Talk:Israel/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Contradicting numbers

This article claims Israel is 20km2 and ranked 150th while List of countries and outlying territories by total area claims 22km2 and ranked 149th. Can they be verified? eeemess 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The area in List of countries and outlying territories by total area includes East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and also the bodies of water Dead Sea and Kinneret. The figure in this article includes only land and excludes the Golan and East Jerusalem. So, both are accurate. However, I too think that there should be a standard area. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that only the areas that are indisputably part of Israel should be included. I don't know about water vs. land area - that should be determined based on what the criterion for the list is. john k 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

This article does not give Arab view of events. The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. The Arabs and Palestinian did not play any part in it. So talking about partitioning their land to compensate the European Jews is not negotiable. Essentially, they said it is European problem and should be solved in Europe. Siddiqui 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

your objection is totally ridiculous. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Sidiqui

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who represented the Palestinians during WWII sided with Hitler and Nazi Germany. There is extensive documentation of the Mufti and Nazi Germany's diplomatic relations, thereby making the Arabs complicit in the death of many Jews living in and around Palestine. Also, I'd just like to point out the ridiculousness of the above logic. When wars are waged, land and territory are often exchanged, either by force or treaty. In the case of Palestine (which is really no different than many other lands that have been lost due to war), Britain and the Allied powers had gained control of it. Not only was a majority of the population Jewish in the land that was carved out as Israel, BUT the Arabs had sided with the fascist regimes and Nazi Germany. Why do the losers of WWII deserve an equal place at the bargaining table? Remember that the country the Arabs sided with annexed Austria and invaded Poland; why do they cry out when it happens to them (to a much lesser degree, of course)? --ZTMission 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well give the Arab view. But do it without inflamatory language; give facts, not opinions, and provide citations. Pollinator 08:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sidiqui has a point, although he has to accept that Jews always believed it was their right to live in their 'promised land' where some of their holiest sites are. However, I have to show my disatisfaction on how the article misleads the reader by making Israel underground troops as a moraly conscientious militia while fighting Arabs and only acting in self defence (as if the Arabs were the aggressive party). The truth is far from what the article is leading us to believe. Two out of the three massacres committed by Arabs against Jews during the 1948 war were triggered by Jewish atrocities against Arabs. On December 30, 1947, Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorists threw a bomb at an Arab bus stop at the entrance to the Haifa Oil Refinery outside Haifa. Half a dozen Arabs were killed. The Arab workers inside the refinery immediately retaliated by turning on their Jewish coworkers with knives, crowbars, and sticks, killing thirty-nine of them. (In turn, the Haganah responded on the night of December 31 by raiding the nearby Arab village of Balad ash Sheikh, where many of the workers lived, blowing up several dozen houses and killing about sixty Arabs.) Similarly, the Arab irregulars’ attack on the convoy of doctors, nurses, students, and Haganah militiamen making its way through East Jerusalem to Mount Scopus on April 13 was also a retaliation for the assault by Jewish troops on the Arab village of Deir Yassin, just west of Jerusalem, on April 9, 1948, in which about one hundred villagers were killed during the fighting or just afterward. The third and largest Arab atrocity of the war, the massacre by irregulars of dozens of surrendering Haganah troops, including some twenty women, at Kfar Etzion in the Etzion Bloc of settlements just north of Hebron, on May 13, was unprovoked by any immediate Jewish attack or atrocity. But overall, the Jewish forces—Haganah, IZL, Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael, or Freedom Fighters of Israel, or “Stern Gang,” as the British authorities called them), and IDF—committed far more atrocities in 1948 than did Arab forces, if only because they were in a far better position to do so. You also have to take into consideration of how many European Jews were treated in Europe before their arrival in Palestine, so they were effectively emotionally hardened by their mistreatment. Yet the article fails to mention any of these facts. It is true that the Arabs revolted against the idea of Jewish immigration as anyone would naturally revolt against immigration that could change the demography of the region and hence weakening the power of Arab leaders, not taking into consideration the land they owned would suddenly be administered by a foreign jewish party. To make the Arabs appear like the villains is a ridiculous attempt to manipulate the reader but then again the victor always writes the history. Nick Smith 12:50, 4 May 2006.

Can you sight source for any of your statments? Also, you neglect to mention the history of arab oppression of middle eastern jews for centuries. Not to mention your statement "effectively emotionally hardened by their mistreatment" considering that you are talking about 3 million people it seems an unfair generalization. Finally I dont think it is "natural" for people to revolt against immigration.The Isiah 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Isiah, concerning your statement about the "arab oppression of middle eastern jews for centuries", can you give us some sources ? Looking at the pre-1949 arab antismitism, I haven't found yet anything even slightly comparable to the old european antisemitism. There is nothing as well in the "Antisemism" wiki article. Some jews had actually high position at the calif time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekel (talk • contribs) 18:49, May 27, 2006

The article actually does no such thing; it portrays Jewish underground organizations as they were - created for the purpose of protecting Jews, but sometimes performing terrorist attacks - as the article clearly outlines. The history in this page is actually fairly short, you can't really say it portrays anyone in any light. Moreover, Siddiqui has been known to make various ludicrous anti-Israeli (and/or pro-Arab) statements in the past. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Ynhockey, I re-read the paragraph and you're right, although it looslely uses the term violence when in fact it is no different to 'terrorist attacks' we see today in Israel or within the Palestinian territories (whether or not its a suicide bomber does not change the fact that they are terrorist attacks). Possibly someone can add why the Arabs revolted and killed Jews in 1921, for example someone should add the following passage: ' Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa killing ............ This violence led to the formation of the Haganah etc.......'. Otherwise its far too random to just write Arabs randomly revolted and killed Jews'. Arabs were not racist nor prejudice towards Jews, in fact as far as I know they lived in relative peace. Please let me know what you think. Out of curiosity, do Palestinian Arabs who were either forced out of their homes or fled before the 1948 war and still hold land deeds have a right to compensation? Nick Smith 16:48, 4 May 2006.

New population figures

The figures in the infobox and the demographics section don't match. Can we please have the latest data, properly referenced?Nomist 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what about a chart showing the demographic evolution of Israel ?

Ok these are my thoughts:

What I'm wondering is how the Wiki NPOV applies to this article versus other articles. Because, the dehumanization of Jews, and other "undesirables" is clearly stated in the Nazism article. However, in the case of the Palestine conflict, Israel's dehumanization of the Palestinian Arabs is not [if you think that Israel hasn't done anything wrong to the Palestinians then you have a skewed point of view. For more information see Ted Swedenburg's scholarly articles or http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/history.html]

Therefore, what I as an American and non-Palestinian [but a person who reads European newspapers and has looked into the murder of Rachel Corrie, James Miller, and others by Israeli soldiers] have come to the conclusion that the NPOV is still skewed to be Pro-Israeli which is what the American media is giving us. The Corrie and Miller case should get some note on the site since its a direct killing of Americans or British who show solidarity with the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.

Once finals are over I'll try to put together some information using the forementioned sources and also http://www.btselem.org/ which has facts\figures relating to casualties caused by both sides and reveals that Israel has killed more Palestinians, espcially children, then vice versa (the organization is run by Israeli and other Jews and can be read in Hebrew as well for those who want to check it out.)

151.205.180.108 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) SafireRain

• "Dehumanization"? The deliberate and planned policy of exterminating millions is "dehumanization"? As is Israeli policy toward Palestine? Oy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The displacement of the Palestinians is not in the same league the Holocaust. The Palestinian tragedy did not involve systematic mass murder. And sorry but the deaths of three American protestors is even far more trivial. Kransky 09:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• The B'tselem figures regarding Palestinian vs. Israeli casualties, including the breakdowns you note, have been incorporated in the main article; see Section=2000s. (And, hey! good luck on your finals! :-) Deborahjay 12:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel and both terrorism and counter-terrorism

I would like to see more on Israeli policy with what it terms as terrorism and its solutions and also what is termed as Israeli state terrorism and the justifications for it. 72.57.230.179 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Israeli unilatteral border settlement.

The prime minister today said he would draw up the borders with or without Palestinian support. I don't see why the West Bank didn't remain with Jordan and why Gaza with Egypt. The Palestinians have demonstrated time and time again that they can't govern themselves nor live with others. see Israeli and Lebanese history with the PLO... not to mention Jordanian.12.15.7.70

Argentina or Palestine?

The article does not metion that the zionist movement was investigating differnet contries to create a homeland for Jews. For example Argentina was seriously considered, however the zionists backed off fearing that an anti-semetic atmosphere has already developed in that country.

Again, the above is facts that you can find off of any book that talks about the creation of israel. You can also find it on the websites of the jewish zionist movements. For example Theodore Hertzl's book "The Jewish State" states (1896)

Is Palestine or Argentina preferable? The Society will take whatever it is given and whatever Jewish public opinion favors.... Argentina is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, is sparsely populated, and has a temperate climate. It would be in its own highest interest for the Republic of Argentina to cede us a portion of its territory.... Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland. The very name would be a marvelously effective rallying cry

Also Grande island New York by Buffalo was proposed as the zionist state. The Isiah 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Uganda was Hertzel's last attempt to find a country other then Palistine.

Promised Land?

There is little mention of the promised land I would like an Israeli Jew to tell me in their opinion what constitutes the borders of the Jewish promised land? Thank you. Zakaria mohyeldin 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zakaria, please note that this term "Promised Land" is a religious concept, which perhaps would be best discussed with a religious Jew. In effect, this article is about the State of Israel, and the relevant discussion here is of its political borders. Deborahjay 12:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (replying as a Jewish citizen of the State of Israel)

Infobox contains inflammatory (and specious?) content

The Infobox displayed with this article (upper right of screen) gives:
|national_motto = Occupy the arab lands from the Nile to the Furat river(which are represented by the two blue stripes on its flag above).
This strikes me as highly unlikely, specious, and inflammatory. What is the protocol for removing such material? The insertion does not have a User Name associated with it.
Thank you! Deborahjay 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE -- I just looked back and see it's been removed.

I'd still like an explanation of how NPOV cleanups (?) are performed. Please point me to a resource or ?? Thanks, Deborahjay 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I considered it as vandalism, and removed it thus promptly. Bertilvidet 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I'll go read about vandalism in Wikipedia. Probably it's best for now (being new to Wikipedia in general and editing this article in particular) that I concentrate my efforts in copyediting and updating content as I'd intended, and simply watch how more experienced editors handle what I'd suspect is non-NPOV and vandalism. Deborahjay 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling issue (was: Israel)

Why are we using the full spelling of G-d rather than G-d? Please explain. Ariel C 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

because it's a word and there are no reasons not to full spell it. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an authoritative answer, but this is an interesting question. By way of explanation, I can only offer my subjective impression that Wikipedia style is not bound by halachic rulings or similar religious praxis. Deborahjay 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Jews

Unless I am reading the article wrong, I don't see any mention of Ethiopian Jews and their coming to Israel. Ariel C 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Language of neutrality: "suspected" vs. "alleged" vs. other

While I realize that editing is open to all comers, it stands to reason that not all are professionals with experience writing reportage on current events and human rights issues in Israel for a local and global readership (as I am, and do). A passage I've copyedited in this article (2000s section) may eventually be modified, so I'd just like to elucidate for the benefit of my fellow editors the particular language used:

I distinguished (without the use of "scare quotes"; emphasis added here) between: suspected terrorists / alleged members of militant organizations / apparently unaffiliated civilians [including] minors.
(NB: The "affiliated" in the latter expression reflects the prevalent contentions, and actual possibility, that some of these individuals might indeed turn out to belong to the previous category (members of militant organizations), or even be unsuspected terrorists. Otherwise, I'd have used a word such as apparently/ostensibly/purportedly, etc.)

As it is, I aimed to employ language consistent with the guidelines of responsible reportage, which I believe suitable to Wikipedia.
Deborahjay 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Official languages

The infobox states that there are two official languages in Israel, Hebrew and Arabic. Isn't Russian also an official language? A lot of Jewish immigrants are from the former USSR and there is also a Russian broadcasting company in Israel. --Soetermans 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Infobox is correct; Hebrew and Arabic are the only two official languages of Israel.

The languages spoken by large immigrant populations are indeed widely used in Israel, notably Russian and English as evinced by their visibility in broadcast media, advertising, etc. More evident is the widespread use, including in such "official" places as highway signs and bilingual websites of government offices, of English and/or latin letters. English rather than Russian appears to be the unofficial lingua franca for those purposes. Deborahjay 12:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You have convinced me! It is rather interesting, so I thank you. --Soetermans 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some further thoughts:

• Regardless of the relative numbers (and clout) of the various immigrant populations, English as a candidate for de facto lingua franca has the clear advantage of being written in Latin letters, common to many immigrants' (i.e. the Europeans & South Americans) and tourists' languages, thus more accessible than the far less widely known Cyrillic alphabet.
• English is a mandatory subject for Jewish students from the primary grades on up (whereas Arab students are taught Hebrew as a second language from the early grades and English only later on; Arabic is taught to Jewish students only to a limited extent). Russian is not a mandatory subject for primary and secondary schools.

What's really interesting, especially for a 4th generation American who was essentially monolingual till age 10, is living in the polyglot environment of today's Israel. (This was one of the prime considerations that influenced my decision to immigrate!) Thanks for your interest, Deborahjay 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

English is not an official language according to http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/fog0000000007.html and http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/lprcprof.htm -- Avi 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

New maps, population figures

Moved from User talk:Jkelly

Dear JKelly I'm sure you are not Israeli, but let me assure you, I am. The data in the article is wrong, because the Golan Heights, Judas and Samaria, Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem are Israeli territories, and so the data about the 20,700 square killometers is wrong - plus 365 km2 for Gaza, 5,523 km2 for Judas and Samarias and 1,190 km2 for the Golan Heights, we have 27,848 km2. This is a currect information and I'm truly surprised that in Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia I cannot edit currectly an article. --AmadeusW 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that we are using the maps and population numbers that you argue are "wrong" because they come from a reliable source (the CIA world factbook, I believe). You need to provide some verifiable reference to support your argument that this is incorrect. Jkelly 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

well now let me see... you will probably agree with me that the European courntries and many others around the world do not agree with Israel about its borders; despite the Golan Heights law, the Jerusalem Law and the fact that Israel conquered Judas and Samarias and Gaza strip in the Six-Day war after Jordan had conquered them. These lands are Israel's terrotories and have never been other's.

--AmadeusW 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're just re-asserting that you know the truth. Do you have any reliable source for your maps and figures or not? Jkelly 19:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I have just demonstrated it... Jerusalem Law, Golan Height Law, conquering at six-day war. --AmadeusW 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, sources are external publications (or websites) that assert a certain fact. Resliable sources are sources which are considered reliable according to WP:RS (please read that page). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's ignore the fact that I live in Israel and know what's happening around me... enter the following links: The Golan Heights Law from the Jewish Virtual Library, The Golan Heights Law from Answers - Judaism.com; The Jerusalem Law from the Jewish Virtual Library] - please pay attention to the saying Jerusalem - complete and united, The Jerusalem Law from Reference.com - again, complete and united, that means including eastern Jerusalem; Information about conquering and occupation of the West Bank; now, I guess you can believe an Israeli. --AmadeusW 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank and Gaza are not considered to be part of Israel even by the Israeli government. Obviously they are occupied by Israel, and they are not claimed by any de facto sovereign state (although they are claimed by Palestine, which is recognized as a state by several other countries), but that doesn't make them part of Israel. As to the Golan Heights, these were not annexed by Israel. They are, iirc, administered by Israel in the same way that Israel administers its own territory, but, on the other hand, pretty much every other government in the world recognizes them as part of Syria. As to East Jerusalem, it was annexed by Israel, but this annexation is not recognized by any other country. A listing of Israel's territorial extent should give the extent of its undisputed territory - that is to say, territory inside the green line. Perhaps the area of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be noted parenthetically. The area of the West Bank and Gaza should not be included under any circumstances. john k 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is very biased, it has an entire section dedicated to Jewish undergound groups yet does not talk of the appaulling massacre at the Haifa oil refinery, it refers to Haganah as a defensive group which is disputable, it makes Ariel Sharons appearance at Al-Asqa and the starting of the second intifada only seem coincidental, it does not refer to the west bank wall as illegal and there is very little mention of the ethnic cleasing policies, curfews and mistreatment imposed on the Arabs. Zcaky06 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

when you'll start thinking reasonably, Zcaky, you'll find out that there was never any mistreatment or cleasing policies towards the palestinians, except from their government. I guess you live out there hearing what you want to hear and beliving what you're shown... Yes, the Haganah was indeed a defensive group, because the lovely innocent Palestinians used to robs, steal and do massacers in the jewish settlements and cities in Israel before its indipendence recieiving; you simply ignore the fact that the second intifada was opened in October 2000, when your innocent poor Palestinians shot and murderered Israeli soldiers and residents. And finally you even choose to ignore the fact that Ariel Sharon appeared not in Al Aqsa, but in The Temple Mount (Har Haba'it), the most holy jewish place of all times that muslems violently gained control over and blocked any jewish entering, although there is no mention of Jerusalem at all at the Koran (and by the way, Sharon's appearance there was not violent or anything, he just visited there as any jew would want to). So do me and everyone a big, big favour and don't talk about things you even can't dream of understanding. --AmadeusW 12:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That is blatently untrue; ethnic cleansing policies, curfews etc performed by Israeli's are well known particularly in the West Bank, a simple web search will reveal as such. And how can Haganah be a defensive organisation if it was responsible for the massacres at two villages after the Haifa Oil refinery incident which was conviniently left out of the article and many sources believe it was Ariel Sharrons visit that sparked the second intifada, it was not simply a peaceful visit, he came with an entourage of roughly 200 armed men. Finally the wall is illegal and is one of the reasons Israel is accused by the international community of being an aparthied state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2155 http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0994/9409012.htm Zcaky06 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and I'm so inerested why in heaven's name did Sharon was surrounded by 200 armed soldiers... except for the fact that he would be instantly shot and linched by these crazy muslems, I don't see any reason.. Now, the cleansing policies that you're talking about is.. yes, arrests of terrorists. If you insist to believe that the palestinians don't want as a whole part Israel to be destroyed, then why do you support terrorists such as the Hammas's and the Jihad's, Hizballah's etc.? I don't really think you support them, but it's time to look at the other side of the coin and examine things thoroughly and not flatly. The Hagannah organization was supported by Britain and those arab killing you're talking about always occured after huge massacres at the jewish cities. Why, why do you think the arabs sit quietly and innocently while the massive big evil jews come and massacre at them? The problem with your point of view, I'll phrase that gently, that if you hear about Hagannah troops do this and another to arabs, you should look and the other side of things and see that this was always happening for a reason, the Hagannah people were so few, maybe 100 in the entire land while arabs stole their belongings, even kidnapped, murdered, robbed, raped, everything. Defense is the Hebrew meaning of Haganah. Think about it. --AmadeusW 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ariel Sharron knew that the leader of the oppression and killings of Palestinian families visiting one of their most sacred places would be contentious and would provoke them, particularly against the backdrop of the collasped peacetalks, this the reason he is widely not considered innocent of instigating the second intifada. As for saying the ethnic cleasing policies were for terrorists, unless you consider entire palestinian neighbourhoods are terrorists, i don't think this presumption holds, please see the sources below which show indicate state ordained rapes, massacres, midnight raids and evictions on entire families http://www.vtjp.org/letters/Ethnic_cleansing_by_Israel.htm http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html I am confused about your point with regard to Haganah, it sounds like you acknowledge they perform massacres but only in retaliation for other masacres. This does not sound defensive, and to say they attack only in retaliation is untrue, the oil refinery massacre was instigated by a Jewish organisation, and even during the Arab retaliation, some Jewish workers were protected by Arab workers. And please provide evidence that they were supported by the British. Also please inspect the sources i provided in my last post. Zcaky06 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I read your links, Zcaky, and I again see you look only at the result and the flat side of the coin instead of examining the whole picture. Do you really, really think that the Israeli Defense Army would wake up a thousand innocent Palestinians just because they feel like? Because they want to be evil, just like that? Did you not think of the option that they were illegal settelers, that they risked the security of Israel and the only way of doing that without making an entire city to wake up and surrender the soldiers of Israel? Think about that please. Now, about the Haganah thing, that they as-if massacred an arab population... did you hear about the Riots in Palestine of 1929? You can find out that the arabs attacked Jaffa and other main cities, and in respond both jewish organizations and the British army attacked the arabs. --AmadeusW 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are starting to use 'you are only looking at the flat side of the coin' as a deflective statement that in no way changes what i have stated. Your entire line of argument has also gone to a tangent, wikipedia only allows you to state what you can verify in the article. Making up highly dubious and quite frankly absurd assumptions that the palestinians may have been illegal settlers without any evidence particularly when it is more likely their existence predated Israel is unacceptable. Brushing off the 'as-if massacre' not by denying it but by simply refering an arab riot also makes no sense. Quite frankyly your last statement does not deny any of these things i.e. the Hanagah massacre, the arab persecution etc rather accepts it and then tries to make up fanciful justifications which are unbacked up. I will reiterate my position, i wish to include in the article the following points for which I have provided sources for in my previous posts; the massacre by Hanagh, that Hanagh is a defensive group is dubious, Ariel Sharrons visit is thought by some to be a deliberate attempt to instigate the second intifada, the west bank wall is illegal, palestinians have been subjected to ethnic cleansing policies, curfews in the west bank and periods of state sanctioned massacres, rapes and murders. I do not intend to continue a discussion of hypothesise and theories.

This article is nothing but Israeli propaganda. The state of Israel was established in Palestine against the will of the indigenous population. Why isn't this basic fact made clear? Far from being a democracy, Israel is an apartheid state in which Jewish citizens enjoy rights and privileges denied to non-Jewish citizens. A keystone of democracy is the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. Israel is *predicated* on the notion of religious-ethnic elitism, and on this basis alone cannot be accurately termed a democracy. Since its inception, Israel has flouted international laws and treaties, and has refused to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring it to withdraw from the Palestinian territories it illegally occupies. It has developed and amassed huge stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has refused to sign up to any of the treaties intended to limit the spread of nuclear weapons (including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty). Israel has been condemned repeatedly by humanitarian and civil rights organizations for its human rights abuses (including torture and imprisonment without trial), and for its policies of discrimination against Palestinians. In short this article makes no acknowledgement of the fact that Israel is an outlaw state which occupies land to which it has no legal right whatsoever, and has been established against the will of the Palestinian people, through US-sponsored military force, and by brutal methods including state terrorism, assassination, torture, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the ghettoization of Palestinian "refugees" (ie, the people whose land and property has been taken over by Israel), the erection of barriers to fragment Palestinian communities, intimidation, discrimination and various other forms of oppression.

217.216.24.116 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that when it comes to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or China (with much worse human rights violations), such self-righteous condemnations fizzle. As any other country, Israel made fair share of mistakes but it is not an "outlaw state".

"indigenous population": Jews lived in the Land of Israel for 3,000 years. OTOH, the UNRWA had a good reason to define a Palestinian refugee as someone "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict" [1]. Had the Arab leaders accepted the 1937 Peel Commission, a Palestinian state would be 69 years old today. None of partition plans was good for them. If you repeatedly reject peace and chose war, don't blame Jews.

The rest of above is not worthy a response. See WP:SOAPBOX. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is funny when it comes to Israel such self-righteous condemnations fizzle, as any other country; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China have made their fair of mistakes. 1st point, no one here is defending the attrocites of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc or trying to pass them off as minor mistakes. 2nd point, it is extremely offensive to class the consistent mass brutality and killings of the Palestinians (which include actions such as harderned snipers shooting at small children as a result of direct orders from above) as mistakes! As for Jewish people living in Palestine for three thousands years, this is true, but only some Jewish people, there is no objection to them living and working in Palestine and in fact they themselves would be Palestinians. However, to use this as an excuse to say all Jewsih people from all around then have a natural right to Palestinians soil is absurd. Also the Peel commision suggested that the Palestinians give up land that was always theirs to create a state soverign only to Jewish individuals. Any people would have rejected this, imagine if Italians/Romans moved into Israel and then tried to annex a part of it to create their own country, would Israeli's be so willing to accept this. The rejection of the Peel commission and other unfair partition plans does not mean that Palestinians are rejecting peace but are refusing to surrender their homeland. My last point, do not turn this into a cheap debate by quoting slogans such as 'don't blame Jews', many Jewish people do not support Israel and you are the one who brought 'Jews' into this discussion. Zcaky06 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gematria

User:66.69.219.9 inserted this:

The Gematria (Hebrew numerology) of the word Israel equals One or Unity, numerically "1", represented in ancient Hebrew as an Aleph"

I'm not sure this is either relevant or correct. The letters do add up to 541, which can be re-summed to 1, but so what? (Of course, one can ask "so what" about Gematria in general...) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

i've removed it. seems like complete non-sense to me. Why not to insert gematria clause to each and every article, somehow related to jews or judaism, or israel? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• It might not be nonsense if it actually had some context. But here's what the anon has now: Additional underlying meaning of "Israel" can be derived via Gematria, ancient Hebrew numerology, which was used in the development of words in Hebrew. The Gematria of the word Israel equals One or Unity, numerically "1", represented in ancient Hebrew as an Aleph, or " א ". The idea that Gematra was used in the development of words is (to put it mildly) highly questionable, if not utterly hooey; what "meaning" can be derived from this particular artificial rendition is also highly questionable, since using the keep-adding-the-numbers-up method means one out of every nine Hebrew words will likely add up to one. I'd be more interested in some other 541 words -- they'd perhaps give some interesting insight. But even so, the relevance of the section is not clear to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Calm down...I'm using historical truths, not opinion, so please refrain from derogatory remarks. Gematria was absolutely used by the ancient Hebrews in the development of theological terms. If it helps, the concept of Unity is probably most meaningful when juxtaposed to modern scientific concepts such as Bell's Theorem, which points toward an underlying Unity in all things. In any case, the Gematria of Israel does have meaning in the context of its original derivation...which is certainly encyclopedic. --66.69.219.9 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm quite calm; I'm just unconvinced. It might help if you'd provide verifiable reliable sources for your relating the gematria of Israel to (say) Bell's Theorem; the concept is interesting, and I imagine it should be easy to find support for your thesis. Also, if you're going to assert that Gematria was used to develop the word Israel, you'll really need to back it up with those same reliable sources. Further, there's nothing whatsoever special about a word summing to any particular value by repeated addition, as I've already said. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Glad to hear that you're calm. Me too. Isn't it a great state of mind? Let's leave this up to others here as to whether or not Gematria is relevant to ancient Hebrew. It'd be helpful if other experts on the topic could weigh in. If the majority of others don't see the value in this, let's go ahead and wallow in ignorance and delete it from the article. Either way is fine with me, but let's leave it up to a good number of others, not one or two people who may be unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew. Agreed...? --66.69.219.9 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree regarding relevance; however, what about sources? I have the idea that numerological analyses constitute taking data and reaching conclusions; that's research; thus, the conclusions we reach have to be supported by external sources. I could put the exact same sentence (the one with "underlying meaning" into every single article about a Hebrew word, substituting the numbers one through nine and the letters aleph through tet as appropriate; that's just how it works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • As an aside, you're assuming a base 10 context. In any case, I see that a teenager in Houston has reverted to Tasc without bothering to discuss the matter. Perhaps he-she's an ancient Hebrew expert? :-) I've offered as much of my time on this for now as I intend to. Blessings, good health and best of fortune to you and others here. --66.69.219.9 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I value your comments and apologize for not providing sufficent context in the original edit. I've improved my too-brief remarks on the Gematria of Israel with a note of explanation. This explanation was clearly needed for those unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew -- which the word "Israel" certainly is. Names are about meaning, not merely linguistics. Thank you for helping to improve this section.--66.69.219.9 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

UN Violations

It seems a glaring omission that no reference is made to the abundant UN Resolutions (mostly Chapter 7) to which Israel is in violation. (especially if we are considering adding Gematria info first) During 1967-2000 Israel was the subject of 138 resolutions, while Iraq only 69. Iraq was invaded for the safety of the world, and yet Israel is barely ever mentioned in this light in Western Media outlets. Disparities can be explained by anti-jewish bias, or attempts to antagonize the United States into using its veto powers to protect is ally. This is all very notable information on the country and its international ties/world relation. I would be happy to start a stub on it. Please share feedback on how we can address this in a NPOV manner. Sarastro777 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

please, provide examples of what you gonna write here. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

and we're not going to add gematria in the article. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well.. I'm open about what to write. I would propose giving a number count of resolutions between a particular date, depending on what we can verify. I found a source for 1967-2000. Probably differentiate between binding resolutions and non-binding and how many were from each category. How many are still held to be in violation. Probably give the Iraq statistic for context (most people wouldn't know how many resolutions an average country may be in violation of). I would imagine there might be some mitigating factors which should be mentioned. I speculated on some that came up right off the bat. I just don't know what all would be appropriate while still maintaining NPOV (i.e. not becoming apologist). Sarastro777 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

any reasons why to compare with Iraq? Are you ready to provide the same information for all other countries? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, Iraq was considered worldwide as a major violator with that statistic specifically given as a basis. Certainly we COULD list figures on other countries .. but a list of every country would just be silly. For one thing, most countries are not in violation, or if they are .. a very small number. It would not give perspective to the figures as the figure on Iraq does. Maybe list say Switzerland, the United Kingdom, China, Syria, Iraq, and Israel? That gives a pretty wide variety. Sarastro777 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See Israel and the United Nations. The UN itself acknowledged that wide and deep reforms are necessary. The UNHRC was so bad it was recently disbanded. The UN cannot be considered neutral towards Israel, and the number of UN resolutions you mention is a good example of begging the question. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The UN cannot be considered neutral towards Israel

Oh come on, the UN represent the people of the entire world, still they are not neutral? The only reliable source for information about Israël is the Israëli government itself? Quit the self-pity and eternal victim role. --62.251.90.73 11:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The points you bring up would be what I consider "mitigating factors" that should also be mentioned to insure the information is being presented neutrally. Is anyone disagreeing the violations are in and of themselves abundant enough to qualify as notable information? If not, then we can begin writing and add the mitigating factors. I would also suggest that Israel is frequently the victim of Anti-Semitism in the UN (no sources yet) and is only saved by its ally the U.S. in vetoes. Sarastro777 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq invaded Kuweit and had, on numerous occasions, fired scud missiles into Israel (who was not involved in the Gulf War) during the Gulf War. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. He subjected his own people and ethnic minorities to torture and took away almost all basic human rights from them. Do not try and make the claim that because Israel annexed territories after being forced into an engagement with the Arab-League puts them in the same boat as Saddam because it does not. Israel is in violation of a UN that is in violation of itself. The UN charter forces it to intervene in the case of a military engagement where a nation's territorial sovereignty is under attack. Why then did the UN not defend Israel when 4 Arab armies (supported by several other Arab nations not bordering Israel) massed on it's borders. The UN was not there for Israel in it's hour of need therefore Israel has no responsibility to respond to it's Arab-biased resolutions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.181.250 (talk • contribs)

It would be more helpful if you were to point to mainstream sources in order to help reference the article and remove doubts about bias than to expound upon events as you understand them. Thanks. Jkelly 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV sections

In the sections that I marked there a several POVish statements that need to be cleaned up.--Konstable 09:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

such as? --TheYmode 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• During the Gulf War, Israel was hit by a number of Iraqi missiles, which were intended to coerce Israel into declaring war - speculation of intentions.
• as Israelis increasingly came to believe - did you have a referendum of all the Israelis?
• Israeli historians speculate - see WP:WEASEL
• Israelis... discredited the peace movement
• Despite his formerly hawkish standpoint...
• a high number of apparently unaffiliated civilian bystanders see WP:WEASEL

Probably missing some still.--Konstable 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article has been removed from the GA list due to NPOV statements as said in the following which is on the GA disputes page. Tarret 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a "good article" ??? It has a total Zionist bias, only Jewish interests are promoted. Non-Jewish interests are relegated to another article (Palestine) in violation of WP policy. But Jewish interests seem to take precedence over WP policies. Is Jimbo Jewish?24.64.165.176 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) move to top of list as per instructions Gnangarra 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep listed I could not find any of your concerns on the article's talk page, perhaps they should be brought up there first. The chances are that this would be discussed between more knowledgable people there than people who review Good Articles. Perhaps there is reason to delist it due to the high number of reverts it gets per day (see its History), but it seems to me that these are not due to any serious disputes, rather minor POV comments by careless individuals. I have compared the 1st June version with 12th June version (here) and it seems stable enough to me.--Konstable 08:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See below.--Konstable 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Bias in the article, definately I easily found 6 NPOV statements within the history subsection on 2000 alone. example apparently unafiliated civillians where civillians is sufficient. The use of weasel words critics claim. A history section of this size should be summarised and a main article created. The Economics and Military sections don't contain any inline citations. Comment I dont agree with the claims of violations of WP policy, inregards to Palestine, the article is about Israel. I also dont agree to the assertians of Jewish interest over WP policies. Initially i was going to dismiss this out of hand and vote to keep but after reading the article I wouldn't pass it for GA in its current form Gnangarra 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "the article is about Israel" The Israel article is about Jews in a certain geographical area. The Palestine article is about non-Jews in the same area. If WP is to be consistent, shouldn't we we also split the USA article into separate articles about white, black and native Americans? (Of course this would be blatant racist propaganda)24.64.165.176 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You bring up valid points Gnangarra. But these NPOV violations seem rather minor and can be fixed easily rather than deleting the whole article. I could not see any violations that I would consider major enough to get it delisted - they are not a result of a dispute, they are more of some minor weaseling. As for inline citations, the Good Article Criteria specifically state that they are not a requirement for a Good Article, and they do have a large reference section at the bottom.--Konstable 08:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Another thought: I didn't look closely enough at the History section - the whole thing is an POVish mess. This is indeed too much to be fixed quickly. I second Gnagarra.--Konstable 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's Bible stories and Zionist screed. No real references. But good luck trying to fix it - you will see what I mean if you try. 24.64.165.176 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed - NPOV can and should be fixed without delisting. Unfortunately, I find many of the comments above either politically driven, ignorant or irrelevant. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed - per humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed per hummus. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed per hummus. -- --8.2.208.4 15:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed per hummus. Zeq 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lister per Humus. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep listed per Humus. -- 6SJ7 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - We should fix NPOV before listing it as a good article. Nobody should start selling their apples before they are grown. Ariedartin 09:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - these are serious NPOV problems and while they exist it does not satisfy GA requirements, also any comments of ignorance or being politically driven can equally apply to both sides --Zcaky06 12:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - This article does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. It borders on Zionist propaganda and automatically equates Isreal with Judaism. Not all Isreali Jews are Zionist.

This article needs neutrality. --Oiboy77 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think there is some mis-interpretation here as to what has happened. It has already been delisted as a GA, on the 12th of June when Tarret started this talk section. The discussion is pretty much over and was copied here from original palce at WP:GA/D by Tarret as an explanation of why the article got delisted. So if you want to get the article re-listed as a GA you need to fix up the NPOV issues (for instance the ones I listed in the section immediately above this one), and once they are fixed you can renominate the article on WP:GA/N.

As to Humus's comments. The original complaint by 24.64.165.176 is why it appeared on the delisting page, but it is not why it got delisted. Other problems were found in the article. As to fixing them up rather than delisting them - I have posted a list of just some of the NPOV statements in a section above. That was 6 days ago and not a single one of them has been addressed! So you have demonstrated that they cannot be fixed quickly.--Konstable 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's you who thinks that those are the problem. imo, your comments shows that you sought for own action justification, rather than articles' mistakes. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Instead of explaining why you disagree some comments I made to help imrpove your article back to GA, or maybe to FA stage, you go down to the very low level of ad hominems. I won't be here to respond to any futher concerns, I have no personal interest in this article.--Konstable 11:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

scripture4all link

I just got a note on my Talk page about my removal of a link to scripture4all.org. I looked at the website. It doesn't seem to me to be offering anything encyclopedic that we don't offer at either he:בראשית or at the Hebrew Wikisource Genesis page. If it is for some reason important to link to a searchable Hebrew text for Genesis from this article, there is really no reason not to link to our own resources. Jkelly 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that the link was replaced, so I have instead created a proper web reference to he Wikisource. Jkelly 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL -- The link you insist on deleting *is* the cited source document -- a free, original language (Hebrew) version of the Bible with accompanying interlinear translation -- as has been stated several times! But in all seriousness, tell me how could this be made more clear, as you and others clearly are struggling with it? Are you asking for a concordant reference to "Ishr" being translated as "upright"...? I truly don't understand why you are at such a loss for this source doc, as the Wikisource Genesis doc does *not* have an interlinear translation tool. --8.2.208.4 19:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- who are we quoting here? Who is doing the translating? How does this "clearly illustrate" the argument you want the article to make? If we're quoting the Hebrew text, we should cite it. If we are quoting a translation, we should cite the translator. Why use some random website for that? If we are going to argue that the translation means something important, we need to cite an expert who makes that assertion. Jkelly 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The "no original research" wiki-rule is designed to stop mad scientists and such from their unsupported theories...it is certainly not designed to stop the truth, and especially not to stop literal, direct translations. I HAVE cited a source, and you chose to delete it. So YOU go find the source doc/reference...I've already done so. --8.2.208.4 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a single thing in http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen32.pdf that backs the statement This first reference to the word Israel clearly implies that one literal translation of "Israel" is "Upright (with) God" (Ishr-al). Am I missing something? Where does it say it's a literal translation, as opposed to one of Biblical metaphors and outright puns on names? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've substantiated the wisdom in the statement that if one doesn't believe something is there, they can't see it. If you'd done better research, and actually used the free interlinear tool that I've referenced no less than 5 times now for the purpose of sourcing the definition of Israel -- per the original edit -- you'd have found that there are in fact no less than *30* references to the word "Ishr" (Hebrew letters: "Yod-Shin-Resh") as conveying the meaning "upright" in the Hebrew Bible. The first reference is in 1 Samuel 29:6, and the last of the 30 references is in Micah 7:4. All of this could have been avoided if you'd TRUSTED my original edit, i.e. adhered to Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. But download the full, free, interlinear scripture analyzer (ISA) at [2] to see that the above is true. --8.2.208.4 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if it's so obvious, please provide a verifiable reliable source describing the clear implication; I've no particular use for a reference that's a program that only runs on a computer I don't use. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wish...and so that the word may be fulfilled: see any Biblical Hebrew-English dictionary for the translation of the Hebrew word יִשְׂר --8.2.208.4 12:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

POV to be fixed

I've tagged a number of POV-issue statements and conclusions in 1990s and 2000s of the History section. I hope you guys can clear it up quickly if we want Israel's GA listing as soon as possible. We're not here to speculate, we're here to give solid evidence and neutral information, not biased ideas. Ariedartin 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, I would like you to justify your reverts to my edits. Your argument that references can be found in relevant articles is poor. We are meant to bring the evidence to the readers, not make them find it themselves. If we follow your idea, won't it possible for people to create articles with false information, and thus in turn confusing readers? And don't say "it's their problem if the readers don't read the main article themselves." Ariedartin 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

those section were expanded/created by some ip recently. I don't see how they are usefull at all. So in my opinion we could easily delete those section, if it's no possible to write an overview. No! if we follow my idea it will be possible to talk about topic where it's nessecary and we will not have to try to squize complicated subject in 2 lines of text. btw, revert yourself. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but even an overview cannot be biased. The most I can do is to trim down to the bare facts without any of the conclusions, want that? I can't revert to yours, however. Sorry. This is a POV issue people keep bringing up and we need to correct before this regain GA status. Ariedartin 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What is a pov? to say that israeli public come to belive in inefficiency of oslo agreement? what is namely pov? people do not keep bringing an issues. just some ip screamin all over the place with no or little reasons. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

POV is Point Of View. Firstly, Wikipedia is an neutral domain. We're not here to speculate, we're here to present facts. If you say that the Israeli public believe in so-and-so, you must post a reference link, otherwise it's just as good as fabricating the evidence. This guideline is to ensure that the three content policies are fulfilled: Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research. Currently, the last does not apply to the problems of this article, but the first two definitely do. Ariedartin 11:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a main article completely devoted to the subject. So, verifability of those statements is not in question. Problem is in overloading overview article with details!!! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if the verifiability of the main article is in question or not, the fact that its section is in question, and that has to be changed. Mind you, if a parent is virtuous to every extent, but the child is a hooligan, does that mean that there is nothing wrong with the child? Overloading the article with details is not a problem. It is infinitely better to have a slightly longer verified section, than a unverified short section. Ariedartin 11:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Section is not in question! neither it's verifability. Mind you, it's an overview article! and it's already well over preferable article size. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you, however, it is in question. And also, it's better to have a long article size but fully verified (if you want proof, check Roman Catholic Church, United States or Singapore). More about why it is in question? It violates two of the three policies of Wikipedia: Verifiability and Neutral point of view. Just look at the following statements (these are only a few examples):

From 1990s

• This was a plan of Saddam Hussein's to attempt to cause extreme political instability in the US led Coalition
• Public support slipped even further as Israelis increasingly came to believe that the agreement had been signed by Arafat in bad faith, following his and other top PLO officials' praise of Hamas' actions and other inflammatory statements, as well as their failure to rein in the militants.

From 2000s

• Israeli historians speculate that this apparent easy victory convinced Palestinians that a similar effort would succeed in destroying the Jewish state entirely.
• The failure of the talks and the outbreak of a new war caused many Israelis on both the right and left to turn away from Barak and also discredited the peace movement.

Ariedartin 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what exactly biased in these sentences? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate, it's not just biased, it's also a verifiability problem. The first statement is unverified - how are you sure that this action such a plan of Saddam's? The second is also unverified - how do you know that the Israelis believed that "the agreement had been signed by Arafat in bad faith"? how do you know that such an opinion would result in public support slipping even further? The third has weasel words, and is also unverif