council 1701 to the new suggestion. Not intending on adding it before I get some feedback from Tariq. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  What was the point of this "proposal"? You didn't address anything I mentioned in my comment, instead opting to add two words and remove a period. -- tariqabjotu 12:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it had some point but was aware that it didn't quite resolve the issue (per "I'm sure there might be better suggestions out there."). I gave it some extra thought and laid out a second suggestion which seems, at least to me, like a version that has a good chance at being accepted (with minor changes). Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work it in with a couple relevant refs sometime tomorrow (going to sleep). Glad we could work this out quickly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

"ILS", not "NIS", is the currency code under the ISO 4217 standard.[5] However, it might still be useful to mention NIS, because it's a far more common abbreviation, if you can think of a good way to force the template to have it while still making the distinction clear. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Granted, the translation is crude, but if you try it, it's obvious there are severe problems. Somebody open minded, NPOV who knows Arabic should get over there! Go here and put in the Arabic URL for translation to see what I mean. --Lophoole (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please correct any inaccuracies or biases in the English article. It would help if you actually gave references; if, as you say, they are "easily available to anyone who is willing to look for it", you shouldn't have too much trouble providing some. Gidyn (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think that Wikipedia is a place to express political opinion. Whether Israel is right or wrong we must only present the neutral unbiased point of view, not pro-Palestinian or Pro-Israeli for that matter. There aren't any Human Rights criticism on Iran's page even though Iran routinely executes sexual minorities. No need to be biased here. --Krotx (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have added "citation needed" because there is no indication what this god story has to do with the modern state. (I expect certain people will say: "everybody knows that - no need for a citation"). In Haaretz I find "... ultranationalist Israelis who believe that the West Bank is part of the biblical land of Israel promised to the Jewish people by God" - that would make clear to the reader the connection to the modern state. I will cite that unless someone can find a better one. Fourtildas (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okedem, Jews have been there for 3000 years. Nobody could deny that. In the Israeli society there are 3 main waves of thoughts who consider themselves as inheritars of Zionism but who do not share the same values : secular zionists, post-zionists and neo-zionists. Only those influenced by the later category consider that what occurred 3000 years ago is relevant or worth mentionning. Ceedjee (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree partially with what two claims :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okedem, there are facts that point out the (obvious) links between:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that is the reason why some editors disagreed with that sentence. But on the other side, it cannot be denied that links between Israel and Judaism are deep and inalienable. Ceedjee (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know why you waste your energies on fourtildas comments. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Two things regarding this entry:

1. How does Illan Ramon being the first Israeli astronaut have to do with Israel's research abilities? I think that he should be mentioned outside the entry, in different context.
2. What about mentioning that Israel's 6 big universities are all been ranked among the world top 500 universities (out of 11,000 ranked universities)-btw, the Chinese survey is considered to be the most reliable among all available surveys in terms of method and etc and it stands as a proof for what I just wrote.--Gilisa (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's nothing in the Pakistan article too. What's the situation in the norwegian version of Pakistan? Does it mention the ethnic cleansing in 1948? You haven't read the article: there is a paragraph on nucelar arms in the military section. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

S/he doesn't read the discussion either. Its mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know anything about Heraclius but what it says about him in this article doesn't jibe with the Heraclius article. Fourtildas (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC) This is what you want: Revolt against Heraclius. you seem to assume that this page is edited by people who deliberately mislead. I will correct the link. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

This seems to be the source. There are plenty of references to it in google books. I will give you some more when I have time. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern scholarship:

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

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

The source for this information seems to be this guy but it has support from other sources too. Historians don't like to rely on a single source. Any more complaints? Telaviv1 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please insert this more historically accurate paragraph. Thank you.

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

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

My ex-wife was told by a friend of hers who worked for Medecin Sans Frontieres that they were notified that the Palestinians were planning a big event for that month and had requests for extra funding already written out before the intifada began. Based on this (admittedly personal) information I believe that it was an excuse, that the violence was planned before they knew of his visit. However this inquiry: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mitchell_plan.htm concluded that there was no evidence that it was either planned or that Sharon was the direct cause of the violence. An insertion of the reference might be justified. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with both your comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howard Sachar is a traditionnal historian, perfectly reliable and even with some pro-Israli bias. By the way, I don't understand what you mean exactly when you write: "Historiographical interpretations of post-war diplomacy is irrelevant and, in a way, pov"? Could explain with other words? Ceedjee (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Hi, in military jargon, there are:

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

Pyrrhic victory is not used I think in military context. In practice it only refers to battle and not to war (as here). Let's assume Kissinger and Sachar's analysis is a minority POV. Does not NPoV ask us to take care of all pov's ? Kissinger and Sachar would not be relevant? Whatever, I don't think to add the word military is really important, because in practice, I am not sure reader will be aware of what is behing that word in our minds. So it is useless. Ceedjee (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Indeed, we cannot put a note, longer than TelAviv's proposal, just to explain the meaning of the word military. This is a lead. I think here I focus too much on details here. We must keep a broader view. Your last proposal seems ok for me. That solves the issue a simple way. Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't think you should say "defeated the Arabs" because Israel only defeated a number of Arab states, not all the Arab peoples. Also the word military seems to me incorrect grammatically and sounds awkward. Shouldn't it be "militarily"? How about simply sayig "The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence..." Telaviv1 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

Source: Contender Ministries. Whats the problem here? Cheers --Fatal!ty (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

In more, the link to "genocide" doesn't respect NPoV. A proposal here above has been made. The best way is to discuss there instead of performing edit war. Ceedjee (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Being Jewish is not a basis for assuming bias or neutrality, opinions must be judged on their own merit. Karl Marx is widely regarded as a Jew and an antisemite. The book is by Thomas Friedman not Mark. But your point is a valid one, intervention is definitely anaemic. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, a better example of Friemdan's neutrality is that he is an excellent journalist (He was awarded the Pulizer prize). And he wrote and excellent book, which won the National Book award. More importantly, I doubt that every source used in this article has been judged with such audacity. The general wikipedia rule (and often abused) if you have a source, then the claim is cited. For my request there are hundreds....I don't see the source of argument here, besides one man's religous beliefs, which happen to coencide with those of the country the article is based on. --67.234.212.126 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.[37]"

The reference isn't covering the first part of the sentence (is there any other sources which can cover this part?), and besides, it is unclear what "countries around the world" means (all countries? some? which countries, then?). Someone asked about this at the Norwegian Wikipedia, and since I didn't found the answer, and the Norwegian edition is translated from this one, I thought I should ask here. Mewasul (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can provide sources for this but will have to go and look them up. Look up the Évian Conference. France and Holland took in quite a few Jewish refugees (i think its 100,000+ for France and 50,000 or so for Holland) but there was much opposition to it as Jews were considered highly undesirable people. It didn't help those who got there as the Nazis soon occupied them. A couple of tiny countries in central america agreed to take a few (some still have small jewish communities as a result). No one was willing to take the millions trying to flee. Shanghai also took some thousands.

Many countries would not even allow Jews to go through in transit. Even Jewish children were often regarded as dangerous criminals.

I read the diary of a man who was held with several thousand jews trying to leave Czechoslavakia in a basketball court in Hungary. They had a single toilet and shower for six months while they looked for a company to help them get out- no one was allowed to leave the basketball court and local jews had to fund their food. My father needed a transit visa to go from Germany through Britain to the USA (where his mother had a brother) and it took a question in parliament for him to get the transit visa. There were only one or two British members of parliament who were willing to help jews by asking such questions (my father's life was saved by Josiah Wedgwood, 1st Baron Wedgwood). Britain did take 40,000 Jewish children (but not their parents who were nearly all murdered). The British did it so they could say they had done more then any other country but they still refused to let them into Palestine. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The United States, Britain and Canada all turned away Jewish refugees - and that is just the tip of the iceberg.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Here are more countries to add to the list of those who refused entry to Holocaust survivors: South Africa, Switzerland, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico. In fact, the only exceptions were Denmark, Sweden & China. See this source for more information: http://www.vtnea.org/holo-7.htm--Gilabrand (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About CZ, I am quite sure they agreed refugees to go to Palestine. I have some info about other countries, I will check. Ceedjee (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This Cambridge excerpt and this are relevant as well. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit too late, but thanks for helping me. :) I have now added the information to the Norwegian edition. I'm not gonna edit the English edition, someone else may do, if they thinks it is necessesary. Mewasul^NO (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Israeli British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently changed the grossly inaccurate GDP PPP figures only for them to be reverted. I changed the figures to be in line with the IMF figures given on the article which the figures on this article link to. AS for them being unsourced, as the person who reverted said, they are sourced by the IMF itself, which is obvious from the article which the figures link to with all the 2007 IMF figures given. What source do the other grossly inaccurate figures have??? Usergreatpower (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet again the figures have been reverted to grossly inaccurate figures. The source given next to the figures states the GDP PPP is $154.283 billion. Why are people reverting back to figures that seem to have been plucked from no where? Usergreatpower (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Usergreatpower! The source can be found here - the figures seem to be from October 2007. If you have a link to newer figures, please do modify the reference by specifying a new source. It doesn't help to keep adding an unsourced figure. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But the source you have given clearly states $154.283 billion, not the figure you reverted to. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at the GDP figure, not the GDP PPP figure. The source clearly states:

Israel Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP | Current international dollar | Billions | 232.753

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have no idea where you took the $185 bln figure that you inserted into the article. Can you please clarify? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see where it states that figure now. I got my figure from the IMF list on the GDP PPP countries list. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the figures on that list are from 2008, then there must be an individual page for Israel with more up to date statistics (from 2008). Can you please provide a link to the list which may help us find the individual page? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the report here[6]Usergreatpower (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the figures according to the IMF's 2008 report. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the data in this entry is not correct. See the IMF database. It specifies Israel and a few other countries. The figure is 33,299. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.67.97 (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that an old districts map was used for the article - one which does make any mention of East Jerusalem and misleads the viewer by separating the Golan Heights completely. I suggest the map I made back in the day for the article Districts of Israel, Image:Israel districts.png. The map was a result of a long discussion, and apparently satisfied both sides. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a complex issue. In a general article, it should not be accepted. In the article Israel, it seems logical, due to wp:npov, that the pov the most related with Israel is the one given. Like an article about "US operation during WWII" will focus on the US perception of these or like the article Christianism doesn't talk about the rejection of this religion or about atheism...

More, this map has something neutral, with the drawings of the borders, but it has something less neutral, with the uniformized color... But on the other way, if the color were not uniformized, that would be a pov opposite to official Israeli governement one given Israel annexed these territories. Ceedjee (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this for real? NPOV = Israeli government POV? Rabbit-hole... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For example, the article on Christianism can spend a lot more time talking about the Christian point of view than about the atheist etc. POV, but it must always present it from a neutral perspective, not as if that POV is Wikipedia's POV.

The current map is Image:Israel districts numbered.png. It seems to me that neither map mentions East Jerusalem, and both maps have the Golan Heights coloured slightly yellow like the West Bank. However, the map Ynhockey proposes has the words for the areas right on the map, which makes it more readable, I think. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In a text, when you have many words, it is not always easy to have a neutral perspective. In a map, it is even harder. Here, we have a picture (a map). And we have to give wp:due weight to the fact Israel with 6M people has the admnistrative factual autority in a zone where officially, the remaining of the countries of the world denies its presence...

How do you want to deal this a npov-way.

Nomoskedasticity, what would you suggest as a "good map" that would give to due:weight to all points of views ? Ceedjee (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, the main problem with the current map as I see it isn't a POV issue, it's simply wrong. Whether the UN and the 'international community' agrees with Israeli policies regarding Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, has no bearing on the administrative jurisdiction of each district applied by the government, which is what this map is about. So, theoretically, if Israel today declared that Beijing was part of its 'China District', it would need to be included in the map. There's no problem with clearly pointing out that it's a region having nothing to do with Israel, and both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are clearly demarcated with a specially-colored line on my map. The current map used in this article however, purposely misinforms and misleads the viewer on the administrative jurisdiction of the two districts in question. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey. His map is better since it's more detailed and accurate. I don't think neutrality is an issue here, since the map doesn't pass judgment on whether East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights "really" belong to Israel. -- Nudve (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... The pov issue with the map is that it is a way to give some legitimity to the Israel's pov to draw the map that way. It would be as much informative if the Samaria/Judea/West Bank zone and the Golan heights were in dark red... But it would be read another way.

I understand your point about the administrative issue. If that was not the case, there would be not a single chance to see this map accepted. Here, the question is really a difficult issue of WP:NPoV -> Is the administrative cutting chosen by Israel but no recognized by any other country in the world (what I call the official Israeli pov) is wp:due in the map showing the districts of Israel.

You will say: of course, Israel can still choose where her districts are and it is a matter of facts : they are there!

Others will say: never, Israel has no legitimity in choosing her districts outsider her territory and it is not the role of Wikipedia to give any legitimity to that occupation. That could also suggest that after "Judea - Samaria", we could add (occupied West Bank) and we could add "occupied" Golan heights, which are facts.

If it was just of question of facts, we could also the dark red for these zones. Note, I don't suggest to add this word or to color that way ! I just say that some could argue that using the same reasonning as the one you use (facts). I also wonder how in Syrian map, Golan Heights are drawn. Isn't there a Syrian district there ? The argument that it is under Israeli administration in practice is an argument...I still think this issue is a very complex npov issue. I don't have any solution and even suggestion. Ceedjee (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really practical to draw these areas in a different color on the district map, because it would create a difficult-to-understand mess, similar to my map here (couldn't find a better way to do it). If there are no further objections, I will replace the current incorrect map with the map at Districts of Israel, although any further suggestions are welcome, and I will do my best to implement them on the map. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone translate this verse to english? "Yeweh abhor tu mi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.30.208 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to replace the phrase "occupied territories" with "territories occupied", in the sentence "Most negotiations relating to the territories have been on the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories in return for normalization of relations with Arab states, a principle known as "Land for peace".[130][131][132]".

"Territories occupied" is the specific language used in the resolution itself. The proposed phrasing also reflects that the modern usage of the phrase "occupied territories" is a proper noun (The Occupied Territories). This term did not exist when the resolution was created. For example, the Sinai Peninsula is not considered part of The Occupied Territories, however, it is one of the "territories occupied" in consequence to the 1967 war.

Acknowledging this difference best denotes the span of the war, the resolution, and all parties involved in the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.237.70.103 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, Israel is the name of one of Prophet Jacob's sons, and the name of Israelites in Arabic is Bani Israel, meaning Sons of Israel... So Israel is not the name of the people if you want to be specific... Besides, it doesn't really matter... but I'm up for Israel, as Israel isn't a state or a tribe now... it's just a hazy word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walid Osama (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Israel is not one Jacob's sons, but Jacob himself-a name given to him by God after his battle an the angel. Jews will often consider themselves "Am Yisrael" or the Nation of Israel. The "State of Israel" is correct in this context.Torontoguy37 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008

"The State of Israel" is the official name of the country. However, "Israel" is the shortened form. This is confusing given the historical and biblical contexts of the "Land of Israel". In order to add clarity, academics and newspapers often write something akin to "modern Israel" or "The Jewish State". It should be noted that the ancient kingdom of Israel was known as such, even in Hebrew. So, technically, there has never been a country called Israel before. The land where the Jews presided and had sovereignty was more like a federation, known and ruled by tribal affiliations (Kingdoms of Judah, Benyamin, etc--Kingdom of the Jews), not exactly the one large state with which we are familiar.

I would equate this type of designation to what the Palestinian Arab population hopes to achieve. That is, they would probably call their new state The State of Palestine or the Arab Republic of Palestine, and so forth. In short form, however, we would all probably still say Palestine. We would need to be careful not to confuse this, much like we must do with Israel, with the Roman designation of Palestine, the British Mandate of Palestine, or the various maps of Palestine in the past half century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondf36 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the main question here was more along the lines of "why 'state' rather than 'country' or 'nation'?" or something. Tyciol (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the founders of the Israel, but I am unaware of other countries that have the word "Country" or "Nation" in the official title. Usually, I believe a title has to do with the type of governance (Kingdom of/Democratic Republic of/Commonwealth of/ and so forth). State is a commonly used identifier to connote a modernly formed country (United States of America, United States of Mexico). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondf36 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the 7 million figure, as a population of Israel, include the West Bank or Gaza Strip? If it does not, please indicate that. This is especially confusing, because you do indicate that some of the Israelis live in the West Bank. So the Israelis in the West Bank count, but not the Palestinians? Please specify that the count refers to citizens of Israel, but not others subject to its military and political control. Indeed, the occupied territories are conspicuous in their absence from this article. Israel controls them militarily and politically and has hundreds of thousands of settlers in these areas. Why are they not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.141.103 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The population figure includes Israelis, living under Israeli control. This means settlers count, but Palestinians don't. The territories are discussed in detail under "Occupied territories" (in "Government and politics"). okedem (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If Israel was to include the West Bank and Gaza then the number would be well over 11 million. The 7 million include citizens in Eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that might be considered occupied by international law but not that of arabs in the West Bank or Gaza. --Krotx (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello I came here a few months back suggesting that Israel did not 'Intervein' in the lebanon civil war, but instead 'Invaded' Lebanon. I thought that this was valid, because any other credible source of literature that I have read, in fact, says that Israel invaded Lebanon. I would like the change to be made because it is more accurate. Further, if Israel was occupying Lebanon for the time being until the PlO left, why stay there after they left? Why implement a president that is 'Pro-Israel' afterwards? Why not fully withdrawl until many years later?

Again, as I expressed before, this is a hot button issue, but non the less these are relavant concerns. Can someone answer my questions as to why the language in the article is so underplayed?

--Starchild12345 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If it was made months ago, its probably in the archives. This talk page has 27 seperate archives, if all discussions were maintained on this page forever, it would get unusably long. Check the archives, or alternately check the page history (click the history tab at the top) around the date you asked the question the first time, and you may see what happened to the original discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely an abstract concept. It has a clear geographical referent, which is the region known in modern English as Palestine. One important example is the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the name Palestine, but it clearly refers to the geographical concept of Eretz Yisrael (and this is how it is translated into Hebrew). Also, the official Hebrew name of the British Mandate over Palestine was "Palestina (E.Y.)" (E.Y = Eretz Yisrael). If we go back to the 2nd century CE, we have historical evidence that the name Syria-Palestinae replaced the name Judea in the official Roman Empire records. Judea is a concept closely related to Eretz Yisrael. DrorK (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right in what you said, but wrong on the actual article edit. The reason is that the definitions for "Palestinian" have changed significantly since the British Mandate, and especially since 1967. Today, Palestine usually refers either to the Palestinian Territories or the area of Israel and the territories together, while Eretz Yisrael in that context referred also to what is today Jordan (and in other contexts without Jordan). In other words, Eretz Yisrael is not such an abstract concept, but today Palestine is, so there's no reason to insert that phrase in the lead. Maybe it can be elaborated on further down in the article (or rather, anyone actually interested, can just click on the Eretz Yisrael link already in the sentence). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1. One question is whether the term "Eretz Yisrael" has any geographical meaning to the common English speaker. For example, if I'm referring to a certain plant or animal unique to this region, I'd say "Palestinian X" in English and "X Eretz-Yisraeli" in Hebrew. I doubt if I can say "Eretz Yisraeli X" or "Land of Israel X" in English. In Christianity "Jerusalem" may refer to the actual city or to a religious concept. I wouldn't like English speakers to think that Eretz Yisrael in Judaism resembles Jerusalem in its Christian abstract sense. There is a very concrete geographical reference here.
2. Another question is whether the adjective Palestinian derives directly from the name Palestine. As of today, the answer is no. A Palestinian person does not mean "a person who comes from Palestine". Before 1948, a Palestinian was a resident of the British Mandate over Palestine, and since then, this term has been used almost exclusively to Arabs who live, used to live, or have origins in this region, while Jews are not called Palestinians. Nevertheless, the geographical unit is still called Palestine, regardless of the population.
3. The boundaries of Eretz Yisrael are very vague. In today's Hebrew it almost always refers to the former Mandate territory (maybe plus the Golan Heights). This is how political moves influence the language. DrorK (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The exact boundaries of the Jewish concept of a "Land of Israel" are fairly vague, as is the concept of the region of "Palestine". Thus one should not try to equate the two, particularly when one lacks reliable sources that do. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When Lord Balfour wrote "Palestine" he clearly meant: the land which the Jews call Eretz Yisrael. We know that from the letters he exchanged with the Zionist leaders. When Hebrew was declared an official language of the British Mandate, the name of the territory in Hebrew was written: Palestine-Eretz-Yisrael on every stamp, coin, banknote or official document. In the Israeli law, whenever the term Eretz Yisrael is used, it means the territory of the British Mandate over Palestine (this is an obligatory legal interpretation, which was made clear in 1981, when the Golan Heights law was enacted. The government legal adviser ruled that the government has the right to issue an order which applies the Israeli law on every territory within Eretz Yisrael, i.e. B.M. Palestine, thus the Golan Heights territory requires a special statute). Here you have at least three sources to support the claim that E.Y. is a similar if not identical to Palestine as a geographical concept. DrorK (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, you are right in the context of the Balfour Declaration and the mandate. However, the article is about modern Israel, therefore this is an anachronism. In the past, Jewish towns in the Land of Israel were called colonies, and I can provide dozens of sources saying this. This obviously does not mean that we should call Tel Aviv, Petah Tikva, etc. a colony today. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, we're discussion a passage stating that the Land of Israel was central to Judaism. The concept central to Judaism does not refer to political borders and in that context Land of Israel could mean anything from Solomon's kingdom to the Hasmonean kingdom to the current borders of Israel. It is therefore indeed a vague concept (again, in this context specifically) that should not be compared to the word Palestine, which is just as vague. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing up terms here. Colony is a polysemy. It can mean either a place inhabited by people, or a political entity subject to an empire. In recent years the former use declined giving way to words like "community" (which is also a polysemy). This is probably due to the fact that "colony" in the sense of a type of government has become a very unpopular term.

Now back to Eretz Yisrael - the Declaration of Independance states that Israel is a "Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael". A few sentences above it talks about the termination of the British mandate over Eretz Yisrael. It is very clear then, that Eretz Yisrael and Palestine were treated as synonyms (I hope no one thinks this is an original research, it seems plain and simple to me). Further more, whenever the Israeli law mentions the former British mandate territory, it calls it Eretz Yisrael (see the case of the Golan Heights Law I mentioned above, and there are other examples). There is no official Israeli text that refers to Jordan or southern Lebanon as Eretz Yisrael (even though these territories where considered part of Eretz Yisrael in ancient times). So, in the modern official Israeli context, Eretz Yisrael is certainly equivalent to Palestine in English or Filastin in Arabic.

The concept of Eretz Yisrael in Judaism (either as a religion or as a national ideology) is a geographical concept, and it has borders. It is true, that there were (and still are) disagreements about the exact borders of this entity. For example, Jews from Jaffa (Yafo) often prefered to be buried further north, because there was a disagreement whether Jaffa itself is within the borders of Eretz Yisrael. Jews of Acre (Akko) often prefered to be burried in some distance eastwards for the same reason. There are arguments whether fruits from the Arava valley are allowed in a year of Shmita (a year during which one shouldn't cultivate the land in Eretz Yisrael). However these disagreements prove that we are talking about a geographical concept which is supposed to have borders. It is also quite clear that this territorial concept is more-or-less in the same place where we locate Palestine. DrorK (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The above completely proves my point. There is no clear agreement about Eretz Yisrael's borders, and the act of equating Eretz Yisrael with Palestine is only valid in the context of the mandate (the Golan Heights Law also refers to the mandate borders and period). It is not valid in any context other than the mandate—neither in the context of ancient Eretz Yisrael (the concept central to Judaism), or Eretz Yisrael the way it is seen today by those who use the term (generally the mandate territory plus Golan, and sometimes also Sinai, or the ancient concept as used by the religious public).

The version you seek to insert implies that Eretz Yisrael and Palestine are synonymous in all contexts, which they are not. In other words, you are implying that the following text would be correct and NPOV:

The modern State of Israel has its roots in Palestine, a concept central to Judaism for over 3,000 years.

Is that right? I think Palestine has nothing to do with this, and it is certainly not central to Judaism. The term Land of Israel is frequently used in English and well-known enough that we don't need to elaborate (nonwithstanding the WikiLink present there). Lets just leave it the way it is. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, maybe the whole leading paragraph should be rephrased. The current phrasing seems very "clean" and non-disputable, and yet it doesn't say much. The English speaker might wonder what kind of concept Eretz Yisrael is (and if it is a geographical concept - where it is), what "having roots in a concept" means etc. I added the fact that the ancient Kingdom of Judah, whose subjects are usually considered to be the most immediate ancestors of the Jews, lied in Eretz Yisrael to make things more concrete and clearer, but I'm not sure it's enough. I would say that the basic principles governing the establishment of the State of Israel are as follows:

1. Judaism is a national identity (and not only a religion or a remote origin)
2. Jewish communities should be united in one place rather than scattered around the world
3. These united Jewish communities should be independent in a Jewish state
4. The Jewish communities should be gathered in the ancient homeland of the Jews, which is the land in which the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah used to be located, consequently the independent Jewish state should be located somewhere in the region known to Jews as Eretz Yisrael and to non-Jews as Palestine.

I think the leading paragraph should reflect these 4 principles in a concise and clear phrasing. Currently it is way too vague. DrorK (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
I think it's a bit too much information for a lead section, but if you can indeed write it in a "concise and clear phrasing", please prepare a draft! I'm sure that if it clearly improves the reader's understanding of the topic without having POV elements, it will be approved by everyone. Otherwise the information belongs to the articles Land of Israel and Zionism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing an article in the Times that talked about research around the world, they had a bar graph that said that Israel is #1 technology exporting per capita country in the world. This was now a couple of years ago, but I think we should write in the article that in that particular year, Israel was #1 research per capita exporting for the science section. This is important because historically, Israel's first president, Weizman, was also a big scientist and Israel relies a large portion of its GDP on research. Does anyone know where to find that Times article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanTervel (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the editors need to mention Israel's global lead in high-tech industries like electronics. Companies that make state-of-the-art video & networking hardware, etc. competitively with American companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this "good archeological evidence" cited in Wikipedia? In "Early Roots" there is a "traditional view" (which I take to mean "hebrew bible story") that "Israelite kingdoms and states" existed (there is no definition of Israelite in the article). In the next paragraph we have "Between the time of the Jewish kingdoms and the 7th-century Muslim conquests ..." implying these actually existed. Does "Jewish" = "Israelite"? We are supposed to avoid cultural bias. How is a reader from China with a secular education supposed to make sense of any of this? I have not made any personal attacks. I may be guilty of using slightly uncivil language, but not as bad as the above 2 comments. Fourtildas (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article bothering fourtildas is this one. However this related largely to stuff in the first 5 books, the later biblical stuff has more coroboration. This debate does not belong in this article but I hsould point out that if you go to a later period, about 800 BC, the evidence for the aauthroity fo the bible is not so bad: see Hezekiah Tunnel and Sennacherib#War_with_Judah and that aspect of biblical history is not discussed in the article. The return decree of Cyrus is also interesting Cyrus (Bible), although its hard to provide full coroboration, it clearly agrees witht he evidence. The same can be said for David's kingdom: maybe they had an over-inflated sense of themselves and perhaps it got exaggerated by later scribes but the basic information agrees with the facts on the ground. The bible is a mixture of history, myth and all sorts fo stuff and it is certianly authentic writing from the period. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The way Wikipedia is supposed to work is that historians study the primary sources and make interpretations and judgments about their authroity, coroboration and authenticity. Then we encyclopedists base our articles on the historians' writings ("reliable secondary sources"). We should be citing historians who have made a case for the authenticity of the bible. We should not be playing amateur historian by trying to make these interpretations and judgments about primary sources ourselves. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The so-called Palestinians are Arab occupiers who infiltrated the area or were brought by the Turks and British within the last 150 years. The Jews have had a continual presence since they first appeared around 4000 years ago as an outgrowth of the earliest inhabitants of the region dating back at least 20 000 years and Jewish descent from these pre-historic cultures is something known from genetic evidence. Claiming the Palestinians were there for 20 000 years is a rather stupid lie made up by inverting the truth that it was in fact the Jews who have had ancestors in the land for that long. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A troll posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community. It's not irrelevant, or off-topic, nor is it necessarily inflammatory to say that that the statement as it's currently written is misleading, and it's only controversial if you accept biblical history as fact. Hey, but you know what might be off-topic or irrelevant? What Schrodingers Mongoose wrote. ;D Also, Kuratowski, you might not want to rest your belief on genetic markers, since one, there's a significant amount of genetic drift between the Arab and Jewish-Israeli populations, and two, didn't we learn a while back that Eugenics isn't fun for anyone? Anyways, I understand why it's written as it is, but it is a POV, but I guess what isn't? There's no mention of Native Americans in the introduction of the United States of America entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.75.65 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit to the infobox reverted by User:Nudve (which to his credit he cited as good faith), in which I changed the "Government" field from "Parliamentary democracy" to "Parliamentary republic." This is not a polemical decision; it is a WP convention (unstated, but clearly there) that the "government" field refers to the form or structure of the regime. With regard to the structure of government, "democracy" is actually not terribly informative, since both monarchies and republics can be democratic. You will find that not even the articles on other democratic republics, such as the United States, Germany, France etc., make any mention of "democracy" in the info fields. Rather, it emphasizes that they are republics--in the sense that the head of state is chosen from among the people rather than hereditary. So, I am changing the government field back to "Parliamentary republic." If you have a dispute, write on my talk page. Lockesdonkey (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but the current source says "Parliamentary democracy". Changing sourced information is problematic. If you can find a source that says it's a republic, you can change it. -- Nudve (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sourcing or non-sourcing. A state's republicanness or non-republicanness should be clear from one thing: the existence or non-existence of a monarchy. Does Israel have a monarchy? No. Ergo, it's a republic. This isn't OR; this is quite clear, by definition. I don't need to be told that the United States is a republic, even though there's no source for that assertion in the infobox and no mention of a republic in its constitution. The head of state is elected; the facts speak for themselves. Need I a source to call trees a form of plant life? Given a picture of the flag of Israel, need I a source to say that the only colors on it are blue and white? Besides, I could come up with any number of references to Israel as the "Jewish republic" (I happen not to have them with me, but I'm sure Benny Morris uses the term multiple times in his corpus). Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

there was a long and tedious struggle over the definition of the "type of government" that Israel had, which was eventually resolved by calling it a "parliamentary democracy". Changing it is likely to spark conflict again and not really worth the trouble. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one of my favorite topics. The "resolution" was one of those "lowest common denominator" things, a good demonstration of the way Wikipedia can sometimes substitute "consensus" for "actually knowing what you're talking about." So we currently have this issue sourced to the "CIA Factbook" -- and that plus a desire to avoid conflict will likely mean that Israel will continue to be described in terms that are found in no other Wikipedia article on a country that I'm aware of. But that's okay, because Israel is unique, right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it? Telaviv1 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue here is. The term 'parliamentary democracy' is widely-used in modern English, and it is not mutually exclusive with the term 'republic'. Just like for some countries Wikipedia has 'parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy' (e.g. Spain, Denmark), it is possible to write for Israel 'parliamentary democracy and republic'. I have never seen the term 'parliamentary republic' used in English before Wikipedia, and even a Google search clearly indicates this. In short, 'parliamentary democracy[source] and republic[source2]' should be a good compromise. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) the GDP IS REALTED TO 2008 AND NOT 2007,AS IT WRITTEN,SO SOMEONE MUST CHANGE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.31.179 (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli British. Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot isolate any code in the edit feature causing it, but on arrival at the page (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israel) there is a broken page featuring a racist rant and citing Bob Brown and an address in Missouri. Obviously not to be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcarlin (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit please? I'm not seeing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have been addressed now. I suspect the offensive content was injected via an ad insertion mechanism, but all appears normal now from here. Kcarlin (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital is not capitol. someone want to fix these? i'm not going to create an account just for this. it's found at least twice in the first section. makes it hard to believe the article has won so many awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.252.16 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does not contain the word "capitol" anywhere, only the correct spelling, "capital". I don't understand your complaint. okedem (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• "On December 1, 1947 the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a 3-day strike, and Arab geurrilla attacks began against Jewish targets." in section "Independence and first years".

I think the word should be "guerrilla" and not "geurrilla". Sorry for the fuzz over a small thing but I am not yet autoconfirmed. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have fixed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"The modern state of Israel has its roots in the concept of the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), which has been central to Judaism for over 3,000 years"

The latter statement is inaccurate. The only source given is a page from jewfaq.org, a creationist website. It should be changed to "which is central to Judaism". Bob A (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Israel is the world's only Jewish state", appears as a strange statement to me. Does it not come close to implying that the normal state of affairs is that most peoples have several states specifically designated for them ? Or that there should be more than one ¨"Jewish state" ? The statement could perhaps be deleted or changed to : 'Israel was established, as a country where Jews could settle after World War II. [ref]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokgand (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The movement to establish the country started in the 19th century, long before WW2. There are dozens of Christian and Muslim states in the world. The is just one Jewish state. That's the meaning of that statement. It's what makes Israel unique. okedem (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't provide sufficient information of how the jewish population accumulated from 1881 to 1947 acquired the terretories which it then assumed control on. 83.65.163.194 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, which will take you to Chronology of the Jewish settlement in the land of Israel in modern times; those should provide the information you seek. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

GDP per capita on 2007 is:33,000$ (ppp)'and not 27000$ so someone must change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.92.225 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Within etymology) "Over the past three thousand years, the name "Israel" has meant in common and religious usage both the Land of Israel and the entire Jewish nation.[18] According to the Bible, Jacob is renamed Israel after successfully wrestling with an angel of God.[19]"

I would have thought that it would be more sensible to be 'According to the Torah,' or 'Jewish Scriptures say that' as the 'Bible' is not the original source of the etymology. Equally in the next section a reference is made to 'Biblical times'. 81.110.95.133 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Shug Niggurath 81.110.95.133 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone confirm the quote "During the summit, Barak offered a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected it.[95]"? I would assume that should read Bill Clinton and not Barak? The source is Gelvin, James L. (2005), The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521852897 Bobthropshire (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't say anything about the source, but as I remember, it was Barak. Barak offered a plan encompassing some 97% of the West Bank and Gaza (a few of the larger settlements were to be annexed to Israel), and the equivalent of the missing 3% in land in the Negev, by the Gaza strip. The Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem were to be the Palestinian capital. Clinton and the Saudi prince supported the plan. Arafat rejected it. I don't know exactly why. okedem (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to remember the tribes of Israel of which the Jews were only 1. Israel was the Jewish homeland and the Palestinian homeland was next to it. It seems to me that the israelis had only taken back part of israel up until 1946, but after this time instead of trying to get back the majority of their historical homeland to the north and east, they turned on the palestinians to the east, something to which they had no real claim. [7], [8], [9]. Can anyone clarify for me? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no trace of "Palestinians" back during the time of the Jews in Israel. The West Bank is just as much a part of the historical homeland as the rest of Israel. Jews had not "taken back" any part of Israel until 1946, because there was no country then. The entire territory was controlled by the British. There were Jewish villages in what came to be called the West Bank, and those were depopulated during the 1948 war, like Arab villages in what came to be Israel. Historically (Biblical times) speaking, Jews had the same claim to the West Bank as to the rest of Israel. It is known there was no "Palestinian People" in biblical times, and their origin is unknown. Some guesses are that they descend from Arabs migrating from the Arabian Peninsula (during the great Muslim conquests of the 7th century); that they descend from peoples brought to Israel by the occupying powers (Assyria, for instance); that they descend from some of the Jews that were not exiled by Assyria, but converted to other religions; and several other assumptions. Perhaps it's a combination of all, perhaps something else. okedem (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article Jews did not have possession on the land since 600. And even prior to that they had intermittent rule... if that. As stated ht Muslims and prior to that Romans controlled the region. IMO United Nations should give ALL North America back to the possession of the Indians which have over 12,000 years of claim on the land compared to the "5000" yrs if that the Jews claim. I can understand why Palestinians and the other Muslim nations are so set against Isreal. look what the religious right does to abortion clinics in the US. lobbing rockets for stealing land that's been in ones families possession more than a 1000 yrs is no different. Lives are being ruined the article should state the facts better than the one sided angle presented. This is a prime example where Wikipedia fails to present the truth and lets a group controls the information. Readers wanting to know more need to realize that Jews have the same claim on the land as any group that has been displaced over that last 2000 yrs. mtrout —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC).

You didnt click those links I put in, they are from the israeli government, plus the philistines were around during biblical times: where did they live? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I visited your links. They don't say what you claim they do. The Philistines, who you can read about in their Wikipedia article, lived in the lower coastal plain, in a stretch of land from Jaffa to Gaza. There's no evidence linking them to current day Palestinians. okedem (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are evidences linking them to the Hellenic people. Modern Greeks are probably their closest modern relatives. However, ancient scripts mentioning the kingdoms of Israel and Judah also mention Arab tribes who lived in this country. There is nothing new about Jews and Arabs living together on the same land. DrorK (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the links then, they give these quotes: "The Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922: The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the ::::"historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

and "In the end Israel not only ejected the invading Arab forces - it also captured and held some 5,000 km2 over and above the areas ::::allocated to it by the United Nations." Chaosdruid (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please state your claim in a sentence or two? okedem (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the next line of the British Mandate text to the article, as I believe it is needed to provide a more rounded understanding of the extent of the "national home for the Jewish people." The next part of the mandate reads It being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" The citation give for the previous text "The Palestine Mandate". The Avalon Project. Yale University (1922-07-24). Retrieved on 2007-09-06." is the same citation, it is directly the next sentence in the mandate. Please don't revert this without reason as the version which ends 'national home for the Jewish people' makes it sound as if the Mandate was only to provide a 'national home for the Jewish people' however that was not the extent of the mandate, it being understood that nothing could or should be done in achieving that goal which would prjudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities. This is not contentious, it is history and needs to be maintained to allow a wider understading of what the mandate actually did.EoinBach (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize. Next time, when you edit text followed by a source, make it clear in your edit summary that the newly introduced material is mentioned in the source. However, there are other issue with this edit. First, I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. I think it belongs in the History section. Second, what makes this particular sentence of the mandate text so notable? Which brings me to the third point, which is that the mandate text is a primary source, that should be used with care. -- Nudve (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have stressed that it came from the same source but I did say that it was the next part of the mandate. I feel that this particular sentence is important as it is a direct qualification of the sentance which directly proceeds it. I could have removed the reference to the 'national home for the Jewish people' but do believe that it is sufficiently important to be where it is but only when understood within the context of what the intention was for those peoples and communties already living within the area covered by the Mandate. I feel that if gives a much more rounded view of the League of Nations intentions and should be kept with the proceeding sentence. If it is believed that it shouldn't be here, at this section, then I would argue that the whole section needs to be rewritten to ensure balance and a clear understanding of what a 'national home for the Jewish people' actually meant. EoinBach (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is too long a quote for the lead, since it is not that important to the creation of the State of Israel. I think it should be moved to the "Zionism and the British Mandate" section. I suggest we wait for input from other users. -- Nudve (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is important to the formation of the state of Israel - it provided the basis for Jewish migration into Palestine under the British Mandate and ultimately for the formation of Israel as a state, however a recognition of those communities and inhabitants that were already living there was of equal importance and I fear that selectively quoting in such a highly visible possition from the Mandate document to suggest that it provided a basis for a Jewish homeland and that is it actually distorts the intention of the League of Nations. I don't think that it should be reversed just because you think that it is a bit long - if so lets take out the whole reference to the Mandate document and to a Jewish Homeland (which I don't want to do but I'm guessing you don't either but I equally do think that the fuller quote is needed and will wait until tomorrow before reversing your changes). 82.15.28.90 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The full quote has been moved to the relevant section, via a secondary source. -- Nudve (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that the Independent article supports the claim that the sentence in question was added "at the request of" Montagu and Curzon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the "At the request" part, if you have doubts about that. -- Nudve (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the quote, or in fact anything explaining that Jewish immigration was not to impinge on the inhabitants of the country "irrespective of race and religion" (second article of the Mandate). This article needs to discuss the Mandate in a way which doesn't make it look as if its only aim was to establish a national Jewish homeland with no regard for the people already there. I can't seem to find this in the article and feel that the quotes already used have been chosen to express one part of the story without giving the whole story. We need an objective and even handed approach on Wikipedia and I fear that this article and the reluctance to include references to the guarantees for those communities already living in Palestine only detracts from objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia has separate article on the Balfour Declaration of 1917, British Mandate of Palestine, History of Zionism, as well as numerous articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict. Not everything has to be included in the main article, certainly not in the lead. -- Nudve (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that not everything needs to be included, but we do need balance in what is included, and as this was clearly intended to provide balance in the mandate I would argue that it is needed here as well - in the same prominence, if not, then the article ceases to provide an objective overview of the history of Israel and the establishment of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)