Talk:Israel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Israel's form of government: a parliamentary democracy

As was agreed months ago, and re-confirmed last October, Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy. See these many different links confirming this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] etc. There are hundreds more. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My counter-links can be found in the previous discussion and also some on my user page under the heading "Democracy." But since we have reached a deadlock on that issue lets consider the issue from another perspective. Our dispute is whether "It is a parliamentary democracy" is better than the text "It has a parliamentary system." We both agree that Israel has a parliamentary system, we do not agree that it is a democracy. Second, consider all the other nation pages which does not have the word "democracy" in their intro paragraph, even if their democraticness is not disputed by anyone. Third, whether the text is "parliamentary democracy" or "parliamentary system" it will still link to Parliamentary system, because there is no article titled Parliamentary democracy, I think for a reason. Palestine-info 22:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of your counter-links stated that Israel was not a "democracy", the previous "impasse" consisted of everyone else disagreeing with you, and it doesn't matter what you or I think anyway. Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, and there are dozens of rather official links stating that. I'll fix the links, thanks for pointing that out. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: "Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy" <- Stop and think please. You are an admin here, on your user page you state that you fight POV-warriors etc, but you make the same mistake as they do! Please answer this question as truthfully as you can:

Do every organisation/person in the whole world agree that "Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy"?

WHY do the article have to state that "Israel is a Parliamentary democracy"? WHY isn't it enough to state that "Israel has a Parliamentary system" when that is the undisputed fact? Palestine-info 23:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because its form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, as the many links I've provided have shown. Just click on some of them; the quality is quite high. As for the phrase, I didn't invent it, it was arrived at after a long period of negotiation which I wasn't even involved in. Why do you feel the need to ignore that consensus and push your own POV that Israel is not a democracy on this article? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you forgetting that Wikipedia's role isn't to state the eternal truth? Please also answer the bolded question I asked you, I think it is very important for our discussion. Palestine-info 23:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, and that is well cited here. That's all Wikipedia requires. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know you think that. :) But PLEASE answer my question. Palestine-info 23:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's the view of many reliable sources, as cited above. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you recognise that there are many important organisations and people around the world who do not consider Israel to be a Parliamentary democracy. As in: Jayjg believes that there are many important organisations and people around the world that do not consider Israel to be a Parliamentary democracy.... Now that you have admitted that, why do you want to insert a blanket statement which do not take these peoples views in account? Palestine-info 23:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy is a technical definition of a form of government. Please review the links. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want to discuss and only reiterate "Israeli is a Parliamentary democracy," how can we ever come to an agreement? Palestine-info 00:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could Palestine-info please say which countries or organizations believe Israel is not a parliamentary democracy and provide links here, rather than just referring to the discussion above? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 00:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Palestine-info 11:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Check your facts. The four sources you have referenced do not meet the criteria of good authoritative sources. They are at best, dubious sources and at worst, original research. --Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that I have provided many sources stating that Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, whereas you have only provided your own opinion that it is not. What else is there to say? Jayjg | (Talk) 02:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I have not provided my opinion, but I have provided the opinion of a number of persons and organisations which should be evident if you take the time to look at the links. Palestine-info 11:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was true when Jayjg wrote his comment at 02:49, on 18 Jan 2005. According to the history, you posted the links and stuck them above his comment more than eight hours later. --Viriditas | Talk 11:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Viriditas: The sources show that many people and organisations in the world do not consider Israel to be a Parliamentary Democracy. Neither you nor Jayjg has been able to disprove that fact that I have backed up by using multiple sources. Palestine-info 11:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The four "sources" you posted are not reputable and reliable citations. Also, your argument is an appeal to the majority. --Viriditas | Talk 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, quoting a Holocaust Denial site and letters to the editor of the Guardian on Israel? You really think these sources are reputable? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you say is not correct, Palestine-info. The first source you gave, the Israeli Democracy Institute, says that Israel is a formal democracy, but criticizes it merely for not being democratic enough, which could be said (and has been said) of all democracies. Part of what it is to live in a democracy is that a country's research institutions will say that about their own system. Your other sources are all unauthoritative. Your Guardian source is the Letters page. Please read Wikipedia:No original research along with the pages Viriditas recommended. SlimVirgin 12:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli Democracy Institute says: "Israeli democracy has yet to attain the essential characteristics of a democracy." This source, [14], which is written by a teacher at the Ben-Gurion University says that " De-facto, then, Israel is not a democracy. One-third of the demos does not enjoy a series of basic rights which make up the pillars of liberal democracies." I can find many more sources that dispute the claim that "Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy," but will you listen? Is it because I havent provided enough, or good enough sources yet or what? And I ask you, SlimVirgin, the exact same question I asked Jayjg (which he refused to answer):

Do every organisation/person in the whole world agree that "Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy"?

Palestine-info 12:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole quote from the Israeli Democracy Index is this: "Israeli democracy, as reflected by comparative quantitative indicators, is primarily a formal democracy that features a democratic institutional system, entrusted with the functioning of the regime and performing state democratic functions. From this perspective, IsraelÍs status is relatively good compared with other democracies, especially its high level of representativeness and the high score it receives regarding the restrictions placed on the executive branch of government. On the other hand, it appears that Israeli democracy has yet to attain the essential characteristics of a democracy and to inculcate its values, perceptions and democratic culture. The situation with regard to human rights is very troubling. The most prominent weak points of Israeli democracy are instability, which is reflected in frequent regime changes; the short life span of its government; and the great tension which results from rifts along nationalist and religious lines," (my emphasis).

The second (dissident voice) source you quote contends that "de facto . . . Israel is not a democracy," which implies that de jure it is. You are welcome to use the Israeli Democracy Index as a source for content in the article itself, but you are misreading what they say, and their research does not belong in the intro. As for your question: does every organization/person in the world agree with this? You don't, so no, but the important question is: Does any reputable organization say that Israel is not a parliamentary democracy? SlimVirgin 13:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The flaws with his use of the first source (and his selective quoting) have been pointed out to him before. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I understand the objection correctly, the claim is that because there are those who live within the border of Israel, who are not citizens of Israel (i.e., the Palestinians), and therefore are not allowed to vote, the country is not a democracy. As far as I know, all citizens of Israel, including Arabs, are allowed to vote. Would that not meet most criteria for a country to be considered a domocracy? --StevenSchulman 18:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The argument being made above is that there is a difference in what Israel declares itself to be, and the actual principles it upholds. The Palestinians inside Israel are citizens and do have the right to vote, but they do not have all the rights of Jewish citizens. These include rights like purchase of land (which is restricted to certain small areas), housing (which in rural areas is also restricted), serving in the IDF, and picking a major in universities (some majors are off limits to Palestinians (or at least were last time I checked), such as nuclear physics and the like). While not always official law that Palestinians be discriminated against, many of the rights and privileges of Israeli society are available only to those who complete army service. Since Palestinians who are Israeli citizens are not allowed to serve, it follows that these rights and privileges are not available to them. Whether one is a Jew or non-Jew is noted in the national Israeli ID card (required to be carried by everyone). More importantly, the Palestinians in the occupied territories are not citizens of Israel and have none of the above rights at all, and have a different colored ID card altogether to differentiate them from Israeli citizens. They are subject to arbitrary treatment without recourse to any judiciary appeal (and this is true despite the presence of the Palestinian Authority which has no powers to override the will of the Israeli government or military). These include house demolitions, imprisonment without trial, land confiscation, building of Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (only Israelis who are Jews can live in the settlements), and forceful retaliation to any acts of unrest. So that Israel is an actual democracy is questioned by those who experience measures because they are not Jewish and therefore not as privileged as Jews. Israel's argument is that it needs to maintain a Jewish majority, therefore needing some of these measures in place. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There are some problems with your argument; for example, all Israelis are restricted to purchasing land in small areas, and Israeli Arabs are indeed allowed to serve in the army. In fact, they have extra rights in this area, in that they are not drafted, a privilege many non-Arab Israelis would like to have as well. As for Palestinians in the West Bank etc., they were never citizens of Israel rather are citizens of the P.A. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

About the land, the argument was that there is a very small pool of land available for purchase by Palestinians, whereas a much larger pool available to Jews. The Israel Lands Authority administers this, or the Jewish National Fund, or both - I'm not sure. But most land that is available for purchase in Israel can be purchased by Jews only. As for Palestinians serving in the IDF, I'm not sure that anybody who wants to can, but I don't have documents to back that up (not sure anybody does), only to say that while I have seen some Arab Israeli soldiers at Ben Gurion airport in the past, I am not sure that enlistment is open to any Palestinian who wants to do so. Thirdly, if Palestinians in the occupied territories were "citizens" of "anything" there wouldn't be much of a conflict anymore. The PA is not a government, it is an interim organization that served to begin taking some semblance of control as the final status negotiations took place. As such, it is incapable of granting citizenship, and even I regard myself as an occupied Palestinian, not a Palestinian citizen (or worse, a "Palestinian Authority citizen" which makes as much sense as claiming to be the ambassador of Domino's Pizza). Citizenship means a lot of things, including allegiance, passport, and protection. The PA provides or represents none of these things (and is not allowed to according to the Oslo accords - even a PA passport is officially a "Travel Document" that is invalid if not registered with Israel). I'm going way off topic here, as this is not the right Talk page for this, but my statements above were meant to answer StevenSchulman's query about why Israel is not considered a democracy by many, regardless of if the reasons are valid or not. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If Israel isn't a de facto democracy, wouldn't you agree that without qualifications designating it as a "Parliamentary democracy" is wrong? And I will answer your second question, "Does any reputable organization say that Israel is not a parliamentary democracy" to the best of my knowledge. But first I'd like you to answer if I can find evidence that reputable organisations do not think Israel is a democracy, then will you agree with me that "Israel has a parliamentary system" is a better wording than "Israel is a parliamentary democracy?" Palestine-info 18:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This persons opinion is no more reliable on the subject than your own. As for Israel's government, I have provided many reliable sources stating its form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy. Since there is no-one here who agrees with you, please stop making your arbitrary POV changes. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why every organization and person in the whole world would have to agree that Israel is a Parliamentary democracy in order for that fact to be stated in WP. If the vast majority of reputable organizations consider Israel's form of government to be a parliamentary democracy, that's how it should be listed in WP. Jayjg provided a list of reputable sources, while Palestine-info has only listed sources of dubious accuracy. Unless it can be shown that multiple reputable sources do not consider Israel to be a parliamentary democracy, then I have to side with Jayjg on this matter. Carrp 19:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The World Factbook defines a Parliamentary Democracy as follows:

Parliamentary Democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.

It also states that Israel has this form of government. Do you disagree with this as an accurate description of Israel's form of government? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct, that is Israel's current form of government. Do you dispute that the definition you posted is also the definition for what a parliamentary system is? Here are some links I've compiled to pages with notables (some less than others, but Israel Shahak is no nobody) that clearly states that "Israel is not a democracy" User:Palestine-info/Links to pages that claim that Israel is undemocratic. Mind you, I'm NOT arguing that Israel is not a democracy, I'm arguing that stating in the opening paragraph of the article that Israel IS a democracy is POV. Compare the wording to the one that is given to Bolivia:

"Comparatively democratic civilian rule was established in 1982, but leaders have faced difficult problems of deep-seated poverty, social unrest, and drug production."

Bolivia is ranked the same as Israel on www.freedomhouse.org's democracy ranking list. Let's have the article state all relevant facts about Israel's bevhaviour and then the reader can decide for themself if they think Israel is a democracy or not. Palestine-info 20:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, then what is the debate about? That people criticize Israel's democracy, or claim it is un-democratic? Yes, people do. That doesn't change Israel's form of government. As for Freedom House and Israel vs. Bolovia, Freedom House ranks Israel as a "Free" country, and ranks it 1 out of 7 (the top mark) in terms of Political Rights; [15] that's pretty democratic. Bolivia, in comparison, only gets a 3 out of 7. By the way, the top mark I could find for any Arab country was 5 out of 7, for Jordan and Morocco. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because "has a parliamentary system" cannot be misinterpreted to mean "Israel is a democratic state." "parliamentary democracy" CAN be misinterpreted to mean "Israel is a democratic state." We don't want that to happen because Israel isn't a democratic state to many people (a few million Palestinians for example), but we DO want to inform people about the parliamentary aspect of Israel. Do we have an agreement? Palestine-info 21:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I must note that the offered alernative "parliamentary system" is something entirely different. Many dictatorships and failed states are officially "parliamentary systems". Perhaps it would be useful to analyze the characteristics of a democracy to see the difference: separation of legislative, executivce and juridial branches, checks and balances, freedoms, etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the alternative is very similar. Look at the article parliamentary system, it is same thing as "parliamentary democracy" if you are to trust The World Factbook. Palestine-info 22:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, of course we have no agreement. I'm sure every democracy has been accused at one time or another of being un-democratic. However, that doesn't really impact on whether or not they are democratic; more importantly, it's irrelevant to whether or not their form of government is a parliamentary democracy, which Israel's is, and which the article states. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Israel's form of government is a parliamentary system. But enough important people claim that Israel is not a democracy, that stating that it is, is POV. Palestine-info 22:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is the second time you have made an appeal to majority. The POV is your own. --Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Important people"? How do you judge that? I hope you're going to use better sources than Holocaust Denial sites and letters to the Editor of the Guardian newspaper, as you have in the past. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming here from the Requests for Comment page, and I see a lot of great information in this discussion. How 'bout adding another section near the top of the Israel article, discussing the issues with what exactly to call Israel's government, representing both opinions here in detail, with links to external sites which support either term? In other words - rather than debating this on the Talk page, put all the information into the article itself and let the reader decide for himself? - Brian Kendig 16:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the debate isn't so much about Israel's form of government, as it is about whether or not it is a democracy. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for a debate about that, there are undoubtedly people who claim that every democratic country is not a democracy. For example, the eminent historian Paul Johnson claims that France is not a democracy here: [16]. Should we have a section in each country article listing the people who claim the country is not a democracy? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about Israel right now, not France. Rather than saying "Israel is a democracy" or "Israel is not a democracy," why not say "Here are reasons why Israel is called a democracy, and here are reasons why it is not called a democracy"? Represent both views fairly in the article. Otherwise I'm not sure how y'all are going to come to a consensus. - Brian Kendig 17:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "Israeli is a democracy", it says something quite different. The question is why we would want to introduce a debate about whether or not Israel is a democracy into the article; we don't appear to do so for any other countries. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Palestine info (and perhaps Brian too), you're mixing up democracy as a fact (a definition) and as a value (an ideal; something to strive toward). A parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government, and its leader becomes prime minister or chancellor. Executive functions are exercised by members of the parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet. The parties in the minority serve in opposition and have the duty of challenging the government. As a matter of fact, Israel fits this definition; therefore, Israel IS a parliamentary democracy, in the same tautological way that 2 plus 2 equals 4. On the other hand, democracy as a value is concerned with the extent to which all citizens have a real voice in the way their country is run, and that's a complex issue. All parliamentary democracies are criticized for not being democratic enough; they wouldn't be healthy democracies if such criticism didn't take place. That's not an appropriate discussion for the intro, and if you want to discuss it later on in the article, you'll need good sources (probably academic sources or at least very good newspaper articles) because it's complicated. SlimVirgin 17:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The statement is certainly controversial and would need to be qualified, but the intro is not the place for that. And considering that we don't generally mention in the intro that a country is a democracy, we don't have to do it here either. The matter can be explained in full in the politics section. There are many who consider that Israel is only as much a democracy as Apartheid South Africa was. Obviously millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule cannot vote in Israeli elections. Gzornenplatz 18:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Again, the statement here is that Israel's form of government is a Parliamentary Democracy, not that Israel is a democracy. As for Palestinians not having a vote, the fact that Afghans and Iraqis cannot vote in American elections does not mean the United States is not a democracy. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "parliamentary democracy" a form of "democracy"? Do you think it is something entirely different? If you want to refer to the mere technical existence of a parliament and elections, then indeed the term "parliamentary system" might be better for that. The word "democracy" suggests that the people who are subject to a government have a say in choosing that government. As for the United States, the same would apply if it were occupying Iraq for 38 years without even having a target date for withdrawal. Gzornenplatz 20:32, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy implies that citizens have a say in choosing the government. Palestinians are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, not Israel, and they vote in Palestinian Authority elections (and just this month elected a new President). Palestinians do not vote in Israeli elections, and Israelis do not vote in Palestinian elections. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority is not a state, and cannot act independently of Israel. Having a say in choosing a powerless government does not mean anything. It is precisely what South Africa did, creating "independent" homelands, then declaring all blacks citizens of those homelands. By your logic it was all democratic - the citizens of South Africa proper could all vote in South Africa, the citizens of the homelands could vote in the homelands. Gzornenplatz 20:51, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is false. The Palestinian Authority fought very hard to create itself, against the efforts of Israel. It acts independently of Israel in many areas, and many countries recognize it as a state. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is perfectly apt. You know very well that Israel is in full control over the territories. Obviously it can put the very head of the PA under house arrest if it wants, as it has done. In the same way South Africa intervened at will in the "independent" homelands. Gzornenplatz 21:20, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

If Israel were in full control of the territories, why does it always have such difficulty going in when it wants? One can always claim an analogy is apt if one ignores all of the significant differences between the two objects being compared, and focusses on the small number of vague similarities. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What difficulty? People throwing stones at tanks? Was Israel ever prevented from bulldozing any Palestinian house it wanted to bulldoze? Gzornenplatz 23:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

You must be thinking of some other conflict. Israel has difficulty entering the territories because of heavily armed militias which oppose it, causing fierce battles and often significant loss of life for combatants on both sides. Jayjg | (Talk)

To Gzornenplatz: One of the many differences between the situation in South Africa and that in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is that these territories were never an integral part of Israel, and their Arab residents were never Israeli citizens. In fact, some go as far as saying that these are "occupied territories" (which was certainly not case for the Bantustans). Going by your logic, the United States isn't a democracy either, because the people of Iraq were not allowed to vote in the latest US presidential elections (in spite of Iraq being under full American control). You must be joking. -- uriber 22:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes that the territories were never an integral part of Israel; the end result is the same. And the U.S. would certainly not be a democracy if it were to occupy Iraq permanently. Gzornenplatz 23:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways; either the territories are occupied, and the citizenship of the inhabitants there is irrelevant to whether Israel is a democracy, or the territories are legitimately part of Israel, in which case you have an argument that the inhabitants have been disenfranchised. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The territories are de facto ruled by Israel, legitimately or not. It's Israel which wants to have it both ways: control the territory and still not enfranchise the population. It should choose whether there should be one or two states: if there's one state, the people should have the vote in that state; if there are two, Israel should get out of the other state. Gzornenplatz 11:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Again, by definition, if the territories are "occupied", then the citizenship of the inhabitants there is irrelevant to whether or not Israel is a democracy. And since the P.A. exists as a separate citizenship granting government for the territories, your argument falls flat. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So by Jayjg:s logic then, the Palestinian Authority is a democracy? Or maybe a "Parliamentary Democracy"? The answer is no, it is not a democracy. But I'm glad that we have finally agreed that stating that Israel is a democracy in the intro is POV. The wording "parliamentary democracy" is misleading and ambigious, because to many it implies "democracy" AND "parliamentary system." Here i.e.: [17] Palestine-info 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop creating strawman arguments for me and pretending agreement where there is none; you are not using the Talk: pages in good faith when you do this. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is true of every democracy that only citizens vote. The word demos means "the people" but in the sense of the "electorate", not all people. The first democracy, from which all our democratic ideals spring from, Athens, did not allow slaves or metics to vote, and they made up the bulk of the population, yet no one says Athens wasn't a democracy. The Palestinians wanted their autonomy, and now they have it, albeit in a limited way, but that will gradually change. The Iraqi people are currently subject to American rule, despite claims to the contrary. Should they be allowed to vote in American elections? You're mixing up argument with fact here. This is just another excuse to attack Israel. Why not go to some other page - go to the UK, for example - and insist on inserting there that Britain is not a democracy because it locks asylum seekers up and not only won't give them the vote; won't give them their freedom. Do that first, then come back here and I'll feel happier talking to you about Israeli democracy. SlimVirgin 21:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I already addressed that. The U.S. occupation of Iraq will likely be temporary; Israel's occupation of Palestine lasts 38 years already and is still open-ended. Israel wants to permanently control the territory without enfranchising the population. That's why it does not simply annex the territory; it would be in a dilemma then, giving the Palestinians the vote would mean that the Jews lose their dominance; not giving them the vote would totally deprive them of any claim to being a democracy. So Israel just keeps the area in a permanently indeterminate state - as an occupied, but not officially incorporated territory - that's precisely the status quo Israel wants, it is not interested in any other solution. Israel is primarily a self-defined "Jewish state" - that principle clearly takes precedence over democracy. As to Britain, I have no idea why you think asylum seekers should have voting rights, or what the comparison here is to Palestine. We're talking about the rights of people in their actual place of birth to take part in choosing the government that rules over them. Gzornenplatz 23:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

An important part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is that disputes should be characterized, not re-enacted. Maybe there is a place in the article for your point, so long as you can find reputable sources, but there's no point in discussing it on the Talk page because you're turning it into a general attack on the country, whose right to exist you seem not even to recognize. SlimVirgin 23:21, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Where did I say I don't recognize Israel's right to exist? It does indeed not matter what my personal political views here are - I was just characterizing existing objections. Discussions like this take place thousandfold every day, therefore we cannot just present either side's view as fact in the article. Israel being unqualifiedly a democracy is definitely a POV, just as it not being a democracy is POV. So we should just say neither in the intro, and put all relevant facts and arguments in the politics section. Gzornenplatz 11:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the issue is regarding Israel's form of government, which is a Parliamentary Democracy, not whether or not people believe Israel is a true democracy, or a great democracy, or a flawed democracy. Secondly, as I've said before, you can always find people insisting that a country is not a democracy; see my example for France above. Finally, if one wanted to start a separate section debating whether or not Israel was a democracy, one would have to first see if this was a Wikipedia standard for other country articles (since for every democracy you can find someone who will claim it is not a democracy), and take your cue from that. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm using the talk page in good faith. I've written dozens of paragraphs on this page and cited countless number of links trying to convince you. I have not reverted Israel for a long time now because I'm trying to achieve a consensus first. To see if you have a consensus you have to check with the involved people what they think. So far, we seem to have come to the following consensus "Writing without qualifications, in the opening paragraph of Israel, that Israel is a democracy is POV." (see also: User:Palestine-info/Links to pages that claim that Israel is undemocratic) Palestine-info 00:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're projecting a consensus that isn't there. I just read through this entire section and I see no such agreement that "Writing without qualifications, in the opening paragraph of Israel, that Israel is a democracy is POV." I also see no reputable sources backing up your claim that Israel isn't a democracy. You're also not saying anything new that couldn't be said about any country called a democracy. Why hold Israel to special rules not applied universally? ----MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 01:01, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

As MPerel points out, you keep claiming a consensus that simply doesn't exist, and never has. That is bad faith. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MPerel, you might be new to the discussion. To enlighten you: The question is if the second paragraph of this article should read "Israel is a parliamentary democracy ..." or "Israel has a parliamentary system ..." *I* am not making the claim that Israel is not a democracy, but others have. Therefore, I think the wording "parliamentary democracy" is quelling their voice. About the sources, Israel Shahak is no nobody and many of the other sources are also atleast fairly reputable. And no, we shouldn't give special treatment to Israel. It is just that most Wikipedia articles about states i.e: United States that could be called democracies do not contain the assertion "state XXX is a democracy" in the intro paragraph. Therefore why does that have to be mentioned in the Israel article? Palestine-info 01:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If *you* are not making the claim that Israel is not a democracy, what is your objection to having the wording as it is? let those who are making that claim back it up. WRT Shahak, why should the opinion of this documented liar count for anything? WRT other Wikipedia article, many do call the refer to the countires they describe either as a "democracy" - e.g France, or by its sytsem of government e.g Austria, Slovakia, Poland etc...

Hi Palestine-info, I don't think it's unreasonable to place the form of government in the intro paragraph. Actually the United States article states that it is a representative democracy in the intro; and the Canada article states that it is a constitutional monarchy in the intro. The official Israel government site states that it is a parliamentary democracy [18]. The Wikipedia standard when writing about a particular country is to stick with the spellings and definitions used by the country in question. Also I think someone above mentioned the difference between parliamentary democracy and parliamentary system: the former has separation of powers, while the latter does not necessarily have separation; therefore parliamentary democracy does seem to be a more representative term, do you agree? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 02:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you see that writing "Parliamentary Democracy" can easily be misinterpreted to mean "parliamentary and democracy" just like this page is doing: [19]. Do you think it is a bad or good thing that the phrase can be misinterpreted? Palestine-info 12:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most people do not think that that is a misinterpretation. You are not going to find any agreement on this issue. Please go and find something constructive to do. – Smyth\^talk 14:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also notice that Parliamentary system and Parliamentary democracy are the same article. :) – Smyth\^talk 14:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fact is, the phrase can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Parliamentary system is a much more exact phrase. And Parliamentary democracy is a redirect to Parliamentary system which is an article that doesn't mention "Parliamentary democracy." Palestine-info 20:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy is the exact phrase, which is why all the sources I have provided use it. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Democracy?: " The Knesset is the house of representatives (the parliament) of the State of Israel, in which the full range of current opinions are represented. Nevertheless, parties that reject the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People, its democratic nature, or that incite racism may not participate in the elections." [20] Palestine-info 21:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were not making the claim that Israel is not a democracy? what happened in the last 20 hours to make you change your mind? (unsigned comment by User:Isarig)

Yes, Israel has used this law to ban racist Jewish parties like Kach. However, you are using the Talk: pages to debate whether or not Israel is a democracy, which is not the purpose of the Talk: page, or the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not Israel's government is a Parliamentary Democracy or not. I have provided many authoritative links which state it is. Even the sites you have brought, such as Freedom House, say that Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy [21]. There's not much more to be said on the subject. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that Israel has "a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier, or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections," then you are correct. But you are not correct in that "parliamentary democracy" is not the best phrase to use to describe a government of that type, because that phrase is ambigious. There are much better options availible. There's also the option of leaving the definition of Israels government out of the intro text and discuss it in the politics. That option is used when we describe most of the worlds other "democracies" and is how other encyclopaedias describe countries. Palestine-info 22:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion it is not a good phrase; however, many authoritative sources seem to think it is the best, most technically accurate phrase, as do many editors here. And other countries have their form of government described in the intro text as well; see Austria, United States, Canada, France, Slovakia, Poland etc. Some are even described as Parliamentary Democracies; see, for example, Spain. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many other authorative sources seem to think it is not the best, most technically accurate phrase, as do many editors here. Of those you mentioned United States, Canada (which uses a phrasing identical to the one I proposed), Slovakia, Poland and Spain does not label the country to be a democracy in the first paragraph of the article. Canada uses the following wording "governed as a constitutional and parliamentary system," so why can't Israel too? Palestine-info 03:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which are the "Many other authorative sources seem to think it is not the best, most technically accurate phrase", and which are the "many editors here" you refer to? Please be explicit. As for this article, it does not label Israel as a "democracy" in the first paragraph, and Spain specifically states "Parliamentary Democracy". Jayjg | (Talk) 03:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sources are these:

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/nytmaps.pl?israel
• http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072890363/student_view0/chapter4/table.html
• http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368286&query=israel&ct=
• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008/Israel_(country).html
• http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/israel_history.asp

Merrian-webster, Britannica, Encarta are very authorative sources. And if you don't see how "Israel is a parliamentary democracy" implies that "Israel is a democracy" you should read this. Palestine-info 03:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what do you think the form of government should be listed as? As for the definition, it is perfectly accurate. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Israel is a democracy.
2. Israel has a parliamentary system.
3. Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

Your authoritative sources do not dispute these things. No doubt the democracy could be better than it is, but the same applies to every country in the world, and I don't see you systematically going through all the country pages in the encyclopedia trying to rephrase them. By choosing to throw yourself at nothing but this one issue you will achieve nothing but making an annoyance of yourself. Why don't you go and do some positive work on articles which people don't fight tooth and nail over? You'd probably find it much more satisfying. – Smyth\^talk 20:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Attracted here by the RFC. I don't think it's POV to say "Israel is a parliamentary democracy". The history of Israel shows a long history of governments being brought down by votes of no confidence held in the Knesset, and having to be reformed in order to have a majority in Parliament. All citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity are enfranchised, so it is not in any sense a limited form of democracy. The statement in the opening paragraph does not convey any opinion regarding territories occupied by Israel, but if it was held that it was wrong to state Israel was a parliamentary democracy on the grounds of the lack of vote of those in the West Bank and Gaza strip, this would be a POV statement that they are part of Israel or of a nonexistent state comprising the whole of Israel and the occupied territories. Dbiv 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's fair and reasonable to use the term 'democracy'. Dan100 08:32, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I will try to make this more concise for people who are confused. As stated in the article, "Parliamentary Democracy" refers to a system of government as defined by political scientists and historians. It in no way is a moral value judgement with respect to democracy in Jerusalem. Any country whose **mechanisms of government** fall under the correct definitions could be considered a Parliamentary Democracy. Not all of those, however, may be considered truly democractic (see the example of Athens above). One is a description of government mechanics (parliamentary democracy), the other is a measure of a moral/political value (how democratic a state is). -Josh 16:49, March 9, 2005 (UTC -8)

"Propaganda"

I think that writing that parts of the Arab population "fled" is plenty neutral, in that it doesn't make any assumptions why they did so. Writing that they were "forced out by the Jews" is patently false.

And it is a matter of fact that various offers for settling the problem were offered, but rejected. It may be that these offers were unacceptable, but that would be another issue.

"Propaganda" is the appropriate title for the Zionist apologia offered above. Palestinians were forced out of their homes by widespread well-documented Jewish terrorism before, during and after the creation of the Jewish state on their land. To Zionist liars, Jews can only be presented as victims. They can never admit that Jews are perpetrators of their crimes against humanity. -- User:STP

STP, you are going to be very busy in the wikisphere if you persist with this. "Forced out by Jews" is falsehood; offers of repatriation are probably debatable.--Leifern 15:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Is that some kind of lame anonymous threat? The creation of the Jewish state forced out non-Jews. Your blanket denial of recorded history and whitewashing Jew crimes are the falsehoods. Read this and tell me what is false about the Palestinians being forced out of their homes by Jewish terrorists. [22] -- User:STP

My .02, Your post seems to have it backwards. Every Jew was killed or expelled from every single area that came under Arab control in 1948. Arabs then systematically destroyed every Jewish holy site they could and began destroying cemetaries. They also illegally banned Jews access from the Western Wall, the only Jewish holy site they couldn't destroy in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the creation of Israel did not "force out" Non-Jews. In fact, Israel invited Non-Jews to stay in Israel. This is well documented. And many Arabs remained. This is why there about a Million Arab-Israeli citizens in Israel today.

No threat - I'm just saying that an insistence on putting in a biased account of history will keep you very busy. There's the contention that the earth is round; that gravity exists; etc. As far as Deir Yassin is concerned, it always surprises me how consistent the accounts are across the Deir Yassin organization and Irgun. It was a pitched battle, in which atrocities took place. The link you refer to is no less propaganda than any other source you could find. --Leifern 15:00, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [23] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [24] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [25]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [26] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [27], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [28] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel never offered something to settle the problem. But at the Lausanne Conference the Arab states governments were informally asked to give full peace and recognition to Israel in exchange for Israel offering to return 100,000 refugees. Those 100,000 would not be allowed to return to their homes but to be relocated in security zones inside Israel. Palestine-info 13:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Israel formally offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees as part of "a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations." Obviously an offer to repatriate 100,000 refugees is offering "something to settle the problem". And Israel did not state that that the refugees would "not be allowed to return to their homes", but rather that the refugees would be "settled in areas where they would not come in contact with possible enemies of Israel" which did not preclude their returning to their homes. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is another area with some misinformation. Israel offered peace talks and even invited 100,000 "refugees" to return to Israel after the war of 1948, as a good will gesture to start off peace talks. Not only did Arab states reject the notion of negotiating peace with Israel, which would have required acknoledging Israel's existence, Arab states blocked Arab refugees from going to Israel.

Jerusalem footnote

• Most (not just "many") countries do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital. Even this is an understatement - "a broad, overwhelming international consensus" would be nearer the truth. Certainly "dissenting" in this context is just plain inaccurate.
• The formulation "eastern half of Jerusalem" is poth Israeli govt. POV and factually incorrect. If you look on a map, East Jerusalem makes up much less than half of the city as a whole.
• Which countries have *embassies* in West Jerusalem, as opposed to Counsulates? Seeing as even the US embassy is in Tel Aviv, I think this would be vital data for this section. AW

 I, as Israeli, can tell you: Jerusalem is and wiil be the capital of Israel/

US embassy is in Tel Aviv for security reasons. Israel will decide her capital, not "Most (not just "many") countries " AW

Israel's borders...

... have of course been the subject of much debate in history, but I fail to see why our article should not mention Westbank and Gaza. The status of these territories may be disputed, but nevertheless they border on Israel. I am not aware of the details of Israel's official position, but only if Israel claimed these territories as parts of Israel then it would be correct to say that Israel borders on Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and nothing else. If Israel accepts the existence of these territories as something outside Israel (and methinks it does at least de facto by conducting negotiations with representatives of the Palestinian Authority) then it is correct to say that they border on Israel, no matter if they are a state, occupied territory, or whatever. Kosebamse 07:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is true. I think the reason they were not included in the list is because the WB and GS are not internationally recognised as territorial entities. But they are de facto existing with very well defined borders. Palestine-info 11:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "green line" is not a border, by either de facto or de jure standards. It is simply an armistice line agreed-upon in 1949, likely to move as a result of peace negotiations. The territories are discussed at length elsewhere in the article. --Leifern 12:05, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

De facto and de jure: there are realities and there are laws. It is so easy to get into yet another edit war. I think it would be better to reword the sentence that deals with Israel's borders to avoid POV. The current text (before the next edit!) reads:

Israel borders (clockwise from north to south) the states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel shares the coastlines of the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba, and the Dead Sea.

The text as it stands implicitly acknowledges the authority of the State of Israel over the Occupied Territories. A view that probably isn't NPOV. I suggest that the beginning of the sentence (Israel borders...) be altered to read something like: "The combined territory controlled by Israel and the Palestinian Authority borders...". I know it's a bit cumbersome, and I'm sure there's an easier way of saying it, but it reflects de facto control rather than any issue of ownership. A view that many feel is to important to gloss over. Gareth Hughes 12:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The territory Israel controls, including the Occupied Territories, borders..." Ofcourse such a wording is not very consistent with CIA:s map that acknowledges the existance of two territorial entities called "the West Bank" and "the Gaza Strip," but it might settle the edit conflict. Also, the PA doesn't control any borders, only Israel do. Palestine-info 12:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Israel has few borders as well. As has been proven to you many times, the term "Occupied territories", aside from being politically contentious, is ambiguous as there are many places in the world referred to as "Occupited territories". "West Bank and Gaza Strip" are accurate and clear. The current wording by El C seems fine. Also, please stop trying to slip in other controversial edits without discussing them (e.g. removing the word "democracy"), as the consensus on the Talk: page for these edits has consistently gone heavily against you. Please stop making edits solely for the purpose of Palestinian advocacy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are the only one who is persitently claiming that the Occupied territories is a POV description of the Occupied territories. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim and if you look you will find thousands of Israeli, Palestinian and other publications that refer to the Occupied territories as the Occupied territories. Take a look at the CIA image if you want. If you would bother to check the history you would have seen that Leifern changed the sentence "Israel is a parliamentary republic ..." to "Israeli is a parliamentary democratic republic ..." Possibly because he wanted to make a point. Either way, I reverted his edit because it was entierly redundant and made a perfectly fine sentence worse when it in the very next breath mentions "based on universal suffrage and proportional representation." Palestine-info 20:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I haven't used the term "POV description"; please read and respond to what I actually say. As the Talk: above shows, you were the only person here insisting (endlessly) that Israel was not a democracy. Everyone else here agreed that it was, and insisted that the introduction include the phrase "Parliamentary democracy". Your attempt to slip your preferred wording into the Politics section is going in the face of a clear consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A part of the problem seems to lie in the ambiguity of the word "border". Border in common usage means limit or boundary or line of division etc., and to border means to touch or to be in contact or to limit etc. (correct me if I am wrong; not a native speaker). "Border" might however be a strictly defined term in a sense of international law (not sure, though) that may not correctly describe the boundaries between Israel and Westbank or Gaza. The status of the territories and their borders is of course described elsewhere, but we should try to make Israel's geographical situation clear - such a definition belongs into the introductory paragraph of every article about a country. Therefore it might be useful to find a better word (if my speculation about the ambiguity of "border" is correct) that describes the geographical situation without inspiring legal disputes. Any suggestions? Kosebamse 20:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find the current edit satisfactory. It acknowledges that Israel controls Judea and Samaria but that it is up to the "peace process" to determine the borders.

Guy Montag 22:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that reference to Judea and Samaria is appropriate to the modern political situation. I do think that parliamentary democracy is the proper nuance in the English language: rejecting the phrase because of alleged lack of ideal democracy is at odds with the political use of the word. Parliamentary democracy is the right wording and should not be contentious. My suggested wording talks about a combined territory (piece of land) that is controlled by Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This refers to political control, not ownership, and refers to territorial collective and not to its borders (which are controlled by Israel). I feel that my suggestion says what the situation is without predicating ownership of the bordered territory to the State of Israel. Gareth Hughes 22:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have long consigned myself to the fact that only Jewish nationalists like me use the term Judea and Samaria, or Yehuda and Shomrom. I cringe whenever people use West Bank, which empties that specific piece of land from any historical context. Factually it is Judea and Samaria, but for the interest of "NPOV" I am satisfied with West Bank. Although I will never refer to it with that term outside of wikipedia entries.

Guy Montag 21:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just a question concerning the Gulf of Aqaba / Gulf of Eilat dispute. Is there anyone outside Israel calling it Gulf of Eilat? Even the map shown on the page calls it Gulf of Aqaba. If Gulf of Aqaba is the almost universally used name, it wouldn't be POV to use it here. If people really want to keep the Gulf of Eilat name, I think that should be mentioned, but in brackets. Sorry if that has already been discussed before, but I didn't have the courage to look through the archives.Luis rib 23:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, there are numerous refernces, outside of Israel , refering to it as the Gulf of Eilat. See for example articles by UPI, such as http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cx/Uisrael-saudiarabia.RnM8_DSA.html, or this article from a UK Diving site: http://www.ukdiving.co.uk/places/world/articles/red_intro.htm

But the longer answer is - even suppose only Israel reffered to it as the Gulf of Eilat, what of it? I doubt than anyone but Argentina reffers to the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas, yet WP articles that refer to them, such as the Falklands War refer to both names, as they should if we are to adhere to NPOV Isarig

Ok, I agree with that. I put Gulf of Eilat in brackets, which shows that that name is also used, but that Aqaba is more common. I hope that is okay with all of you.Luis rib 17:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the borders of Israel include Gaza and the West Bank then the democracy and human rights situation of Israel doesn't look too great. Like the old days in the US when the natives were confined to "Reservations" and had no vote.

Blogs?

Does this article need to have links to blogs in it? How do we decide, if so, or do we let anyone who wants advertise their blog here? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that an article about Israel should have blogs as references. There is enough controversy without pointing to someone's little take on it. A link to a blog would only be appropriate if the writer of the blog was the subject of the article (and thus be eligible for an article), ot that the blog was first-hand documentation of the article subject. Let's remove these blogs. Gareth Hughes 19:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe we should wait a little bit for other opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The blogs section was created by 24.61.234.214 on 27 June 2004 (see this diff). The original blogs posted were http://jewschool.com/ and http://israpundit.com/. The former was removed in the next edit by the same user; the latter has stayed through to the current article. The next real addition was the link to http://www.israelblog.org/index.html added by 64.7.144.105 on 15 July 2004. Those two blogs remained quietly at the bottom of the article until 10 January 2005, when israelblog was removed by 68.126.96.211. Israelblog was readded along with http://leftandlefter.blogspot.com and http://www.semitism.net/ by 203.79.116.245 on 23 January 2005. As you can see, the additions have been made by unregistered users. They have a valid right to edit, but this shows that the WP community hasn't been actively involved in the use of blogs in this way. One option might be to agree on just the one or two blogs that have spent months at the foot of the article. Gareth Hughes 23:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a reason why any should stay, regardless of their having been there for months. We don't usually allow links to blogs in other articles, except on the rare occasions when the article is actually about a blog. There are literally a million blogs out there, and they are essentially just the electronic diaries of anonymous individuals. There are too many links at the bottom of this article as it is, and Wikipedia is not the place to advertise them in order to generate traffic; I'd like to hear a strong argument why blogs in general, and these particular ones in particular, should be kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. People looking for blogs on israel can simply google them. Luis rib 17:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel

User:Satiany wanted discussion, so we can start with:

Many Jewish religious authorities, such as rabbi Mordechai Eliahu (former chief of the Sephardic rabbis), called for the extermination of Arabs and Palestinians, saying they "must be wiped out" and called extermination a "duty".

Many say they must be wiped out? Many called extermination a duty? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, are we sure that User:Satiany is not a sock puppet for a banned User, and should therefeore have his "comments" reverted automatically? Second of all, the "quotation" is obviously utter trash, seems like it was cooked up in Nazi propaganda school. Third of all can "User:Satiany" cite a reliable NPOV source? There is absolutely NO such thing, and NO such obligation to "wipe out" Arabs and Palestinians in Judaism's teachings that anyone is aware of (oh, and I thought that Palestinians are "Arabs", are they not?) How about quoting instead what Hamas or Islamic Jihad leaders are advising their dumb followers about what to do to the Yahoods of Israel and elsewhere. IZAK 06:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1270038.stm

I strongly object to attempts of turning every article related to the Jews and Israel into another clone of Arab-Israeli conflict: we already have plenty of those. The article on Israel should be about a country, not very much different from Liberia or Jordan. Of course, we should mention the conflict briefly and provide wikilinks, but this is not the article about its intricacies. The text inserted is a one-sided attempt to describe Jewish Israelis as the two-legged beasts bent on extermination. What about Israeli Arabs' Involvement in Terrorism? What about powerful Israeli peace camp? Where is its Arab counterpart? What about Arafat's "the womb of the Arab woman is our best weapon"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yes we are sure that Satiany is not a sock puppet... Just because you don't like my paragraph doesn't mean I should be banned. This is ridiculous, all I have mentioned is a group of properly cited information and I hear it is propaganda. Humus Sapiens, the encyclopedia is not about being nice to anybody, its about facts... If you want to write about the "powerful" Israeli peace camp (which is no longer powerful at the moment) then go ahead and talk about it... Your rhetoric questions "What about Arabs' involvement in Terrorism", "Where is the Arab Counterpart" do not change anything about the information I mentioned... You are all free to add all the information you want to make that Arab-Israeli Relations sections more "balanced", deleting it is just plain ridiculous... I am putting it back, and feel free to add all the information you want, given the information is based on reliable sources... Seriously, what is wrong with you guys? Can't you tolerate information you dislike? The Herzliya Conference Agenda and The Jewish Opinion Polls are either taken from their respective sites or from some Israeli site! (as well as one Egyptian site, feel free to delete the link to the Egyptian site if you feel it was not reliable). Rabbi Eliahu's comments have been newscast on different Arab stations, which I agree is a source of unrest for the rest of you who don't trust Arab media, but given Eliahu's record, those comments are not surprising look at the following links: [29] [30].. However, I will take that part away until I find a source that we all find reliable. I will substitute for it this BBC source about Ovadia Yosef's (The leader of one of the powerful parties in Israel) comments about Arabs. [31] Samer 22:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• The subject is worthy of its own article; the version Satiany put in is as purely POV as possible, regardless of the accuracy of its reportage. Just because something is true doesn't mean putting it in an article is not POV; especially on a totally contentious issue such as this, more than a couple of soundbytes are needed to provide any sort of balance. I've commented it back out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• POV = Point of View, Facts are not POVs... Anyway, What then is needed to make it an NPOV as you guys desire? Samer 02:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Of course facts are not POVs. However, as editors, we are always picking and choosing which facts to present and how to present them -- that's the point of being an encyclopedia editor. It's the picking and choosing that is or isn't POV, not the facts themselves. Your selection of information is undeniably POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well my selection comes from my knowledge base. I can not put all aspects of the situation in there, I can only contribute what I know. Furthermore, if that section is hidden, contributions from other editors will not be easy and will hamper the process of building the article and reaching a consensus. Samer 03:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• • You're assuming that the section should be in the main article at all. It shouldn't. There are "see alsos" for many important aspects of Israeli current and past history and politics. If you want to write an NPOV article about Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel, do so, and then put a link to it in this article. But it doesn't belong on the main page, any more than Violence against Israelis, Foreign relations of Israel, or Israel and the United Nations do. But what do you have to present that isn't already in Arab-Israeli conflict? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And please make sure that what you write is well cited, from credible sources, not just "what you know". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Israel is part of Europe

See [32]--Gjyaj 13:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That has Canada and they United States in it as well; are they both part of Europe too? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. What about this though? [33] --Gjyaj 13:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the U.N. Israel is included in many European regional groups because the Middle Eastern regional groups won't let it in. In any event, it is in the Middle East, Asia, not in Europe; membership in various U.N. committees doesn't change basic geography. I quote from MSN Encarta's opening paragraph on Israel "Israel (country), country in southwestern Asia, ..." [34] Jayjg ^(talk) 13:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be fair, Jay. Israeli teams play in European football comps and it has won Eurovision more than once ;-) Grace Note 14:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, the latter much to Israel's discredit. However, I don't think that changes basic geography. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the Eurovision haters and lovers. Although the Middle East is a region transcending three continents, Israel is entirely in the continent of Asia. gidonb 22:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Gay Rights,

I added nice JTA article on young palestinian's gays (and possibly lesbians but the article doesn't mention it) fleeing the PA for Tel Aviv, to escape persecution back home. Perhaps somone could write a nice paragraph on it?

Can you find my this article? --jonasaurus 17:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs here; this is an article about Israel. I have seen some of the reports you mention, but they are misleading in that they reveal stories of only a few gay Palestinians who left, mostly to be with Israeli partners. The reality is that there is a sizable gay population inside the occupied territories, and while they live in a conservative society compared to Israel, are usually able to live their lives in a general "don't ask, don't tell" environment. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some useful links.

• [http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13623 For homosexual Palestinians,

Israel is their best shot at safety] by the JTA, December 31, 2003

• Saudi Arabia: Men ‘Behaving Like Women’ Face Flogging
• In a Time of Torture: The Assault on Justice In Egypt’s Crackdown on Homosexual Conduct

The reason that gay palestinian's live in a "don't ask don't tell" enviroment is honor killings. Given the amount of sexual repression in Palestinian society, it's not surprising that rape, incest and homosexuality are quite common (though not talked about). Klonimus 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know you've been here in Palestine! Where did you find examples of common rape and incest? Were a lot of people you talked to here really that sexually repressed? And why on earth would you use links to Saudi Arabia or Egypt to back up your claims? Do you have any reports out of Finland to cement your claims further? And by the way, if your claim about honor killings were true, there would never be a "don't ask" part of it.

Listen, I don't mean to be obnoxious, but clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and your claims are really offensive in nature and maliciously based on shoddy misconceptions you have. Please do some proper research before posting offensive opinions. Homosexuals do not have it as easy in conservative societies as they do in less-conservative ones, but to start going off about "common rape and incest" is just plain libel. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty common, but rarely if ever talked about. Again the honor killings and deep sense of shame keep this sort of thing under the surface. So most women would never admit to being raped since they would be killed so to preserve "family honor". Just cause people refuse to talk about it, doesn't mean it's not a big problem in palestinian society. Klonimus 02:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, what is your source that it is "pretty common", your own opinion or well-researched material? Let me tell you some facts. First, there are a number of centers throughout Palestine to deal with psychological abuse, including post-traumatic stress disorder from Israeli shellings and such, but they do see a number of cases of spousal or family abuse (I know because I happen to have friends who work at such centers). Second, there are radio talk-shows where unanimous people can call in and discuss such issues as their own homosexuality. Third, there are a number of out-of-the-closet folks here who are well-known. Fourth, our daily newspapers frequently run ads from women's abuse centers for abused women to call and get help and protection should they need it (but you need to be able to read Arabic to see that). This "family honor" and "honor killing" you mention, although it does exist, is no where near the levels you claim (and definitely not at the levels found in places like Jordan or elsewhere). So your claim that "it's common" is completely unsubstantiated unless you back it up with reliable sources, and your claim that "it is not talked about" is obviously complete rubbish. I am not going to keep arguing with you about things you clearly know nothing about, save for making vile assumptions, but if you feel the need to continue this conversation you can post a comment on my own talk page because this is completely out of place on this page. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

RC

I have noticed that there have been several changes made by an anonymous user within the space of every few minutes in the gay rights section. Do you think that this could be a suspicious act? Or did someone else already notice this?- B-101 00:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hoping to annihilate the new Jewish state"

Isn't this a tiny bit POV? Some might say "Hoping to rescue their fellow Arabs from dispossesion by land grabbing Zionist invaders". I will preface it with "many Jews believe" unless someone can provide a reference. (from 24.64.166.191 (talk · contribs))

• The exact words, I do believe, had to do with "driving the Jews into the sea". And regardless of that, "many Jews believe" -- many non-Jews believe the same thing; probably a lot more non-Jews than Jews, considering how few Jews there are. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Whose exact words? Some reporter in some insignificant newspaper? So why did the Palestinians and the neighboring states have a problem with Jewish immigration? Was it perhaps "anti-Semitism" or disagreements over property rights or something else? What did these immigrants plan to do for a living, how did they plan to put a roof over their heads? They solved this problem by confiscating "abandoned" homes and land without compensation, just as they have done in the West Bank and Gaza more recently. The Zionists had no other plan AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong (and give references to any plans which do not involve land confiscation).

• The wording "Drive the jews into the sea" has been documented as being used a few times by the leaders of neighbouring Arab states during the 60s and 70s (and maybe later). In particular Nasser used the phrase at a meeting of trade unionists just prior to the 6 day war. Egyptian media was present at this event and there seems to be no doubt the statement was made. Nasser may have been the first national leader to use the phrase. I don't have a reference with me but it should not be terribly hard to dig one up on the trade unionists meeting. Robertbrockway 08:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? These were slogans for public consumption and don't have any bearing on what the real motivations were. The most proficient army in this war, the Arab Legion, was given orders to stay outside the region allotted by the UN to the Jewish state. And that's what they did. So it is simply not true at least in Jordan's case they they planned to annihilate Israel. Egypt also remained mostly in the Arab area, but much less is known about the Egyptian government's overall intentions. Probably they knew that they had no hope of defeating the greater Israeli forces so they grabbed hold of some land (the portion of the Gaza district that became known as the Gaza Strip) and tried to hold it. No other state committed enough forces to make a significant military difference. --Zero 09:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The Arab Legion also put Jerusalem under siege, shelled civilian targets, and took every male Jew left in the Old City as a prisoner of war after the cease-fire went into effect. And they didn't "stay out" of areas "allotted" to the Jewish state; they were kept out by stiff Israeli resistance. I will give you that the Arab Legion fought more bravely and with greater decency than the other Arab combatants (which is why Israel erected a monument to their honor in Jerusalem), but to say they were aiming for anything less than an end to the Jewish state is close to preposterous. As for not paying attention to what is said, we'll take that into account the next time Mahmoud Abbas, a Holocaust denier, claims that he wants to live in peace with Israel. Ever occur to you that such a position is racist? --Leifern 12:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, do you know of an instance in which an Arab Legion invation into territory allotted to the Jewish State was repelled?--Doron 12:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

On May 15, 1948, the Arab League Secretary General Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha announced the intention to wage "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, 1999 p.219). I have a photo of Tel Aviv bus station after Egyptian air assault (40 civilian fatalities) and a photocopy of The Palestine Post of May 16, 1948 with the headers: "Egyptian AF Spitfires Bomb Tel Aviv, One Shot Down". I can post it here, not sure about the copyright though. As for "Who cares?", nobody cared about Nazi slogans just a few years before that either. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Does Morris say where he got the quote?

The quote may be also found in many reputable books on the topic. Another one is A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson. I don't know the original media, it was some kind of public announcement. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It was an interview with the BBC. Azzam said almost the opposite things to the press as well. --Zero 11:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Did he wholeheartedly welcome the emergence of the Jewish state? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. He offered equal citizenship to the Jews and "complete autonomy" in the Jewish areas. (Pal. Post, May 21, 1948). As with all politicians then and now, what they say in public doesn't matter a damn. What really matters is what they do and what orders they give to their subordinates. --Zero 23:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Like they might beg civilian refugees not to flee, and then prevent them from returning and confiscate their property without compensation?24.64.166.191 06:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Humus, could you scan those? I think they would come under "Fair Use" for purposes of Wikipedia. Robertbrockway 08:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've checked-in the newspaper. The after-bombing image is graphic, I don't think it's encyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sections

I changed the level and title of the "Establishment of the State" section, because this seems a continuation of the historic review AND the title did not reflect all of the content. This applies also to some of "Basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict" and "Wars" which, by my opinion, should be rearranged in a manner that differentiates between the foreign relations and territorial claims of Israel and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (the latter I suggest under history). I am willing to continue this effort, but first would like to see the reactions to my first edit and to this suggestion. The content of the article seems much better than its organization. Best, gidonb 02:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

This section is not at all about what it is said to be dealing with. In fact, there probably is no place for a seperate section discussing one prime minster under Israeli politics. gidonb 06:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

copied from the article by gidonb 06:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC) ===Recent Prime Ministers=== The premiership of Ariel Sharon is one of the most controversial since Israel's founding, with hostility emanating from both Left and Right. In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission found Ariel Sharon "indirectly responsible" for the 1982 Phalangist-led Sabra and Shatila Massacre, leading to his dismissal as Defence Minister by Menachem Begin. Some of his military tactics, such as repeated assassinations of Palestinian leaders and military operations in the West Bank and Gaza, have come under fire from the Israeli Peace Now movement and associated left wing circles (also see Jews For Peace) along with sections of the international community, such as the European Union. On the Right, his acceptance in principle to establish a "state of Palestine" and his call for the evacuation of all communities in the Gaza Strip and some isolated outposts in the West Bank is opposed by nationalist organisations, the Orthodox religious parties and many in his own Likud party. Sharon's supporters see his strategy as having reduced the threat of Palestinian terrorism, and as laying the basis for a lasting peace in the Middle East by resolving the "Palestinian problem" with finality.

"Before the birth of modern Zionism, by the early 19th century, about 10,000 Jews lived in the area that is today's Israel alongside several hundred thousand Arabs."

Actually, there were more Jews in Palestine just before the birth of zionism. Jerusalem for example had a Jewish majority. The text misleads to think that modern zionism was established in the early 19th century. gidonb 06:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

"Zionism"

I think it should be noted what the Isrealis and Zionists accomplished against great odds. I hear non-stop talk of how the Zionists moved in and took over, but the truth is when they first starting coming between 1880 and 1905 no one cared. The Arabs were happy to sell them the worthless swamp lands and barren wastelands. Due to determination and hardwork, it was the Zionists that transformed Israel from a desert to a lush farming community. When the second wave of Zionists came, after World War 1 and while they could during World War 2, they brought with them technology and the Arts. Many were scientists, musicians and doctors. This also brought medical care and agriculture to the Arabs of Palestine. Finally it was the involvement of the West (i.e. the British) and neigboring Arab countries that caused relations between the Zionists and Arabs to disintegrate. To this day it is still a big cause of problems in Israel.

"When the second wave of Zionists came, after World War 1 and while they could during World War 2, they brought with them technology and the Arts. Many were scientists, musicians and doctors."

So why was there a conflict with the natives? The European immigrants to America also brought "technology and the Arts" but they destroyed the economic base of the natives, resulting in conflict and leading to ethnic cleansing of the natives. This article conspicuously avoids any discussion of what these Jewish immigrants did for a living (were they all Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists bankrolled by the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund?) and their economic impact on the natives. The Zionists did not go to Palestine to improve the lives of the natives - suggest this to West Bank or Gaza settlers today and they will laugh in your face. The settlers have the same racist attitude towards the natives as the American settlers had to the "savage Indians", for all the same reasons: the natives stood in the way of lucrative exploitation of the land by the European invaders.

That may be your opinion, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be written from no particular point of view.--Doron 07:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells us about the Irgun and Stern Gang but there is nothing about transforming "Israel from a desert to a lush farming community" or bringing "medical care and agriculture to the Arabs". Read the article - it is a story "of how the Zionists moved in and took over". If there is more to it than that, someone should write it.24.64.166.191 06:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Or from multiple points of view, but certainly not from just one point of view. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Or from the point of view of Bilbo Baggins. 65.97.17.149 21:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Israeli flag

Why isn't there an Israeli flag displayed on the page? Rmisiak 15:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

'Long considered Israel a national home'

Why don't we scrap the wiesel words and say "The Chosen People have a G_d given right to this turf and we'll nuke anybody that gets in our way"? 24.64.166.191

Because the first is an observation (a fact) which the article dosen't take a side on (they considered it that for long, which is true), whereas the 2nd is the association you get in your own mind when you read it. I'm pretty sure (not positive though) I was the one who authored that specific passage, and I don't believe that anything is God-given, whatsoever. El_C 08:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You have vandalized what I wrote: "Jews have long considered Israel to be their national home; as a Holy Land and a Promised Land."

It is difficult to have a disscussion if you do that.

Have you asked any American secular Jews what is their "national home"? I think they would say "the good ol' USA". The idea of "Israel" as a "national home" is not even an honest POV, it is merely Zionist propaganda. Do you have any evidence that (all?) Jews think what you say they think?24.64.166.191 07:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not vandalize anything, your title was too long, it's up to you to phrase it concisely, not up to me to guess what you're trying to say. El_C 07:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions to Talk with ~~~~ and read WP:RULES. This particular phrase talks about generations of Jews throughout last 1,800 years (or 2,600 considering the Babylonian captivity). There was no USA back then, so pick another example. If you want to call it Zionist propaganda, fine with me. Just note that that would make Zionism one of the oldest surviving political movements on the planet. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the Zionism article, the notion of "national home" was concocted by the modern Zionist movement since 1897. Before that it was a controversial fringe idea, and even the Zionists considered locating it in Argentina or Uganda. So you should replace "long" with "for over 1800 years" if you are prepared to defend that. Otherwise I will replace it with "for 100 years".

Not all Jews believe this and some non-Jews believe it. But all Zionists believe it, your statement is a definition of Zionism. It would be more accurate to replace "Jews" with "Zionists". The NPOV guidelines suggest attributions be as specific as possible. Do you have a problem with this?

"There was no USA back then". Uh, the last 1800 years include the last 200 years when there WAS a USA. Maybe you want to replace "long" with "from 200 AD to 1776 AD" so you can weasel out of answering my question?24.64.166.191 07:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a good point. National home is problematic; in such a broad sense, that affinity should probably be attributed to the Land of Israel, rather than the State of Israel. Hmm, I no longer think I authored that passage, I would have picked up on that. I'm too lazy to dig through the revision history to find out however. El_C 07:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Jews have considered Israel their homeland, and longed for it, since the first Babylonian exile 2,700 years or so ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The article dosen't say homeland (i.e. Land of Israel), it says national home (i.e. State of Israel). Should we leave the reader to deal with this interchangeability  ? El_C 08:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed that text. Of course they considered it their homeland long before the exile, at least since Davidic - if not Abrahamic - times. I wrote about 3,000 years. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Why bother saying "considered" when halfway down the same paragraph it is stated as a fact: "expulsion of Jews from their homeland". And, BTW, we would not say "expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland" because our POV is that Palestinians are not a "nation" and therefore did not have a "homeland". The Palestinians were not "expelled" - our POV is that the reasons they left are "complex". But the reasons the Jews left are not "complex" - they were "expelled". 24.64.166.191 05:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Alleging a historical parallel between wholesale slaughter and expulsion of Jews of Judea in 70/135 by ancient Romans on one hand - and of events of 1948 Arab-Israeli war on the other? Shall we begin with comparing casualties numbers? Then let's compare who invaded whom. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not alleging a historical parallel - the Jews were engaged in an armed uprising against the Romans whereas the Palestinians were innocent civilians. The Palestinians did not invade Palestine.

I am talking about definitions the emotive terms "were expelled" vs. "fled". What are the reasons the Palestinians are not considered to be "expelled"? Because some remained? Because they were not all ordered to leave their homes (some certainly were)? Because they were not rounded up and escorted to the border?

Don't these reasons also apply in ancient Judea?24.64.166.191 05:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

We are told that almost 2 million Jews were killed in 70/135 and that "Hundreds of thousands were taken as slaves throughout the Empire" and that "large numbers of Jews settled in Egypt, and in other parts of the Hellenistic world and in the Roman Empire" but also many Jews remained in Israel. This would imply a Jewish population of perhaps 4 million in 70AD. There was also a non-Jewish population so that might bring the total up to 5 or 6 million - about the same as today. This would make Israel about 3% of the world population (in .001% of world land surface area) at the time. By 1890 the world population increased ten-fold from 150 million to 1.6 billion while the population of Israel/Palestine decreased ten-fold to half a million. Do you really believe that ancient Israel could have sustained a population of 5 million without modern irrigation and fertilization and transportation? I think the Jewish casualty numbers must be grossly inflated. And as for "who invaded whom" the Palestinians were minding their own business, picking their olives, while the Zionists were plotting to Judaize the place.24.64.166.191 07:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because a Jew, being holy, is worth more, so that's why the casualty rate seems so high. 65.97.17.149 21:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

To both anons: even though with the comments such as above it is difficult to continue to assume good faith, let me try. We don't give exact numbers because we don't know them. Rather, we quote the best sources we have, such as Cassius Dio or Philo or Josephus. In some cases, we disclaim that the author might be an interested party and explain why. If you know better, you're welcome to contribute; consider registering. To the subject: the calculations above is an exersize in fuzzy math, Enron-style. It seems that one or both of you are obsessed with Jewish demographics. Risking to contribute to that unhealthy condition, may I recommend a recent article on this topic in HaAretz. As for "picking their olives", had the Arab leaders accepted the Peel Commission plan of 1937, a Palestinian state would be 68 years old today, and (for those who like demographics) thousands if not millions of innocent lives could be saved. Instead, they refused to even negotiate any Jewish self-determination in the areas where Jews were a majority. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The map on the Peel Commission article shows that the Jews would get the best agricultural areas while the non-Jews would be "transferred" to the deserts and hill country, with no compensation for their homes or olive groves. When Jews are "transferred" without regard to their property rights it is a big human-rights issue - they demand compensation from Germany 60 years later. Unsigned comment by 24.64.166.191 El_C 06:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I find that drawing parallels between the Holocaust and the Occupation of Palestine is an ahistorical, and insidious rhetorical device. And the Palestinian issue certainly gets far more exposure than the 4 million human beings killed in the genocidal Second Congo War. El_C 06:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points, and quite telling. As for me, I'd just like to point out the dictum in Wikipedia:Talk page: "Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." Anon, please heed these words. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The article uses the emotive terms "fled" in one situation and "expelled" in another. Please define these terms and explain why they are applicable to each situation.

Is it "partisan talk" or "drawing parallels" to ask a question like this?24.64.166.191 06:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

4 million human beings wiped off of the face of the earth, through unimaginable brutalities, unfathomable suffering. El_C 07:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, we were talking about 70/135 AD and the terminology used in the article. What are you talking about?24.64.166.191 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

So, back to the article, why is "fled" used in one case and "expelled" in the other? It is better propaganda to say our heroic (Jewish) fighters were "expelled" while the cowardly enemy "fled". Is there any other reason to use these terms in this way? 24.64.166.191 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you look at the article recently? --Zero 12:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I see there is some improvement. Much better than a couple of years ago when it said the Palestinians "ceased to reside". Now we just have to work on what happened in 70/135.24.64.166.191 06:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently not. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops

It seems we made a mistake, the Holy Land is actually under water off the coast of what is called Israel today. We apologize to the Palestinian people, we will begin building an underwater dome to occupy our new land, please don't bomb it. 65.97.17.149 21:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

1922 League Partition Declaration?

"In 1919 the League of Nations transferred control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire to the British Empire (the British Mandate of Palestine). A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 divided Palestine into two provinces. The majority of the land was given to Transjordan, which became the Arab state of Jordan in 1946. The same declaration promised a Jewish homeland in the remainder of the territory."

I have found the Palestine Mandate dated 1922 (at the bottom) but I don't see a mention of partition. Is this some other document, is there a link to it?

See Article 25 of the Mandate. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"ART. 25.

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

I don't see any mention of a "Jewish homeland" in this Article. Are you saying that the "eastern boundary of Palestine" was east of the Jordan, ie. the "remainder of the territory" included everything to the west of the Jordan plus some to the east?24.64.166.191 05:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't ask about a "Jewish homeland", you asked where the partition was mentioned. And yes, it's right there, "the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine" is the part of the Mandate extending from the Jordan river eastwards to the boundaries of what is today Jordan, in which the provisions of the Nandate will be postponed or withheld. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, what does "given to Transjordan" mean? Transjordan was part of the British mandate of Palestine and Transjordan, there was no political entity to "give" it to until 1946.

24.64.166.191 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Transjordan" was the phrase commonly used to signify those parts of the Mandate east of the Jordan river, mentioned above; it became an autonomous sub-division of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1921. Britain recognized it as a state in 1923, and it became fully independent in 1946. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What confused me is the use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the region including Transjordan. I have seen this referred to as the "Palestine Mandate Territory" or suchlike. Was it ever common usage to refer to this territory by the single word "Palestine"? I think this would be confusing to many readers.24.64.166.191 05:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for not answering my question. Was it ever a common usage? Should we use highly uncommon usages in Wikipedia?24.64.166.191 06:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk: page is not to provide history lessons or satisfy the needs of querulous questioners. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

querulous: "Apt to find fault"

apt: "mentally quick and resourceful"

Thanks for the compliment, but I was not asking for history lessons, I was discussing the meaning/definition/usage of the term "Palestine".

The only people who use "Palestine" to include Transjordan are people like yourself who are trying to make some sort of land claim. You seem to think you own the language - words mean whatever you say they mean in Israel 24.64.166.191 06:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I "claim" that "Palestine" was a phrase commonly used to signify a region west of the Jordan river. Can you provide evidence that the term "Palestine" alone was ever commonly used to include the territory commonly referred to (to use your own words) as "Transjordan" "those parts of the Mandate east of the Jordan river".

Let us be frank and honest: there is a claim that the "Jews" were promised a "national homeland" in "Palestine" so the definition of "Palestine" is very political and POV.

Why would such a claim need to be proved? Palestine was defined by the Mandate, regardless of your personal politics. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Palestine and Transjordan" were defined by the Mandate. Palestine was merely an abbreviation.

So you may consider it an abbreviation here as well.--Doron 06:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are general Wikipedia policies about making things clear and considering the reader. How is the poor reader supposed to figure out that "Palestine" is an abbreviation of "Palestine and Transjordan" in this statement? I see someone has clarified this. Good work.24.64.166.191 05:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still a bit confusing, though. When the reader gets down to "Establishment of the State" she has to figure out that after '46 the mandate territory no longer includes Transjordan.24.64.166.191 06:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jews have considered...

"Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland for about 3,000 years — as a Holy Land and a Promised Land."

OK, let us try to make sense of this sentence. The Land of Israel is "the land that made up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". According to Wikipedia Homeland "A Homeland is the concept of the territory to which one belongs; usually, the country in which a particular nationality was born."

So it says "the land that made up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah is the country in which the Jewish nationality was born". Isn't that sort of a tautology?

Isn't it a nationalist/ethnicist (racist) POV that "one belongs" to a "Country", "nationality", "territory" or birthplace? I don't consider myself to "belonging" to any such group.

The next part is :"Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland for about 3,000 years — as a Holy Land". Holy Land seems to mean the place where Judaism and other religions originated. This is mentioned further in the article: "It is the place where both Judaism and Christianity were born,". So this part of the sentence is redundant - why repeat this twice in an article about the modern state of Israel?

The remaining part which is not tautological or redundant says:

"Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be ... their Promised Land." From what I have read, the concept of "Land of Israel" is not the same as the "Promised Land" (the latter having much more Jewish real-estate).

(another unsigned comment by 24.64.166.191. Why don't we put the entire article - together with its subject - up for deletion, maybe that will make the anon less unhappy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Homeland and Holy Land are different concepts; one's Homeland need not also be a Holy Land. I can't make head or tails of your other objections; perhaps you could try them one at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Homeland page gives widely differing meanings for "homeland":

the territory to which one belongs

the country in which a particular nationality was born.

the country of one's origin.

the land of their ancestors

I (and our readers) "can't make head or tails" of the statement unless the meaning is specified.24.64.166.191 05:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If I replace a word with its definition the meaning of the sentence should not be changed. For example:

"Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be the country in which their nationality was born — as a Holy Land and a Promised Land."

Grammatically the phrase "as a Holy Land and a Promised Land." modifies some other word or phrase in the sentence, but which?24.64.166.191 21:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

So is anyone able to defend the statement "Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland for about 3,000 years — as a Holy Land and a Promised Land." using one of the four definitions of "homeland" above, or any other definition of "homeland"?

If not, the statement should be deleted or replaced with a terminologically and grammatically unambiguous statement.24.64.166.191 06:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Your view of what is confusing or ambiguous appears to be unique to you; there is no confusion or ambiguity in the statements themselves, despite your determined efforts to raise any number of spurious complaints about the page on the grounds that it is "Zionist propaganda". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of recognized usages of the word "dog" that you will find in dictionaries. One is an animal, another is a mechanical part. If I use the word "dog" in a Wikipedia article and am unable to say whether I am referring to an animal or a mechanical part, then I am writing gibberish, wouldn't you agree?

There are also a number of widely differing recognized usages of the word "homeland". You are unable or unwilling to say which of these (if any) the word signifies in the statement under discussion. If you can't define your terms, you are spouting gibberish.24.64.166.191 06:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand your last paragraph, because the word "number" has two very different meanings: (i) a mathematical entity; (ii) the comparative of the adjective "numb". You do not specify which one you mean. As for "recognized", you do not specify by whom, and whether you mean by it "identified" or "accepted". What do you allude to by saying "usage" - is it the act of using, or the accepted practice?

I suppose each of these words makes sense in the context in which it is said (which would be the same in your dog example). In our case, all four meanings of "homeland" you have given have almost the same meaning. Such subtle differences are only natural given the number of people and range of time in which these ideas have been held.--Doron 09:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As Doron points out, the definitions are so close as to make no difference, and your strawman arguments using examples of words with multiple and quite different meanings are actually examples of querulousness, rather than serious issues with the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Judaism seems to say that "a close attention to different meanings of words when interpreting texts" is a virtue.24.64.166.191 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The definitions are not close. If we use the "ancestors" definition, we are making a non-controversial statement about the location of Jewish kingdoms, religious sites, regions mentioned in the Bible and where ancestors lived.

If we use the "nationality" definition then we are saying that Jews considered themselves a nation for 3000 years. Jayjg claims this on this Talk page. If he really believes this and can support it, why is he afraid to state it explicitly in the article? If he can't support it then why shouldn't I insert the "ancestors" definition?

If you search for "nation" in the Zionism article you will see that the "Jewish nation" is a concoction of a modern political movement. Jews did not consider themselves a "nation" before this, except for religious Jews who believed in the ancient Biblical sense of "nation", meaning "tribe".24.64.166.191 08:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that I made any "claims" in the first two paragraphs. As for third paragraph, the Zionism article makes clear that the notion of a "Jewish nation" pretty much died after AD. 135 except as a religious belief and was only resurrected by the modern Zionist movement:

"Although Jewish nationalism in ancient times have always taken on religious connatations, from the Maccabean Revolt to the various Jewish revolts during Roman rule, and even Medieval Times when intermittently national hopes were incarnated in the "false messianism" of Shabbatai Zvi, among other less known messianists, it was not until the rise of ideological and political Zionism and its renewed belief in human based action toward Jewish national aspiration, did the notion of returning to the homeland become widespread among the Jewish consciousness." (BTW, my spellchecker doesn't like "connatations" and"messianism")24.64.166.191 07:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

all the Jews outside Israel as a daily prayer: ".....im askahech yerushalaym, tishakack yemini............" translation: if I wiil forget you, Jerusalem, my right hand will be paralyzed..." naow you understand why :"Jews have considered the Land of Israel to be their homeland for about 3,000 years — as a Holy Land and a Promised Land." ? ")User: לייסט

Why don't you explain us just what we Jews really are. Here's a tip: get together with another anon at Talk:Apartheid who insists that it was "the Jews" (no, not a nation, apparently some murderous gang) who were responsible for Apartheid in S.Africa. I wonder why there not much discussions going on about the Jordanians, Palestinians, Germans, Americans or Russians being "nations". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Why don't you explain us just what we Jews really are"?

I have looked at Jew, Judaism and Who is a Jew?. There seem to be a variety of views on this question. Most of them posit that human beings can have an innate qualility of "Jewishness" which can be acquired by religious conversion and then passed on to descendants. I think there is no scientific evidence for such a quality - it is purely a religious POV. So I ask you, can you explain what you Jews really are in a way that is not a religious POV?24.64.166.191 05:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have searched on "nation" in the Israel article but the word only occurs in connection with modern Zionism or the modern state.

There is a "National motto" and a "National flag" but these would seem to refer to the Israeli (not "Jewish") "Nation".

In the Jew article the term "nation" occurs in the sentence:

"Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and those who joined their religion at various times and places." "Israelites" means "the Twelve Tribes of Israel". "Nation" is used in other places in the article, but they seem to be discussions of whether or not "Jews" are a nationality.

If "Jews" are a "nation" in the modern sense, rather than the ancient sense of "tribe" (like the ruling class of Saudi Arabia), you should state that in one of these articles.24.64.166.191 07:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read the nation article, that should clear up any sincere questions you might have. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"A nation is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed".

This could also refer to to the Mongolian invaders of Russia and the Ukraine (the "Golden Horde") or the Spanish/Portugese invaders of various parts of the world.

Are the "Jews" any different from these barbarian invaders?24.64.166.191 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In what sense?--Doron 07:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In what sense are they different?

The definition of "nation" I quoted above seems closer to what we would today call a "tribe" than the modern notion of a nation.

I guess they are the same. Is there a point you are trying to make?--Doron 21:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we say "The Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jews"? Do we need a "Jews consider" in front of that?24.64.166.191

The second "sentence" under "Historical roots":

"As a result, the Land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations and Judaism's most important sites, including the remains of the Second Temple."

is Patent nonsense: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it."? 24.64.166.191 06:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though ordinarily I don't do rhetorical questions, it seems like a simple statement of fact. El_C 06:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A tautology, as I have argued above. But when I ask this on a "talk" page it is not a rhetorical question. I am asking if anyone objects to rewording the article as I suggest. 24.64.166.191 07:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a tautology, I opt for attitudinal sentiments over deontological statements, obviously. Unless your point is more contextual, so perhaps, you yourself, can cut down on the tautological overtones in your own comments; conceretely, why this or that is "patent nonesense," etc. El_C 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a deontological contextuality with obvious tautological overtones and attitudinal conceretelyness which I, myself opt for sentimentally but try to cut down on (apology for the dangling grammatical thingee). 24.64.166.191 06:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wording is fine, only you feign confusion over it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but some clarification as to what this amounts to conceretly, is in order. El_C 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Throwing Jews into the sea"

Two points. First, as per the discussion above, we probably do not need to actually use the quote into the article. Second, the quote is genuine, and was used many times, just looking through the New York Times archives:

• It was chanted repeatedly in rallies throughout 1947, see, for example, YOUNG ARABS DEFY U.S., BRITAIN, JEWS; Cheer Threat to Hurl Them "Into the Sea" By GENE CURRIVAN New York Times Jul 14, 1947. p. 3 (1 page)

• Shiekh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Muslim Brotherhood, stated this with regard to the Jews of Arab countries in 1948, he then added, in what I assume was a joke "of course, if the United States wants to send ships to pick them up, that would be all right." AIM TO OUST JEWS PLEDGED BY SHEIKH. By DANA ADAMS SCHMIDT. New York Times Aug 2, 1948. p. 4 (1 page)

Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, ...declared in an interview today: "If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea." Article Preview: [35] -Lazarus 05 March, 2013

• The New York Times quotes a common slogan in Cairo as "Throw the Jews into the Sea" ISRAEL SEES NO PEACE WITH ARAB NEIGHBORS By SYDNEY GRUSON Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times Apr 15, 1951. p. 138

"Egyptian leaders are captives of their own slogans on how they would "throw the Jews into the sea" and are unable to extricate themselves from the internal political web they have created." Article Preview: [36] -Lazarus 05 March, 2013

• This in addition to many quotes later, see the debate above.

I am not saying we need to include the quote, but we should at least have the facts. The article quoted by User:Ramallite in Counterpunch by William James Martin, a "teacher at the Mathematics Department at the University of Florida" says "The speech by Mr. Ben Gurion [in 1961] appears to be the origin of the phrase. " This is just plain wrong, as the quotes above show. --Goodoldpolonius2 28 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Thanks for those quotes. It seems that most of those "into the sea" statements propagated after 1948 from both sides to justify attacks and counterattacks, and even if mentioned prior to the 1948 war, were not a battle cry there and then. The current revision is more appropriate because, even if the Arabs (minus the Palestinians of course, since it was their own land that was being fought over) claimed to come to the aid of Palestinians and expel Jews, they had anterior motives themselves by many other accounts. Do you really think that if Jordan or Syria had won the war, they would have handed the land back to the Palestinians?

I am not sure you are right, Ramallite, the "Into the sea" statements certainly seemed very common in 1947 and early 1948 -- they were commonly refered to by various members of the Arab Higher Committee, the Muslim Brotherhood, and used as a rallying cry during demonstations, take a look at the dates of the New York Times articles. As for the current text, I am, as I said, generally comfortable because I think the motives were complicated, as you state. I just want to clarify that these statements were real and common, even if they were often bombastic, and that the Counterpunch article by William Martin was an example of at least very sloppy research (this guy obviously didn't even bother with anything beyond a Google search) and possibly dishonest scholarship, by claiming that Ben Gurion made up the quote as part of some sort of underhanded plot. --Goodoldpolonius2 28 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)

US aid to Israel

Perhaps we can include something on this topic. [37] - Molloy

http://www.wildlife-photo.org

Can someone else take a look at this issue. Some guy has been adding his personal site to various Israel related topics under 3 different IP's. He even send me a personal mail, which state in the signature that he is a pro photographer and that this is his site after I pulled the link before. His last post was under 62.219.129.189. The photos are actually pretty good, but he's seems to think its his right to put the link here regardless, rather than link it in context. He should be loading stuff into wikimedia commons if he wants to contribute. Can someone else have a look and give some feedback. Jgritz 30 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your work. It's a commercial site, you can order prints there. He can load his photographs into Wikimedia commons, but he can't insert the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Agree. Though it must be said the current state of the external links section does suggest it might be an appropriate link; could someone involved with this article do a little cleanup there? --W(t) 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

I cleaned up the links on one article today, I'm exhausted. How about you? ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

One? Amateur :-P. I've added it to the queue, I'm going to be out for the weekend but I'll give it a shot after that. --W(t) 30 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

I would personally prefer way less links - e.g. 2 or 3. Wikipedia in general seems to be having an overload of anonymous users starting off by adding (x) number of links to an article, rather than contributing to the text. In a perfect world I'd say one for the government gateway, and maybe the main government department. Having a link to the business sections of a newspaper doesn't really give me a lot I can't get elsewhere, either do photo sites and the individual articles usually have sufficient images to show me what I'm reading about. Jgritz 2 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

As someone who spent a lot of effort cleaning up the links here several months ago, I wonder what your objections to the current links are - this is the article for an entire country, after all, and the number and organization of the links do not seem inappropriate. Maybe we can eliminate a government link or two, but I don't think 2 or 3 links make any sense at all. These links were not anonymous, and I do think they add to the article in providing future reading, especially given that the article itself is often messy. --Goodoldpolonius2 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Can someone explain exactly what the objection to this link is? The site has a commercial aspect but so do many external links in Wikipedia. The other side of the coin is that a large number of excellent web-quality photos of Israel can be viewed there for free. Isn't that the sort of thing that extrenal links are for? --Zero 2 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

The guys a professional photographer, putting a link to his own site which sells his photos. He's made no other contributions to wikipedia apart from this link designed to promote himself. He has also posted and personally emailed me some borderline abusive sutff. Also, he's reverted back this link about 15 times now under 4 different IPs and a login, which to me proves he's got his own agenda, and not doing this for the good of this site. Jgritz 2 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

Now the anonymous user is abusing me - see here. Any ideas on how to handle this? What he's doing is very much against the spirit of wikipedia. Jgritz 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

In addition to a belligerent user, it's obvious from the messages left on your talk page that we are dealing with a language barrier. The guy said that he's an Israeli Jew. Any fluent speakers of Hebrew in the house? He needs to know that a) what he's doing is against the rules and b) that he's welcome to upload his photos to Commons if he doesn't mind licensing them with one of the allowable licenses there. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 2, 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Jayjg My site about beauty of my country. and me it is not important that you write, it not the personnel it author's site and if you do not know and cannot photograph and you have an envy in this occasion or you do not like my works it is your personal problem, I shall add it here 1.000.000 times. And you to me in it not a handicap. And still not I it here the first have added it, I trace all references to my site on the Internet. You not being the Israeli have no right to clean this link, I do not pursue commercial objectives!!! Azzov et ha atar sheli, ki ata mafrija le medina sheli, me phinat taayarut, en po od tmunot shel wildlife ve teva !

• I don't know how you can claim "not pursue commerical objectives" when there's a big Order Prints button on your website. That's commercial activity. (BTW, though, the few photos I've looked at are fantastic.) Continuing this revert war is not a good idea, as it will only get you blocked. I'd love to see your work end up in Wikipedia in some fashion, but this is not the best way to go about it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Let me give it a shot although it's difficult to do Hebrew on my Macintosh so I'll use latin characters - I'll remain anonymous to prevent spamming.

Adoni, Shalom. Ha-ivrit sheli lo kol kach tov aval ani mekaveh she' ata meyvin oti. Ha-anashim po omrim l'kha she' asur b'Wikipedia lyihye "commercial sites" badafim ha-eleh. Ha website shelcha hu "commercial site" ki yachol le-hakol lihazmin tmunot li-kniyot - ve zeh asur. Hakol heskim she' ha-tmunot shelkha yafot be-emet, aval lo yihye l'kha hizdamnut likhtov ha-website shelkha po, ha akharim azuvim oto - od pa'am, ki commercial sites asurim po. Efshar le-cha lichtov ha website shelcha ba daf hazeh: lakhetz po. Bevakasha likro et ha sim-lev be-ivrit. Toda, ve-shalom.

Translation: Sir, hello. My Hebrew is not that good but I hope you can still understand me. The people here are telling you that it is forbidden on wikipedia to publish commercial sites on these pages. Your website is a commerical site because it is possible to order and buy pictures from it, which is forbidden. All agree that your pictures are beautiful, but you won't have the opportunity to publish that site here, it will be removed, again, because it's forbidden. It is possible to publish your site on Wikipedia commons (gave link), but please read the directions in Hebrew. Thanks and Shalom

Ha ivrit shelha beseder gamurt :) tire ani lo moher printim, ve enli shum baaya lyaasir et ze behlyal ( order prints ) ve ani gam noten le anashim lishtamesh im ha tmunot bli kesef, ata ehol lihapes be kol ha internet ve lirot she ze kaha, ahshav ha ziyud sheli ole arbe meot kesef ve ha matara sheli laasot sefer shel " Ziporey Israel " ve " Wildlife of Israel " tire ani roe statistika ve taaminli mi kan kimat ve lo baim anashim, ha maatara sheli ze she le arzenu ha kdosha, yaavou tayarim, ve ani pashut lo MEVIN, eh anashim she hem behlyal lo Israelim osim po tikunim, ve mosirim link le atar, ahshav ani yagidleha od mashu ve ani zodek be 100 % im ani sholeeh le kol atar she esh po bakasha liknot tmuna full faim be email, em yaanu li ve yagudu mehir ze baduk, kol site hu COMERSHINAL be phina ha zot ulyal lo be kol site rashum ( order prints ) aval ze uvda, ve dereh ha gav ani lo marviyah mi ze behlyal !!! kol ( order prints ) ze le rizinut be livad ani moher tmunot dereh sahnuyot ve lo dereh atar !!! ve ani yasim oto od 10.000 pam im hie zoreh, ani behlyal yaase skript ve hu yaase et ze bemkomi im ha bahur ha ze yamshih lyaasot et ha dvarim ha raim ha elyu !!!

BEVAKASHA tiru et ze ze gam COMERSHINAL !@! http://www.emporis.com/en/ab/se/ra/pt/us/

hevre kol site be internet eshlo eyze shu matara !!! em gam mohrim ve od be arbe meod kesef !!!

look at this site is from the Photo http://www.emporis.com/en/ab/se/ra/pt/us/ his to comershinal !!! and you see now wath you not good MAN ! ?

all Photo Gallery is Comershinal, ALLLL, if you don't know this chekit !!!

if you see a picture and wont a print of his you can bay it in Hi Res if you have a Order Print or not, becoz it is ART ! if you can see me in internet free images the or bad qualiti or bad pictures.

be kuzur hevre en galleriyot she hem lo comershinal, kol ha hevrot kmo Yahoo, Yandex, lo roim be atar sheli komershinal ve eyze dahuk ehad po ken roee et ze maazben !

How can a wildlife photograhper be so aggressive???

• You put your own link. I have my own Israel photos but I don't link to them on the main article - I upload them, so they are freely available for everyone via Wikimedia Commons.
• You have a copyright notice on your page, which means they are not free. Maybe if you put a creative commons license this link would be more appropriate.
• You sell these photos. Wikipedia is non commercial.
• You are always doing this as an anonymous user, and have never contributed anything but this photo link. Get involved with the hebrew edition of wikipedia and contribute to Wikimedia Commons, before you start shouting about your god given right to change stuff here against the wishes of experienced contributors.
• Don't bring issues of nationality into the ability to edit a page.
• Finally - your photos are excellent. No one disputes that. The removal of this link is not an attack on your photos or their quality.

Jgritz 4 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

I not aggresiv i'm not love your manipulyazions ! you very bad person.

look here,

http://www.fatbirder.com/links_geo/middle_east/israel.html http://birdskyr.to.kg/rjanki/avdotka.htm http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049056056052124.html http://www.povodok.ru/encyclopedia/photo_animal/photo_bird/art4677.html http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gervaisb/Biogeography/Student%20Papers/2004/Bezdicek/Webpage%20115/BIOGEOGRAPHY%20WEB%202.htm

and is note all and if you wont to help me macke this copyright for free use for scine and reserch, i still make the permishen web page

look here : http://www.wildlife-photo.org/copyright.htm

Start uploading some of your images then. Jgritz 4 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Thanks I am glad that you like my photos, but all my site which finally there will be in English Russian and a Hebrew I do to me my friends help not much with it but basically all is done by me, at me it is not so good with English.

I will be now borrowed by creation of the robot which to insert here a link as soon as it from it will disappear here and all only for that to take away from you on more time. Time you think that you the cleverest and the rights. Also I shall do that that I shall want instead of that that you want.

• If I'm understanding the above correctly, you are going to use a bot to reinsert a link in the page whenever it is removed. This is a very bad idea. Your bot's IP address, as well as the IP address you use to post, can be permanently banned from Wikipedia. I urge you to work with us to get some of your photos added to Wikipedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:24 (UTC)

no i can work with PROXY and any one can't bloced.

" nire mi yoter yahzik maamaz " :):):) be azlaha LEHA MOTEK!

מר אונישצ'נקו היקר, ישנה הסכמה כללית שהקישור לאתר שלך אינו מתאים, מכיוון שזהו אתר מסחרי שמאפשר ללקוחות לקנות הדפסות. ויקיפדיה אינה מיועדת לקישורים לאתרים מסחריים, ולכן הקישור שלך הוסר. הנימוקים להסרתו ניתנו על-ידי עורכים ותיקים ומוסמכים של ויקיפדיה. הוספה חוזרת ונשנית של הקישור מזיקה לויקיפדיה, אם אתה מעוניין בכנות לתרום, אתה יכול לשים עותקים של תמונותיך באתר ויקיפדיה, אשמח להסביר לך איך, אני יכול לפנות אליך טלפונית. --Doron 7 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Doron haayakar ha atar sheli lo mishari nikuda !!! , im tistakel le atarih aherim tov gam timza she ha matara shelahem ze limkor mashu. mi ze ani yasim kan kizur le atar sheli ve ze nikuda. ani yahol laahlif IP o livakesh et ze mi haverim sheli mi rahavey ha ulyam ki ani zodek be mashe ani omer. im ata roze lidaber nismah lidaber itha dereh icq 219998736kol tov leha.

During a friendly phone conversation with the owner of the site, he has pointed out that there are other links to "photo" sites, which are in fact commercial (a real-estate website and a tour website). I have removed them.--Doron 13:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Doron - The "Tour" website you removed is not a tour website at all. The site contains detailed information about many places in Israel with additional photos. The site does not ofer any tours or guides at all, and even prints of the photos are not available. The link was placed back. Oren Shatz 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Unicode

Now that we have unicode, I was going to put the name in that, but there is a discrepancy.

The opening paragraph has: מְדִינַת יִשְׂרָאֵל

The header to the infobox has: מדינת ישראל

One has "nikkud" as an edit summary said (sorry for that, by the way); which one is proper and accurate? --Golbez June 30, 2005 22:19 (UTC)

The use of "nekudot" would make it more complete in the encyclopedic sense, and also would help non-fluent Hebrew readers who have learned the nekudot to read it. However, regular (fluent) Hebrew readers don't need to see the nekudot to make out what's written, and a majority of official printed documents, including newspapers, don't use them. But since this is the encyclopedia, it may make sense to use the nekudot. I hope I understood your question and answered it adequately. Ramallite ^(talk) 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Bad Revert

I reverted to a vandalised copy by accident, and it looks really bad on me when you compare revisions.... Sorry. Hope no one takes any offense. Jgritz 2 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism in Poland, please vote to keep.

1949 vs 1967 demarcation line

Innocent QUESTION:

Why is the 1949 cease-fire line widely regarded as the REAL border between Israel and the neighboring countries (Jordan, WB, GS, etc...) instead of 1967's or even the one that the UN proposed in 1947? What is so unique about that one? Trying my best to be objective (please bear with me since being Jewish and a tad ignorant about this particular subject make this difficult) it seems to be that the 1949 line is as arbitrary as the 1967 or 1947... Is this because 1967's is too pro-israeli and 1947 was flat-out rejected by the Arab League?

I dunno, I'd appreciate the answer either here or in my talk page if this is not the right place.

Thanks for the patience. --Sebastian Kessel 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the "1967 line" usually refers to the pre-war line, which makes it pretty much the same as the "1949 line". I suppose by "1967 line" you are referring to the post-war line. So per your question, none of these lines is officially regarded as a border, not even by Israel. The 1949 line (or more precisely the 1950 line, as there were minor adjustments in the Gaza Strip boundary early that year) is an armistice line. Over the 1947 line it has the advantage that it was agreed upon by both sides. Israeli sovereignty is widely accepted within the 1949 line (even by the PLO, some claim). Israeli law applies within this line, although Israel has extended its law to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as well (which are not widely recognized as parts of Israel). So strictly speaking, the 1949 line is an armistice line, and it is also widely accepted as the boundary of Israel, both internationally and according to Israeli law (with the exception of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).--Doron 06:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, what I didn't realize before is the 1949 line was agreed upon the sides. That makes it valid in the eyes of the world, I guess. After spending some time in Israel, and not justifying a lot of excesses by Tzahal, I understand their unease with returning the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. --Sebastian Kessel 15:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - the 1949 line was agreed upon as an armistice line, and so was the post-1967-war line and unlike the 1947 line. The difference between the post-war line and the pre-war line is that Israel does not consider the territories captured in the war as its sovereign territory (with the exception above).--Doron 16:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, gotcha. Do you believe that if Israel had annexed those territories after 1967 this problems wouldn't be happening in this scale? Having said that, I totally sympathize with the Palestinian demands for independence, as a Jew, I know all too well what that feels like. The suicide attack route wasn't the most intelligent, though. I just hope that all this can be resolved without further bloodshed and with solutions acceptable both to the palestinians and the israelis. --Sebastian Kessel 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? But then, had Israel annexed those territories, she would either cease to be a democracy, or cease to be a Jewish state, which most Israelis would passionately object to. Israel has been trying to have her cake and eat it by settling these territories without the consequences of annexing them, making things ever so complicated. But that's just my personal point of view, which is really not so important to Wikipedia :] --Doron 22:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You made your point and drove it home.... Well put. :) And, as you say, we should finish it here since it's not exactly wikipedia material. :) --Sebastian Kessel 03:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a controversy page for Israel?

Hear me out. I'm a life time atheist and could care less if someone is a christian, jew, buddhist etc. America is supposedly Israels greatest ally, even though that nation was formed by the U.N..

I don't keep up with Israel and the jews much because I simply don't care about their little nation in the middle east. I wonder why we give them aid 57 years later. What about the controversy of 'giving' displaced jews Palestine? Palestinians wrote the League of Nations to call for an independent Palestine two decades before the state of Israel was formed and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from the new nation. Israel has nuclear weapons and it's been speculated that they have chemical and biological weapons as well. Why do they need these weapons if U.S. forces are trying to make sure that nuclear proliferation does not occur in the greater middle east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Why the double standard? If no other nation in the middle east acquires nuclear weapons, that would make Israel the biggest threat of a nuclear attack. If they are so peaceful, why have nukes, let alone chemical or biological agents? Wijiwang 08:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC);

The articles you're looking for are Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you are looking for a soapbox (it seems so), may I suggest you take it to some blog, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. HTH. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wijiwang, I believe Israel has nukes to protect itself in the case of an attack, US military is not perfect and not always will be there to jump "to the rescue" (see Scud Attacks in Gulf War I). On the other hand, the US also has all those weapons as well, wouldn't that make THEM the biggest threat of a nuclear attack? Don't forget that the US has used them already. --Sebastian Kessel 15:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you the guy who insists that there is some controversy about whether or not The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax? [38] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Capital Footnote

The footnote was reverted to its original version, due to controversy & contradictions in the latest changes.

The "changed" footnote is: (controvorsial changes enhanced)

¹ Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital, and the location of its presidential residence, most government offices and the Knesset, Israel's Parliament. In 1980, the Israeli Knesset confirmed Jerusalem's status as the nation's "eternal and indivisible capital" by passing the Basic Law: Jerusalem — Capital of Israel. However, many countries object to this designation, and consider the status of Jerusalem as an unresolved issue due to its designation as a corpus separatum in the 1947 UN Partition Plan, not settled by Israel's 1967 capture of East Jerusalem and the city's subsequent reunification. Believing that the final status of Jerusalem can only be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they instead locate their embassies in other major cities like Tel Aviv, Ramat-Gan, Herzliya, etc..

Moreover, some of the dissenting countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, due to what they perceive as illegal Israeli action in designating the city to be its capital in the first place (1950), as well as Israel's capture of the eastern half from Jordan, in 1967. These states instead recognize Tel Aviv, the temporary capital for a time in 1948, when Jerusalem was under Arab siege, as the continuous legitimate capital, and as a result keep their embassies there. Other entities maintain that Jerusalem must be internationalized as originally envisioned by the United Nations General Assembly. See the article on Jerusalem for more.

Mentioning that "Many countries object " - is a try to distinct the case to "black/white" sides. This happened a few times before and was extensively discussed before reaching the original version. Using dissent suggests that there are many countries that would have recognized Jerusalem as the capital, but are not doing so to prevent political sensitivities. (recognizing one side, even though the side has legitimation to do so). Such political sensitivities would not exist after an Israeli-palestinian final settlement, after-which every-country will show its real position. Anyway, it is certainly not connected with the corpus seperatum. This footnote encapsulates all countries that does not fully recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel, without getting to the many levels of semi-recognition. (this was much discussed already ..). So, it does include the corpus seperatum approach, but the phrasing puts the corpus seperatum issue as the main cause.. So instead of handling all the sub-levels, the footnote handles 2 general approaches: the first one of those who semi-recognize Jerusalem (some of these countries actually held embassies in Jerusalem up until the formal reunification of the city - this part was also removed!), the second approach is mentioned in the second paragraph, about the countries who does not acceppt designating Jerusalem as a capital. In most cases, this was because those countries supported the UN vision of corpus seperatum at the time (a vision that the UN itself left, after most if not all countries left it), or that these countries had another country in mind of which Jerusalem could be capital of. The corpus seperatum issue is mentioned in the final sentence of the footnote, which makes it unnecessary to put anywhere in the "dissent" section. (and certainly not as the main cause for the first general approach!) - --VICTOR 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, at any rate, the phrase in there when I looked at it was, many countries dissent this designation, which just isn't good English. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, good English is another story. You can propose a different wording, but it has to be equivallent as far as the meaning, and object isn't equivallent with dissent, as was explicitly pointed in the explanantion. Please use the original dissent in your proposal or suggest another equivallent phrase. --VICTOR 04:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • I wrote much of the newer version when I noticed that someone added something about the corpus separatum. It seemed to have been accepted for a while, and was in better English, and I believe more neutral, accurate and clear than the "original" version, though noting your objections, I think it can be improved. VICTOR, I have to say that as a native speaker, I am not sure that I wholly understand your English (e.g. what does "...prevent political sensitivities. (recognizing one side, even though the side has legitimation to do so)." mean? - so are you really sure you understand the connotations of English usage here?

• • • "Object" is clearly more neutral than "dissent", which connotes that the position dissented from is the majority (factually incorrect) or has presumptive legitimacy (POV), and is not trying to "black-white" the issue, but the reverse. "Dissent" is a strange and slightly POV word here, and simply does not at all "suggest" what you think it does, and is quite unacceptable because of these connotations. Perhaps simply "do not agree" is better than either. The idea that countries have some hidden "real position" other than their explicit one is out of place, contrived, and in my opinion just plain false here. Concerning the "corpus separatum" - this is the main legal and practical issue, which has not been resolved since 1949; it should not be implied to be the only one. There are few countries that ever had embassies in Jerusalem due to it. Just because most countries do not actively support it does not mean that they are going take positive action against it, which is what recognition entails, when not even the USA has. ( I think the ones that did recognize etc were following a mysterious Soviet rapprochement in 1953 or so - Fred Khoury's Arab-Israeli Dilemma is great on these issues) It was wrong to imply that it was the only issue, but it is much more accurate to say this than to imply that the "dissenting" is due to the 1967 war as the current "original" version implies. This is wildly inaccurate. And there were only a very few countries who had embassies, recognized, etc until the Jerusalem Law of 1980 and the subsequent SC resolution declaring it illegal. Using "eastern half of Jerusalem" instead of East Jerusalem is not consistent with history, Wikipedia and IMHO silly. All Germans of any political stripe use "East Berlin" when they are talking historically about (the city formerly known as) East Berlin, rather than the "eastern half of (now unified) Berlin." The final part about political sensitivities is bad English, vague, POV and probably false, and should be removed. I will make these changes tonight, in a way which I hope is sensitive to your concerns, but retains and improves on the accuracy of the newer version.

Caliphate, Crusades, and the Ottoman Empire

As the section is written right now, it appears that the only thing that happened in the Land of Israel since the 7th century revolves around Jews, although during this period they were a minority. I am no scholar of this subject, but I'm sure more can be written about this period, except for Jewish persecution.--Doron 08:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right! --Zero 11:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well, however I think that Jewish history in pre-Israel Palestine is an important part of the history of the modern day Israel as a Jewish state, in terms of demographics and also the socio-political dymanics between the different inhabitants of that area, especially pertaining to the evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Hello world 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism up for VfD.

• Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Israeli_terrorism Make sure your voice is heard. Klonimus 02:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Idiotarian Notice Board Are you concerned about the influx of apologetics into wikipedia?

Ben Gurion comment

This sentence: This was notable, as Ben-Gurion showed a willingness to essentially accept about 1/3 of the land that would ultimately be won by Israel in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War. has been deleted as "bias" and then restored claiming a reversion of vandalism. But I think the sentence actually is POV. The implication is clear (and, incidentally, I agree with it to some degree) -- that the Palestinians would have been wiser to accept the Peel plan. At the very least, "this was notable" has to go (actually, the phrase should be extirpated from the entire Wikipedia, but that's another issue). The "1/3 of the land" mention, if it's needed at all (I think it might be, but I'm not sure) could better be folded into the preceding sentence.

The article is about Israel, not about Ben-Gurion, so Ben-Gurion's opinion is not so important really! What should be written is something like "... was rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership; although it was a matter of stong dispute among the Zionist leadership, it was finally rejected by them as well"; the following sentence ("This was notable... ") should naturally be deleted.--Doron 20:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Largest City

I think Wikipedia may have inconsisties regarding the Largest City in each nation. Most large cities are broken into numerous city councils. Whether or not Jerusalem or Tel Aviv is larger depends on whether we consider surrounding towns which are part of the greater Tel Aviv area. London is referred to as the largest city in the UK but only if we consider Greater London. The City of London is very small. So if we consider Tel Aviv on the same basis that London, Toronto or Sydney are considered then Tel Aviv becomes the largest city in Israel. Whatever discussion follows let's not make this about the status of Jerusalem. Robertbrockway 20:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a good point indeed, I would like to consider the city with its suburbs. I currently live in the city of Torrance, which to the rest of the world is Los Angeles. I can see why you may want to count the suburbs as part of the city. The problem then becomes, especially in densely populated areas, how to draw a line establishing where the "greater" part ends. I see no easy solution and, although I prefer the contrary, it may be better to adhere by the formal boundaries. --Sebastian Kessel 15:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics defines three Metropolitan areas in Israel - Tel Aviv, Haifa and Be'er Sheva, each with a core (the central municipality), an inner ring, a middle ring and an outer ring. I don't know if this definition is only for the purpose of statistical analysis or if it has any official status. The population in these areas as of 2004 is as follows:

Metropolitan area	Core	Within inner ring	Within middle ring	Within outer ring
Tel Aviv	363,400	1,164,300	2,092,200	2,933,300
Haifa	269,400	536,300	-	980,600
Be'er Sheva	183,000	308,200	501,600	511,700

Jerusalem municipality has a population of 693,200. --Doron 06:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point, Doron, but not all cities have formal limits like that. For the sakes of consistency, do we take the city's number by itself or we just go with what we have? It is a question that we need to ask ourselves. In Israel's case, if limits exists, we can use them. But if we compare Tel Aviv or Jerusalem with other cities then the answer is not so clear. Most cities have an accepted "greater XXX city" definition, but in some cases is very blurry. What do you think? --Sebastian Kessel 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think these numbers are worth mentioning at any rate, stating the exact status of these numbers. One question is what exactly it is (I'll try to find out). Another is which of all these numbers should be mentioned (the "outer ring" seems a bit out-reaching, e.g., Ashdod is included in Tel-Aviv's outer ring, which is really stretching the idea of metropolitan areas). Yet another question is what about Jerusalem - there are no statistics about a "Greater Jerusalem", although there are several towns that one would naturally consider as suburbs of Jerusalem (such as Mevaseret Zion and Kiryat Yearim, perhaps Bet-Shemesh in an "outer ring"), although this is also a sensitive political issue (what about West Bank settlements such as Ma'ale Adummim and Giv'at Ze'ev? what about West Bank towns such as Al-Bira, Beit Jala and Abu Dis? what about Ramallah and Bethlehem?).--Doron 07:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point, once you start asking those questions, where does it end? I like the idea of including suburbs (especially here in the US), but then we may end up comparing apples to oranges. Especially in Israel's case, with the outstanding territorial issues, it is hard to abide by something other than formal and accepted limits. Otherwise, endless discussions may start on the subject of "Does city/neighborhood X belong to Israel at all". By the way, Doron, it is a rare pleasure to exchange ideas with somebody as knowledgeable an open to ideas as you are. Unfortunately, here in Wikipedia, that is not always the case. --Sebastian Kessel 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, though I find most wikipedians knowledgeable and open to ideas, even if they may sometimes lose their head in a heated discussion...

Jerusalem is actually even more complicated, come to think of it, because not only some of its suburbs may be disputed, the municipal borders themselves are disputed (making the figure of 693,200 controversial). In the case of Jerusalem it is especially important to be careful with the wording.

It appears that New York metropolitan area and Greater Tokyo Area are also defined as statistical entities. I'll add this info.--Doron 18:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, let us use conventional metro areas, and if it ends up being apples and oranges, it would be whoever-created-the-convention's fault. :) --Sebastian Kessel 19:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Badly misleading introduction (for dummies)

I was a bit shocked when I read the introduction of the article, because the only dates in there are "Israel was the birthplace of Judaism in the 10th century BCE or earlier and of Christianity at the beginning of the 1st century CE."

For such a young state, the creation date is an essential fact. I know few people are that ignorant, but if someone who knew nothing about israel at all came in and read the intro, they'd come out believing that this has been a jewish state since the 10th century BC without interruption! We must include the funding of the Israel state in the introduction, that's clear to me. Any suggestions as fo the wording?Jules LT 23:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, something is necessary, I propose "established in 1948" right after "parliamentary democracy." It's always good to look things like this over, sometimes not only unintentional omissions but things which read literally are crazy stay in articles for years, because everyone editing unconsciously misreads it because they know too much already. --John Z 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1881 population

Justification of figure 20-25,000: There were 15,000 Jewish Ottoman citizens (census). The non-citizens were not enumerated, but 12 years later (when there were more immigrant Jews by everyone's reckoning) the total number of resident non-citizens was determined to be about 8,000. Not all of them were Jews (many Greeks, Armenians, etc). Generously allowing 5,000 non-citizen Jews for 1881 we get 20,000. The higher value 25,000 is the Zionist figure published by Arthur Ruppin. Details in McCarthy, The population of Palestine. --Zero 10:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)