Talk:Israel/Archive 11

Another biased paragraph
[quote] For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land. [/quote]

This ignores the fact that a complete people (The palestinian people) has lived contintuously (and is living) on this land for the last 2000 years. If couldn't be deleted it should rephrased for sure. And the title should be changed too, "Historical Root"?! up to this moment there is not historical proof of the existance of this "Hostorical Kingdoms".

just wanna know
whats the diffrence between hebrew language and yiddish ? and does both hebrews and yiddish understand each others ( as diffrente accents in same language ) ??Ammar 19:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yiddish is a mix of Hebrew, German and English.
 * "Yiddish (Yid. ייִדיש, yidish) is a Germanic language spoken by about three million people throughout the world, predominantly Ashkenazi Jews. "
 * Check out Yiddish for more. Dev920 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank u sir for good info . Ammar 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm female but you're welcome. :) Dev920 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * single ? :P lol sorry Ammar 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanna know why theres no mention in the article of the fact that israel is violating a number of UN resolutions. Those would be resolutions 252, 262, 267, 271, 298, 446, 452, 465, 471, 484, 487, 497, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 726, 799, 904, 1073, 1322, 1402, 1403, and 1435, to be precise.
 * hmmmm i dont know hehe, they even Blocked editing in this article Ammar 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New template
I've created a "Arab-Israeli conflict" template, I'd like to add it to this article if that's alright with everyone.

It can be seen under Template:Arab-Israeli Conflict.

--Soviet Canuckistan 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is appropriate. -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A correction to "the history section" regarding the country of Israel. In defense of the State of Israel.

'''How Israel was given the name "Palestine": The word itself has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.''' Israel can trace it's history back 5766 years. FACT.


 * 213.42.2.21 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Wow! you sure know a lot about history. What about the Land of Canaan? Do you think you can erase this people just by saying FACT. Do you think it is easy to win every argument just by saying FACT. Your 'FACT' answer clearly proves you lack factual evidence, Palestine has been occupied for more than 50 years and to this moment the archeological excavation haven't turned out any proof of an Israeli or Jewish Civilatzation or state at all. As for your depedence on the Bible as a source for historical information this has been refuted by many history scholars. Nice try....though, 'FACT'!

The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". It was NOT given by the Romans. The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts. From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "Syria Palaestina".

The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a "modern political creation which has no basis in fact - and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967".

Last 2000s Paragraph removed
I didn't feel it appropriate to discuss a current/ongoing event in the form of the current dispute in Gaza. There are no facts and no results. Someone should instead add a piece about the Hamas elections and its overall effect instead of a skirmish. If this becomes a full-scale war, this part going on right now is still just a sentence in the history of the event about how it begins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.192.159  (talk • contribs) 00:34, July 5, 2006  (UTC)


 * I agree, and for the same reason. Anyway, isn't there Operation Summer Rains? -- Avi 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rights of citizenship?
I am interested to learn more about rights of citizenship. Are Jews given more rights than non-Jews? How is this determined? Lenehey 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any Jew may automatically become an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return. Non-Jews may become citizens like in all other countries, after a certain period of living in Israel, or by marrying an Israeli (if they are over a certain age, according to a recent law). Another user may provide more legal details. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if they coming from west bank and gaza.The law is temporary i.e it should be voted every year in knesset.--Shrike 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you just missed something in your wording. The fact is that citizens from other countries may recieve israeli citizenship by marrying Israelis, EXCEPT if they come from the West Bank or the Gaza Strip (and that's the temporary law). Israel doesn't actually have a law for citizenship, and the whole process for non-jews is not well ordered. okedem 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if all this is what was being asked. My interpretation was that Lenehey was asking whether Israeli Jews have more rights than non-Jewish citizens. In case that was the question, the answer is no to the best of my knowledge. All citizens of Israel have equal rights, including the large Arab minority living as citizens within Israel's borders (not to be confused with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.) Schrodingers Mongoose 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

There is one key area where non-jewish citizens have inferior rights. If an israeli arab marries a non-israeli arab, the non-israeli arab spouse is not entitled to citizenship by marriage. Any spouse of any israeli jew is entitled to marriage by citizenship. This means that arabs are second class citizens.


 * The prior claim is simply untrue. The only limitation here is that if a palestinian marries an Israeli (either an Arab or a Jew, it doesn't matter) he can't get legal status in Israel, because of the fact that Israel is in conflict with the palestinians (and the palestinian authority is led by Hamas, an organization which has, or several occasions, expressed the desire to destroy Israel. If an Arab marries a Jordanian arab, an Egyptian arab, an American arab or any other person, arab or not, they ARE entitled to legal status. And if a Jew marries a palestinian (there are such cases) - the palestinian still wouldn't be able to get legal status.
 * To sum it up - this temporary law does NOT discriminate against Arabs. okedem 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this the case even if an Israeli Jew marries a non-Israeli non-Jew?
 * Just to clarify, an Israeli citizen's spouse is entitled to legal status (residency, and eventually citizenship). It doesn't matter if the Israeli citizen or the spouse is Jewish or Arab. A while ago the Knesset enacted a temporary law restricting that right when it comes to Palestinians, and that law is widely misquoted and misunderstood. okedem 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What about "real estate"? In many countries being the owner of a piece of property requires being registered with a special register ("land register", for example). This is, because lawyers make a difference between "possession" (i. e. I have something in my hand) and "ownership" (I am the owner of that thing in my hand; it is not something I just borrowed). For many people a piece of land or a piece of property are the most valuable items they have (think of your house). Now Arabs are said to be rejected from those registers. Is this true? Are only Non-Israeli Arabs denied from those registers or are even those Arabs denied from getting registered which do have Israeli citizenship? --134.100.172.24 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't true. Most Israelis don't own the land under their houses, Jews or Arabs. In fact, I believe more Arabs own their land than Jews. Most of the land in Israel is held by the government, and leased (for 99 years, usually), to the occupants. Now there's an initiative to pass complete ownership of the land from the government to the people, and end that whole "lease" thing. An Arab can be registered as land owner (at the "land register") just as a jew can. What you may hear about, is land owned by the Jewish National Fund, which originally (from 1901) bought land in Palestine for jewish settlements. They own some 14% of the land in Israel. Once in a while they establish new towns, and they tried to prevent non-Jews from living in these towns (since the land was originally bought for Jews, usually using donations). However, the supreme court stopped that practice, and now Arabs can (and do) come to live in these new towns. Please note, that once the town was created, anyone can buy the land from anyone. The restriction was about the first sale, from the JNF itself, not subsequent sales. Non-Israelis can own land in Israel. They can be Arab of Jew, it doesn't matter. okedem 17:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Aid
I suggest the addition of a paragraph in relation to foreign aid and Israel. Covering both what Israel gives to other nations and what it recieves. Any thoughts? --Oiboy77 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source for such information, it would be legitimate information to add to the article. Hopefully such information would be broken down into different categories, such as outright grants, loans, loan guarantees and the like.  Often one sees huge lump-sum figures thrown around for foreign aid (in general, not just for Israel), but if they include such things as the amount of guaranteed loans which are in fact paid off by the borrowing nation, they vastly overstate the amount of "aid."  Another category of aid, which may not show up in official statistics, would be purchases of goods at vastly inflated prices; I do not know whether this happens much any more, but the Soviet Union used to throw a lot of money around this way, to nations such as Cuba, without calling it "foreign aid."  It also would be interesting to see comparative information both for Israel and other nations, particularly its immediate neighbors.  6SJ7 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be deemed "reliable sources"? I have noticed almost all non-Zionist edits have been reverted as their sources are not "reliable". Also would foreign investment be considered foriegn aid? --Oiboy77 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course non-Zionist means stormfront.org and David Duke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from posting white power websites on the discussion page. It is both an insult to peoples intellect and may be construed as a personal attack. You seem to be convoluting the fact that Zionism and Judaism are two seperate things.--Oiboy77 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oiboy, I do not know why you are saying this (22:03, 7 July) in response to me, I have made (to my knowledge) exactly one edit to this article, ever, and it was not a revert. It also was not an edit of anything written by you. So I do not know what the problem is. I referred to "reliable sources" because it is a rule of Wikipedia, and also because and I thought I should write as precisely as possible, so I said "reliable source" instead of just "source". But I don't see any need for a hypothetical discussion of what might be a reliable source. Do you have, or can you find, information about foreign aid that you would like to add to the article, and that you believe is from a reliable source? If so, add it, and what you write will be subject to editing the same as every other statement in every article on Wikipedia. As for foreign investment, if it is made by a private (i.e. non-governmental) enterprise, as most investment is, I don't think it could be considered foreign aid. If it were made by a foreign governmental entity, then I think it would depend on whether it is actually being made as an investment; in other words, does the party providing the funds anticipate receiving a return on the investment, or appreciation of the asset, and do they expect to be able to get their money (at least) back at the end? If so, it probably cannot be considered "aid." 6SJ7 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews have an undemocratice law stating that israel must have a population of at least two thirds jew at any given time. So the answer is no, jews have more rights than non-jews in israel and in many other contries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.225.153 (talk • contribs) 17:53, July 12, 2006   (UTC)


 * You would not happen to have the source for that in the Laws of the State of Israel, would you? -- Avi 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - that "law" does not exist. It's just anti-Israel propaganda. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

For many years Israel recieved the largest chunk of the United states foreign aid. The chunk was reduced a few years ago, but the percentage of this aid to be used for the jewish army went up. this one reason the enimies of israel are also the enimies of the united states, if you give somebody a gun to go commit murder than you are also responsible for the murder along with the one that pulled the trigger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.225.153 (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 12, 2006  (UTC)


 * It was a rhetorical question; which you obliged me by not answering. -- Avi 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the US military aid to Israel is not cash money, but money to be used specifically for purchases from American weapons factories. This arrangement lets the US help (basically subsidize) it's own industry, while helping Israel. Also, since the IDF is considered a powerful army, if the IDF purchases some new weapon from the US, it increases the chances of other nations buying it. Basically, it's a marketing/subsidizing/aid thing. okedem 17:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article violates Wikipedia's NPOV clause. It is written from a Zionist viewpoint and neutral viewpoints are frequently edited out/reverted back to pro-Zionist propoganda. -- The preceding unsigned commented was made at 22:15, 7 July 2006 by Oiboy77
 * Can you cite any specific examples where the article is biased? Kari Hazzard  ( talk  |  contrib ) 22:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is sympathetic to the Zionist cause, mentioning only in passing the toll that Jewish immigration took on the Palestinians. Also, it seems to suggest that the war was provoked by the Arabs. Not exactly neutral, and actually quite inaccurate.--Smitty Mcgee 00:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which war? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article includes nothing regarding the second class status of Palestinians or the silencing of their media. Please admit that it deserves to be tagged as only representing one viewpoint, i.e. that of Israeli supporters.Smitty Mcgee 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any example of the silencing of Israeli media? The media constantly reports critical of the goverment, and I've never seen it ignore a story reported on international media because it's critical toward Israel. Where is the silencing? okedem 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see anything wrong, except that certain editors push their unsourced POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As Smitty Magee said just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it is unbiased or neutral. I vote to put the tags back. Please do not BAN me for editing in a tag as others here think this article in not neutral too.--Oiboy77 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Make your case. Cite examples within the article that would indicate that it is biased. Kari Hazzard  ( talk  |  contrib ) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the claim that Israel is "silencing their media"? I'm curious as to if the reason you think the article is biased as, as of yet, you haven't made any claims other than the vague statement of it being biased. Kari Hazzard  ( talk  |  contrib ) 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article
Introduction- To call Israel a democracy overlooks its apartheid policies. The Negev desert is filled with bedouin villages which are not even recognized by the Israeli government and therefore not provided with basic needs such as water supply. No country can claim to be a democracy if they do not support the basic human rights of all its people.

Historical roots- The article speaks of mass expulsions of Jewish presence in the region, as it should. However, if we are addressing the historical roots of Israel, would it not be biased to leave out the manner by which the Jewish people originally came to the land? The article makes no mention of the pagan tribes which were the original inhabitants of the land.
 * See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made its report on the Negev Bedouin, along with the Arab minority in Israel as a whole, in 1998. I did not make it up.Smitty Mcgee 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zionism and Aliyah- "Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron". This is the only mention of violence in this section. To leave out the massacres of Palestinian civilians that stood in the way of the developing Jewish state is simply not neutral.
 * The article you want to discuss is History of ancient Israel and Judah. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Existence of this article does not excuse bias on the main page. As this article mentions violence against Jews, it should, in fairness, mention violence against others who made their home in the "Promised Land".Smitty Mcgee 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The section in question is a summary of History of Israel. The "massacres of Palestinian civilians" did not play an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel. I would be interested to check the articles on 20+ Arab countries: which one of them mentions expulsions of Jews or even their millenia-long presence there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if there is a lack of neutrality on articles concerning Arab countries, we should excuse an obvious bias here? I disagree. Interesting use of quotes there, as if you don't believe that Palestinian civilians were massacred. Do you believe they are still alive, or is it just the civilian part that irks you?  Either way, that sounds like original research, so go check out that policy of which you seem to be so fond.  (If you still don't think it was important, and need some citation, just let me know).Smitty Mcgee 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. -- TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!  20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"...legitimately bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews" We must at least admit that the legitimacy of land-acquisition methods employed by the Jewish immigrants is debatable. There is absolutely no mention of differing points of view,

Jewish Underground Groups- "The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included retaliation to attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British". Certainly the massacre of 254 civilians in Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948 by the Irgun does not count as "retaliation".
 * Wrong place again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Seemed okay to me. The use of the word "legitimately" is really nice.  Like someone is trying to test our bias detection skills.  I found it! I win!Smitty Mcgee 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You mix up the articles Irgun and Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. The Irgun are mentioned in the Israel article, and that was not my decision.  If this is the wrong article for that, then lets delete it.  I just find it objectionable that terrorism is excused as "retaliation".Smitty Mcgee 07:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of the State- I was already forced to edit this section, and apparently everyone was okay with that. My edit: "Attacks on civilians by both sides soon turned into widespread fighting..."

War of Independence and Migration- To label the Arab armies as "invaders" while claiming that Israel was acting is self defense is at the least biased, in my opinion offensive. "Large numbers of the Arab population fled or were driven out of the newly-created Jewish State." Even with this claim, the authors of this passage still seem to believe that Israel was defending itself.


 * Here and below: see WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O RLY? What was my original research? The idea that perhaps Israel was the aggressor?  Well, you caught me.  I have a suggestion, though: let's adhere to our policy of neutrality and not take sides in a passage about a war.Smitty Mcgee 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1950's and 1960's- This section seems to leave out something that the Israeli Human Rights League revealed, i.e. 20,000 Arab houses were destroyed in Israel and on the West Bank. Not one passing mention of this fact, yet an insistence on focusing on war with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Interesting how an entire indigenous population can be written out of history.

1970's- "...in the early-1970s, Palestinian terror groups embarked on an unprecedented wave of attacks against Israel and Jewish targets in other countries." "Those two groups (Irgun and Lehi) were even classified as terror organizations after the murder of a Swedish diplomat." Please compare and contrast those two statements.

1980's- Trying to write about the invasion of Lebanon without mentioning Sabra and Shatila, or even making a passing comment about other civilian targets? Not neutral.

Government- Absolutely no mention of the second class status of Palestinians or the censorship of Arab news outlets, obviously integral to an unbiased discussion of Israeli government. Palestinians are not recognized by Israel as a national minority, in direct violation of UN Resolution 181. The 1991 Article 19 World Report on Information, Freedom and Censorship discusses the "harassment, physical abuse, arrest, detention, imprisonment and deportation of journalists, writers and academics in the West Bank and Gaza for engaging in their legitimate occupations."

For these reasons, among others, this article must be tagged as not representing all points of view. Smitty Mcgee 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A short response to the above: 1. Negev Bedouin - Many democratic countries fail to provide services of all sorts to their citizens. These included the US and Canada (phone in remote areas) and India (almost everything unfortunately). 2. The original pagans - Jewish presence in Israel spans the last 2,500 years at the very least. While an article of any country should go back a reasonable distance, going 3,000 years for a 50 year old country is extreme to say the least. 3. Invading Arab countries - in the real world, there could exist more than two sides. In this case, both Jordan and Egypt conquered and annexed parts of Israel/Palestine. Whether Israel was the agressor against the Palestinians is immaterial to this claim. 4. A variety of other subjects (freedom of speech, Sabra and Shatila etc.) - These belong and exist in other articles. The 1980's paragraph is linked to the War in Lebanon which does contain the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. This is an article about Israel and it appears pretty long as it is. --89.1.249.251 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Roy


 * I don't think Smitty should be allowed access to this article. He's extremely anti-Semetic, uses the word "Zionist" in a very disparaging manner, and continues to use blood libel against Jews.  Point of view or not, users are not allowed to make up or lie about information simply because it fits their POV. - MSTCrow 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.183 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Very biased article indeed, It even ignores the presence of the palestinian people as a righful owner of the land thoughout 400 years of Ottman Empire. It strongly demand a re-write, for they policies of this entity have deprived me of the right to live in my own homeland (Yes I am a palestinian refugee).
 * It's so easy to ignore the fact that the Zionists arrived at Israel during many years, from the late 19th century to 1948, with no use of force, buying lands for hefty sums. The Jews did not attack anyone, just purchased lands from their owners, to set up settlements and farms. The Arab owners did not have to sell their lands - they chose to. But what happened when the Jews tried to set up farms on the newly purchased land (something they had no experience in, as Jews where not allowed to farm land in Europe)? They were attacked and killed by Arabs. Also, it's worth mentioning that a great number of arabs came to Israel following the financial development brought about by the Jews. okedem 15:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Zionists legally bought the land with their own money. The Palestinians sold it to them as a real estate transaction. The Zionists decided to use the land they had purchased to form a new country. Palestinians sold the land in question. They no longer own it. If I buy a house, does the former owner have a right to come up to me and tell me I have to give it back because he doesn't like how I put a new extension onto the house? Absolutely not. It's my property now, I own it, he cannot tell me what I can or cannot do with it. There is no way to rationally claim that the Israelis are "on Palestinian land" when the Palestinians willingly sold the land to the Israelis. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Ehm, Buying is a broad concept. The contract itself might be correct, but how about the means that led to that contract? As for your argument that arabs didn't have to sell thier lands, well As we palestinians know the CORRECT version of history we all know that if the landlords didn't sell, the land would have been magically sold somehow. I don't know what they teach you in school about that period of history, but it is a Propaganda version indeed. As for your claim that they were killed, GIVE ME PROOF. Even if that was correct, They (Zionists) would be still considered as Occupiers (And they still are). One interseting thing though, WHO WERE THOSE ARABS WHO COME TO ISRAEL AFTER THE "FINANCIAL GROWTH"? To conclude, I really feel sorry for you, to me, the Israeli Education System is a huge operation of brainwashing.
 * Are you really suggesting the Jews from Eastern Europe, weak and unarmed, took the land forcefully from the arabs? Have you any proof of that? Do you even think that's possible? Your claims are unbased, and quite simply - false. About the killing - I refer you to the articles about the Jaffa Riots, and the 1929 Palestine riots. There were many smaller incidents, isolated shootings, etc., on the Jewish settlements.
 * "Even if that was correct, They (Zionists) would be still considered as Occupiers" - Would you like to explain that? How can the zionists be considered occupiers, if they rightfully purchased the land?
 * About Arab immigration and other issues, I refer you to this page. It's a website run by Arabs and Israelis. About the refugee issue - a lot of the arabs left in 1948 to "get out of the way" while the Jews were to be killed (as 7 arab nations declared war on Israel the moment it was established). They bet wrong, and couldn't return. However, if you'll notice, somehow, Arabs make up 20% of Israel's current population - they are the ones who chose to stay, and recieved citizenship. okedem 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Look dear (metaphorically speaking), I don't need lectures from you about MY history. I am a palestinian refugee, so I know all about it. I will post a reply tomorrow insha Allah. But I would like to note something about the Arabs who stayed. If you want to convince me that they are treated equally so you are either misinformed or are speaking propaganda. We all know that '48 Arab Palestinians are treated as second class citizins (A blow to your statement that they received citizenship) And they are being discriminated against in almost all aspects of life. If you are so sure that they 'FULL' citizens of your state, can you explain why the police killed 13 of them in 2003 (or 2004 don't accurately remember?) Do you really beileve that the police would have acted similarly if the demonstrators were JEWS??? If you asked me... well why doncha answer that yourself.
 * Well, that's convenient - you ask for references, and then you ignore them. What an arguement strategy. The FACT of this is, the Arabs did recieve citizenship, and do have full rights. They vote, they recieve social benefits, medical care, just like the Jews. If you claim otherwise, bring refereneces!
 * The event you mentioned took place in October 2000. The demonstrators acted very violently, and that's why they were shot. Do I think it's right? I don't know, as I haven't studied the matter. The police didn't act similarly against Jewish rioters (such as during the Hitnatkut). I wish it had. okedem 18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.23 12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC) The Black citizens of Aparthide South Africa had citizenship, also Black-Americans did in '50s and '60s and were still considered Second-Class citizens. So if you mean that by the fact that Arab Palestinians hold Israeli citizenship you brought no-thing new. As for the discremination against '48 Arab Palestinians look at this link http://www.arabs48.com/display.x?cid=1&sid=32&id=36048 it's a site run by '48 Arab Palestinians, if case you don't read arabic, it talks about the discrimination in Infra-structure projects between arab and jew communities. As for the your comment on the different ways of action taken by the Israeli forces it reveales that your state itself doesn't consider Arab Palestinians equal citizens. As for your claim that the jew immegrants to palestine were peaceful (the kind of socialist romance saga your government wants you to believe) I will look into some resources and post back. And will do necessary changes myself in I had to.
 * Yes, there is some discrimination in resources between Jewish and Arab towns, and that's been confirmed in a new government report. It's not right, and shouldn't happen. About the different ways of action - the american police doesn't treat black or latinos the way they treat whites. Is the US racist? Discrimination always happens, and it's always wrong, and should be dealt with. However, the Arabs vote, just like anyone else, and have representaion in the parliament, just like everyone else. A lot of the difference in investments in Arab towns comes from very low money collection on the side of the municipal authorities, who freely give exempt and discounts to residents.
 * If you claim the Jewish immigrants were not peaceful, I demand you reference that claim. And stop with the propaganda claims. Unlike the Arab countries, Israel has a free media, and information here is not controlled by the government. Also, I don't need the education system to tell me what happened here, as I know all about it from my own family. So just stop with the accusations against "the Israeli education system". These are only diversions on your part, in order to avoid talking about the facts. okedem 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.21 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC) No comment on the discreminiation part, thought I was just kidding eh? Your argument that they are full citizens lacks credibility becuase of that. And yes, US was racist at that time (50s-60s). And nice try paraphrasing me (I know it all from my family), well tell me what your family told you and we'll see how accurate it is. As for the jewish immegrants I said I will look into some source and will post back.
 * I know about the discrimination, and cannot comment on the site you linked, since I don't know arabic. Look at black neighborhood in the US, look at the different way the police treats blacks. Is the US still racist, in your opinion? Because that's similar to what's happening in Israel, and it's changing too. However, they are full citizens. The discrimination is against arab towns, but are you claiming discrimination against arab individuals (for instance, arabs living in mixed, or mostly jewish towns)? Because I don't see any, and haven't heard about it from the arabs who studied with me in school, or in the university, or the arabs who taught the courses I was taking.
 * I was not paraphrasing you, I do know about it from my family (and friends' families, and their friends' families). What do you want to know? I'll do my best to answer. okedem 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

protected wiki site
I understand that the site is protected from edit. It happened between two edits that I was doing. I feel responsible and wanted to ask about the matter. I feel that the Religion page is ok and wanted to know when protection was coming off.RoddyYoung 09:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Something tells me that 3000 years of religious conflict has something to do with it... Not you. --217.65.158.118 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5766 years (Hebrew: Hatashsav, an alfanumeric for 5,766). --65.96.79.16 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Roy
1. Democratic countries may fail to provide services to their citizens, but Israel fails to recognize certain populations within their borders as citizens deserving of rights. Big difference. 2. The articles states "For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land." Yet you claim, "going 3,000 years for a 50 year old country is extreme to say the least." Interesting. It is strange that the article only goes as far back in history as it is helpful to the Zionist cause. 3. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. This is the real world, and there are more than two sides. The article conveniently fails to mention all sides except one, i.e. that of the Zionists. You state "whether Israel was the agressor (sic) against the Palestinians is immaterial to this claim". Wrong, nothing could be more relevant to a discussion of Israeli history.
 * See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights found this practice objectionable. I simply agree.Smitty Mcgee 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The UN is not a neutral source when it comes to Israel. See United Nations and Israel. ←Humus sapiens 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's convinient. I suppose the United States and Israel are the only two nations in possesion of the truth.  For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the UN is indeed biased against Israel.  Shouldn't a neutral article at least mention accusations of racism and oppression.  And no, I do not believe it is fair to link every blemish on Israel's history to a separate page.Smitty Mcgee 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your refernence to NOR is utterly spurious, and you probably know it. It is a mere deflection tactic. Olborne 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true", For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land. What's the problem here? ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes this is true. It is also true that before this, the Land of Israel was home to a number of pagan tribes, apparently not worthy of mention in this article, because going back that far would be "extreme".Smitty Mcgee 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The pagan tribes extict for 3+ millenia are not worthy to be mentioned in the article on the State of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "extiction" of these pagan tribes happened to coincide with the establishment of Jewish presence in the area. Yes, they are worthy of mention.Smitty Mcgee 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof of that extinction?--Shrike 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume Humus Sapiens was attempting to spell extinct. I also assume that the pagan tribes are extinct, given that they no longer exist.  However, as Humus Sapiens is the one who brought it up, and as I no longer wish to argue with belligerent administrators, I will leave it to him to prove it.Smitty Mcgee 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Apparently you do not believe that the silencing of an ethnic minority is worthy of mention in an article about a nation's government. Fine. As for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the Kahan Commission found Ariel Sharon personally responsible. I do not believe it is neutral to leave such information hidden amongst links. Personally, I do not believe that the length of an article is an excuse for bias.

I assume you agree with my the rest of my assessment of this article's faults since you do not attack it.Smitty Mcgee 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that you want to cram all your favorite pieces of history into a summary section. See WP:SUMMARY. This article is already 60k long, I think it needs culling rather than adding more details. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, creating a summary section of Israel's history of slaughter and apartheid oppression linking away from the page would be convenient, especially while all the positives remain on the main page. Perhaps in conjunction we could make the slightest mention of my above points somewhere within the article, since no one seems to disagree with them. It just doesn't seem very neutral to have a 60k entry on Israel which refuses to mention those historic instances that the public may find objectionable. A quick tour through the archives will make it clear that I am not the only one who feels this way. Smitty Mcgee 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Smitty, an articles on a country isn't a place to demonize its people. You don't see the article Palestinians citing the fact that their suicide bombers often kill innocent children and are later glorified as martyrs by nearly the entire Palestinian population. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An articles (sic) on a country is not a place to take sides on a political matter, since this is (purportedly) an encyclopedia. Rather than demonizing Israelis, as you suggest, let's just get the facts straight and be fair to all parties involved.  Edit the article on the Palestinians if it is incomplete.  But be careful, you'll probably get blocked for offending someone with authority.Smitty Mcgee 07:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Smitty, this is not about the Palestinians. Why don't you insert information on Jewish pogroms and expulsions in every country per sections in Jewish exodus from Arab lands, and then let's continue this conversation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, the article is not about the Palestinians. It is about Israel.  Why would I possibly want to mention the Palestinians in an article about Israel?  Perhaps we should edit the blacks out of the article on South Africa as well.  Fact is, the Palestinians are essential to any neutral arguement regarding Israel.  Mentioning the Arab states with which Israel has fought while leaving the Palestinians out is quite outrageous.  And with all the time it is taking me to fix this article, due largely to administrative resistance, I don't see how you expect me to change articles on 20+ Arab states.  Here is my suggestion: I'll take this article, and you fix the articles on the Arab states.Smitty Mcgee 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Smitty, the Palestinians are being mentioned numerous times in this article, but this discussion is not about that. Don't expect to be taken seriously here until you "fix" the articles on the Arab states. As you are trying to push extreme POV here ("apartheid", etc.), expect being challenged. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand the basis of your arguement. Apparently, you believe I have no right to edit this article until I edit twenty others.  Well, listen: you have no right to demand such a prerequisite.  Bias should be removed where it is found.  Why don't you address the neutrality of this article rather than send me to do your errands?

As for the Palestinians' place in this article, I have listed below each time they are mentioned- 1. "Furthermore, in the early-1970s, Palestinian terror groups embarked on an unprecedented wave of attacks against Israel and Jewish targets in other countries." 2. "...Palestinian terrorists held hostage and killed members of the Israeli delegation."
 * You know, the words terror and terrorist are used in this article eight times. Seven of those refer to Palestinians.  Neutrality if I ever saw it!

3. "It was also agreed to lend autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line."
 * They didn't have autonomy? I didn't know, since the article failed to mention it.

4. "Israeli forces expelled Palestinian Liberation Organization forces from the country, forcing the organization to relocate to Tunis. "
 * Sounds like a fair fight. Good thing we don't mention civilian expulsion, since the article is so long.

5. "Although seen as a hardliner opposing the Oslo Accords, Netanyahu withdrew from Hebron and signed the Wye River Memorandum giving wider control to the Palestinian National Authority."
 * I have concluded that Palestinians are either terrorists or members of the government. In other words, no innocent civilians.

6. "Barak's offer to Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected."
 * Come on, we're giving back most of the land.

My point is, this article's "neutrality" is laughable. And yes, I intend to fix this one before moving on. Looks like you'll actually have to debate me!Smitty Mcgee 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure that you mention the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's alliance with Nazi Germany.


 * This would only be fair, since the article mentions the Stern Gang's attempted alliance with the Nazis.Smitty Mcgee 16:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Smitty, but I think your proposed changes would cause a lot more harm than good, and are fundamentally unfair. In all of your comments above, you bash the article for not including an extra POV to further explain the statements you cite. But not ONCE do you claim any of the statements are, in fact, false. A statement such as "Barak's offer to Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was rejected" is completely, verifiably, 100% factual. Any addition, such as "This was unacceptable to the palestinians since they demanded 100% of their stolen land returned" is blatantly non-neutral. Similarly, there is no need to insert things like "Israel offered these unprecedented concessions despite 4 wars of aggression and hundreds of terrorist attacks, something no other democracy would ever contemplate." Your efforts to "correct" the POV of this article would have the effect of spinning it wildly in favour of one side. This would then lead to others inserting more statements like those above to re-balance things, and the only coneivable result would be massive bloating of an already large article. Just my $0.02. Schrodingers Mongoose 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An exclusive collection of facts can be just as biased as an editorial, since not all points of view are included. I do not attack the article's truthfulness, but its fairness.  Also, your first hypothetical statement is only non-neutral because you inserted the word "stolen".  When speaking of land, the word "stolen" is just as biased as the term "legitimately owned".  As for your second attempt, I wouldn't even consider entering that in the article, since it suggests that Israel is alone in its aggression.  Consider that we could insert non-Zionist points of view without being blatatnly libelous.  Finally, you seem to concede that the article is indeed biased.  In order to fix this, we should not insert opposition propaganda, but simply ensure that all aspects of Israel's history are mentioned.  Certain editors seem to believe that the facts themselves are biased, and not worthy of inclusion.  Thank you for your two cents.Smitty Mcgee 17:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from. But just to continue the debate...let's say we did insert the statement you say is neutral: "This was unacceptable to the palestinians since they demanded 100% of their land returned." My point is this opens a whole other can of worms. Is it really "their" land? There is a legitimate argument to be made, and I'm sure some editors would make it, that the Palestinians forfeited the right to much of that land by joining in wars against Israel and launching terrorist attacks. Others would respond by explaining what they feel is the justification for those wars and some of those attacks, writing about what they feel are oppressive Israeli actions, etc etc etc. Edit wars ensue again. My point remains...the original statement that the Palestinians turned down Barak's deal is as NPOV as this particular segment can get, and I think it extends to the entire article. Personally, I think the article is doing about as well as it can at this point, as any efforts to change its POV will simply not be allowed to stand by those on either "side". Schrodingers Mongoose 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me thank you for being civil. I understand what you're saying, and obviously an article concerning a hot-button issue such as this will never be satisfactory to all.  For now, this is going to be my final word on this matter, as I have already exerted immeasurable energy into trying to see this article improved.  I must say that I still find the article extremely biased, for all of the reasons I have mentioned above.  I also think that it could be made more neutral, and that inserting a different bias could be avoided.  But, I will leave that to future editors to decide.  Finally, I would like to express my disappointment in those who abuse their administrative power and refuse to address the actual issue.Smitty Mcgee 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-presidential system?
Isreal has both a head of government and a head of state. Wouldn't that make it a semi-presidential system? It does show Israel as a Semi-presdiential system on that map on the semi-presidential system.--Scott3 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just spend a few minutes squinting at the map at Semi-presidential system, and after figuring out how to get the largest version of the map, I believe you are mistaken. At maximum size, Israel is clearly in orange (meaning a parliamentary system).  At smaller sizes, Israel seems to be two tiny orange dots with a yellow dot, which I think is supposed to be the West Bank (let's not get into that issue) and then a yellow dot above it, which I think is supposed to be Lebanon.  Anyway, Israel is correctly portrayed as a parliamentary system, as it also is on the map at Parliamentary system.  Israel does have a parliamentary, not a semi-presidential system.  If you look at the definition at Semi-presidential system you will see that the president in such a system is not a "ceremonial figurehead."  The president of Israel is just that, a ceremonial figurehead.  As for having a separate head of state and head of government, as far as I know, all parliamentary countries do.  While the best-known heads of state in parliamentary systems are monarchs, a number of nations have parliamentary systems with figurehead presidents, including Germany, Italy, India, Turkey -- and Israel.  6SJ7 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, Israel is a pretty normal run-of-the-mill parlimentary government, the only thing that sets them apart from some of the larger countries like Germany, is the fact that they are small enough to only have one district, probably most other parlimentary governments would do the same if they were the size of Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Israel may be unique, or close to it, in not having districts. I looked at a couple of other really small parliamentary countries, Grenada and Saint Kitts and Nevis and, while their lower houses of parliament are very small (15 and 11 members respectively), all members are elected from single-member constituencies.  In my state we have local school boards that are larger than the St. Kitts House, and even more amusingly, St. Kitts has a three (3) member Senate!  (I love this stuff.)  At its foundation, Israel made what I think is a very wise decision, that it only needed one house of parliament, and that in a country so small, and with no previous governmental history to dictate division into districts, there was no need for districts.  6SJ7 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that districts exists so that there is proportional representation for all parts of the country, I guess that Israel decided their population was homogenous enough that it was unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Israel's population is extremely heterogenous. Diving the country to districts would cause minorities to not be represented. Additionaly, districts would make little sense, as Israel is a very small country, and all areas of it have the same interests. okedem 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am quite aware of the subtleties of Israeli society, no need to be pedantic- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

A few points here (and isn't it refreshing to have a debate on this page that isn't about the Israel/Palestine stuff?) First, Scott seems to misunderstand what a semi-presidential system is, as opposed to a parliamentary system. Both a semi-presidential and a parliamentary system have separate heads of state and heads of government. The distinguishing issue is how powerful the president is. In semi-presidential systems like France or Russia, although any government that is formed must have the support of a majority in Parliament, the president nevertheless has substantial power in his own right. In such countries, it is the President (Chirac, Putin) and not the Prime Minister (Villepin, some Russian dude whose name I don't know) who is considered the "leader" of the country in things like international summits. Israel is a parliamentary system, like Italy.

As to districts or not, many of the smallest countries are former British colonies, and as such have adopted the UK tradition of the single member constituency. In PR countries, the number of districts does tend to be related to the size of the country, although I'm not sure of the details. And one could easily imagine an Israeli PR system divided into districts along the lines of the districts in which the country itself is divided. The idea that all areas of a small country have the same interests is ridiculous. Different areas always have somewhat different interests, it's just a way of the world. To refer back to Saint Kitts and Nevis, the people of Nevis and the people of Saint Kitts don't particularly like each other, and have different interests. john k 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave scott alone, he asked a simple questions that happened to be wrong, and we have just written like 3 pages about why he is so far off, I think it is pretty unnecessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes - I didn't read carefully and failed to realize that 6SJY had already basically said this. john k 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I liked everone explantion about Semi-presidential system:)--Scott3 00:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More Maps, Please
Can anyone provide maps of this region prior to the establishment of the country, maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns prior to the establishment of the country, and maps of the changing borders after the country was established? Thanks! --TimeDog 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Israel at War with Lebanon, needs current events tag and/or appropriate section
ISRAEL IS EMBROILED IN A WAR WITH LEBANON AT THE MOMENT, following attacks by Hezbollah on Haifa and other towns. Israel has blockaded Lebanon by sea and air. this needs to be noted. 68.32.48.42 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Masterhomer 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I disagree, it creates an inconsistancy relative to the pages of other nations (ex. there is not a current events tag or section on the United States page regarding Iraq). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.14.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Done. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then perhaps America should have a current events tag on its page too. Just because it's America doesn't mean the military action in Iraq shouldn't be documented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioBu (talk • contribs)

Well then maybe you should look over the page for every nation and make sure each one has a current events tag on its page. Oh wait is it only military actions that justify the tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.14.42 (talk • contribs)

Seeing how this is a major topic all over the news in every country, I think it justifies the tag. Yonatanh 06:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree with tag, and disagree with need for separate section. This is meant to be an ancyclopedia entry on Israel, not a news site entry on it. In six months time we can perhaps assess how relevant this affair is compared to everything else we could write about regarding Israel. I would suggest that people look at the pages for major countries such as the US, UK etc and see how current events are dealt with there, and in the meantime maintain a sense of proportion. Palmiro | Talk 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely ignore the sentiments of unsigned comments. The current war that Israel has been backed into a corner in waging against terrorism and terrorists in Lebanon is a war.  This is notable in and of itself, and should be listed in the article.  Both Israel and Lebanon have openly declared a state of war, and as such, this should be included. - MSTCrow 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Israel attacked Lebanon and caused comparable levels of havoc there a couple of times in the 1990s, and those events don't appear to be mentioned at all. We don't as yet have reason to believe that this attack is so much more important than those ones, have we? Palmiro | Talk 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think the current events tag should be removed; the current events are being handled in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis article. It might be worth adding a link to that in the 2000s history section, although it's not really history yet... UltraNurd 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The terrorist organization Hezzbollah has declared "open war" Hezbollah Aircraft Attacks Israeli Warship Off Beirut on Israel. I believe that's worth noting. - MSTCrow 02:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They may have said they were ready for 'open war'... but which side had the warship there?  Words like "terrorist" and slanting this thing is POV.  68.6.254.16 15:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Terrorist"?? Hmmm, You may call it as you want, but sure you can't put that in the article if Wikipedia claims objectivity. I will change it myself if you did. To ask the above mentioned question again: "which side had the warship there?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.241.182 (talk • contribs) 13:46, July 16, 2006  (UTC)
 * Why isn't it worth noting? I'm going to add a couple of sentences on this, and I'm going to fight to keep them. Every other military conflict Israel has been in is noted in this section, there's no reason to wait. I'm sure info on America invading Iraq was added to both articles the day it happened. bob rulz 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop Density Rank in Info Box is Wrong
Not sure if it is part of an edit war or not but the current pop density ranking in the info box is 18th, when it should be 40th, see List_of_countries_by_population_density. Something to fix when the article is unprotected. --Ben Houston 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a Country ?
Israel is not a country (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/14/113819/889) --Jabba27 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * DailyKos is notoriously anti-Semitic. No dice. - MSTCrow 02:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should any critisism to Israel is always labeled "anti-Semitic", that is not objective,,, As for the above mentioned idea, yes Israel might be a state, but it surely lacks the description of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Hatred ofthe Jews has taken many forms throughout history. Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism and now Anti-Zionism. They're all the same thing, though. Just because people who hate keep shifting their reasoning and their arguments with the changing times does not make the hatred any less relevant. Legtitimate criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitic. Believing the nonsense that is put out by some people who hate the Jews (ie blood libel, that the Israelis mass-murder the Palestinians, etc.) is. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.180 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Can you please explain so the murder of a whole family and by a Israeli gun ship on the shores of Gaza? To reply to the above mentioned reasoning, is that you always keep shinfting the definition of Legitimate criticism as needed to save Israel being condemed and held responsible.
 * You mean the Gaza beach blast? It's unlikely that the IDF was responsible, but if they were, it was a mistake. You're falsely implying that the Israelis want to hurt or, worse, enjoy hurting Palestinian civilians which is complete and utter nonsense. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel has well defined borders, and a constitution. This is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefzen (talk • contribs) }


 * It may not have a specific written constitution, but then neither does the United Kingdom. By any objective definition, Israel is a country. The DailyKos poster is an idiot. &mdash;  Imp i  13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I take that back, what I thought to be a constitution was the declaration if independence, though Israel still have rule and laws the same way any other country has. Anyways, who actually says that every country must have a constitution? even a dictionary definition is more like a description rather than a difinition.--Nefzen 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.181 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC) If that is true, please tell me about this "country's" hiratage and civilisation. A country has a civilisation and a well known history, please tell me how does Israel fall under this category: civilisation, It may be industrialized but not civilised, the practices of IDF surely proves this. History???? Well that should be dicussed seperately, please tell me : are there any historical proof of the "Old Kingdoms of Israel" other than the Old Testament???? So you see, It didn't even comply to the two basic definitions of country. Nevertheless, It stole the heratage and national idenity of a whole people, the palestinians, there food (among other things) has been re-marketed all over the world as being "Israeli", so please don't tell me that Israel is country, a state-size settlement, maybe, but difinitly not a country.


 * Sheer nonsense. The most commonly used rules of statehood are those of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which states: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Clearly, Israel has a permanent population, it has a defined territory (the Green Line is not disputed as the basis of Israel's sovereignty), it has a government (note, no mention at all of a Constitution) and it has the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Most importantly, Israel is recognised as a legitimate state by the vast majority of the world's countries, thus meeting the final hurdle for statehood. By any objective definition, Israel is a legitimate state and country. All that talk about the Old Kingdoms, heritage and national history is irrelevant in this context. &mdash;  Imp i  14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Archeology of the area indicates that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah did, in fact, exist. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC) So what, I said it might be considered as a state, but IT IS NOT A COUNTRY. If you are so well educated in history you should know how it came into existance. More over could you please guide me to the "clearly identified territory" Does that include Gaza and Western Bank? Oh, does that also include the Occupied Al Jaolan Hieghts (The accurate naming of Golan Heights)??? Where is this clearly defined border is mentioned in the basic law?

213.42.2.10 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC) To continue; As you see Israel even fails this simple test.


 * In International Law, the only definition that matters is that of a state. A state refers to a defined territory that is independent, with a government, a population and sovereignty over these (to borrow from Wikipedia's own definition) whereas a country refers only to a geographical area. While in 99% of cases, country and state mean the same thing, it is possible for a country to be non-independent and non-sovereign, for example Wales and Scotland. In Israel's case, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights are disputed territories, but that doesn't affect Israel's core border (and thus defined territory) which is internationally recognised as being within the '67 Green Line. If, in some future peace deal, Israel acquires 5% of the West Bank, then its defined territory will be considered under international law to have been expanded, not created. Please note, that the existence of disputed borders does not mean one's territory is considered undefined, therefore just because Pakistan and India are disputing the Kashmir border does not mean that either country is not considered a state. Without a doubt, Israel is both a country and a state. &mdash;  Imp  i  15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Allow me to disagree, the word country involves the presence of a hiratage and history. Which is not correct in the case of Israel. They have remarketed the Palestinian National Idenity as theirs due to thier lack of a national idenity to rally behind: Falafel and Homus for example. As re-iterate: It is a state (regardless of how legitemate) But is it a country? In your replies you focused on the state definition, but you failed to convince me of how this state came to be a country?


 * The word country does NOT involve that, and you are evidently confused about the definition. Take a look at Wikipedia's page on Country and the Wiktionary definition to see what I mean. No country or state requires any sort of national heritage or shared history in order to exist. This is not about disagreement, this is about right or wrong, and on this you're clearly wrong. &mdash;  Imp i  15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.182 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much, please read on: [qoute from Wikipedia's own country def] '''In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical territory. It is used casually in the sense of both the concept of nation (a cultural entity; see below) and state (a political entity). Some definitions tend to place it as meaning only state,[1] though general use is wider than this.[2]''' [/qoute]

IMHO, I am not wrong on this one, even if you say so :).


 * Ok, this is becoming tiresome. Your quote says absolutely nothing about "heritage and history", nor does it contradict my assertion that the word refers properly (not casually) to a geographical territory. If you continue to be unable to justify your assertion, I would suggest you do the honourable thing and give it up. &mdash;  Imp i  17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.23 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) It is used casually in the sense of both the concept of nation (a cultural entity; see below)

To remind you, our dicussion was about if a country involves the existance of a national idenity and heratiage (sorry for the typo) You said it doesn't. And the text you referenced me to clearly states that a nation is a cultural entity, and if the heritage and history aren't components of a cultural entity what is!!? To further elaborate, the Israeli soceity comprises of a number of racially distictive communities, each and every one of them has its own culture that they brought with them from thier original countries they migrated from. As for you mate, you haven't privided a single proof to prove me wrong.


 * Casually. Casually! Properly, it is a geographical entity, and has nothing to do with ethnic identities or heritage. People misuse words in a casual context all the time, for example most people casually refer to Iran as an Arab country when it's actually Persian. What matters is not casual (and often wrong) usage, but proper usage, and the proper usage for the word "country" most certainly involves neither heritage nor history. Now kindly stop wasting my time with your pointless and erroneous arguments. &mdash;  Imp i  18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, all of the previous claims about heritage and culture (or lank thereof) can be just as easily applied to the USA. okedem 18:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.187 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Please refer to this link (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/country.html) and look to the first definition. I find it rather difficult to place a casual use of a word first in the list, if you were right it should rank 2nd or 3rd. As for your claim that a country means a geographical entity, then it should be called Palestine not Israel. The latter name came into use only after the creation of this state, while that geographical entity have been known all along its 7000+ years of its history as Palestine.
 * It was called Israel during the United Monarchy period of Jewish history and after the restoration of sovereingty by the Maccabees. When Rome conquered Israel, they renamed it Judea. The name "Palestine" did not come into use until after the failed Bar Kokhba Rebellion of Judea against Rome. Rome wished to break the Jewish spirit as permanently as possible (as this was the second time the Jews revolted). One of the things they chose to do was rename Israel "Palestine" after the Philistines who had made a kingdom in the area of Gaza. The Land of Israel was not called Palestine until 132 CE. The Land of Israel was named "Israel" about 1100 years before "Palestine" came into use. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 213.42.2.10 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Is there a single archiological evidence to support this claim?

213.42.2.22 13:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC) To continue, even the zionists acknowledged that, on Mandate Palestine cions and banknotes you will see Palestine written in Arabic, English and Hebrew. But in the Hebrew case they included the letters (Alef Youd, if the spelling is correct)== Eretz Esrael. If they were so sure about that, why hiding it so sucpeciously??

This should have a permanent POV tag
As there is no prospect of Zionists allowing this article to comply with the neutral point of view policy it should have a permanent POV tag. Olborne 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is no prospect of Anti-Zionists allowing this article to comply with the neutral point of view policy, it should have a permanent POV tag. 18:53, 14 July 2006 (EDT)


 * Don't smear Zionism. Yes, people who are anti-Semitic will never allow Israel to be written about honestly.  - MSTCrow 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * that's incredibly funny. 68.0.185.95 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.21 16:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Why not cretisize Zionism? I have the right to do that. You have destryed my homeland and made me a refugee? Should I thank you for that? Sheesh,

BEIT DAGAN
Anyone know a town called Beit Dagan? I find it on yahoo and goggle but not here. Jo e  I  21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's under the list of towns in Center District (Israel). You could create its article. --Schzmo 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of creating the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thnx :)  Jo  e  I  21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates header
Please add Israel's coordinate 33°21'54"N,35°5'57" in the header. In general I think that every aricle concerning a place located on earth should have CoorHeader added to it. --Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why there? Is that where the Israeli ship was hit by rockets? It seems to be off the coast of Lebanon, about 15km from Tyre. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)  	+

Jews Against Zionism
See this link. Although many Jews are Zionists, the two labels cannot be equated due to the existence of groups such as this.Smitty Mcgee 15:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one was arguing that all Jews were Zionists. Numerically, most Zionists aren't even Jews, but Christians. - MSTCrow 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.180 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Good argument, I was looking for a link to a site such like that for sometime. Shukran!

195.229.241.181 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I would like to see how these guys would be accused of 'Anti-Semitism'??


 * There are self-hating people in any culture. To simplistically believe that because one is something means they cannot hate it is to be totally clueless about human nature and psychology. Btw, clearly the two above are sockpuppets.  - MSTCrow 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.21 10:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I expected an objective reply, all I see here is a psy mumbo-jumbo instead of logically dicussing there claims.


 * THe Jews opposing Zionism usually do so for religious reasons - specifically, they believe the kingdom of Israel should not be rebuilt until the coming of the messiah. Since he has yet to come - the Jews shouldn't have a country. The claims on the site are false. You can read about the Patria disaster youself. All these claims are not new. These people claim that zionist collaborated with the Nazis, so that the world will give them a country. This is nothing more than a heinous lie. Zionists did everything in their power to bring people to Israel, and save them from the Nazis. In fact, a lot of Orthodox Rabbis discouraged their students from coming to Israel, where they would be safe, until it was too late. okedem 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.22 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Your education system have been feeding you rubbish. We arabs have always distinguished between the jews and zions, and the proof is that jews lived in security in the Al Andalus, and the fact that the personal doctor of one Caliph (Haroon Arrasheed I think) was a jew. There no need for the creation of such a monster state because Levant has known no religious upperssion neither toward the jews nor the christians. As for this country of yours, I remeber watching a documentary on your Channel Two some time ago, do you know how it was titled ? "We could have had another homeland!" ie. Oganda. So if things were to happen differntly we could have seen the following paragraph: (For over 3,000 years, Jews have regarded the Land of Israel as their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised land) rewritten to talk about how jews all over the world waited for the time where they could realize thier national dream of a national homeland in ... Uganda!


 * What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? Obviously not, since you just spit out the usual stuff... FYI, Jews did not have equal rights under Arab rule, not even close. And do you know why the Uganda plan was rejected by the Zionist Congress? Because it wasn't Israel, the place all jews viewed as their homeland... So, nice try, but you ended up strengthening the zionist claim... Oh, and BTW, if you wanna talk about "Monster states", take a look at all those precious Arab dictatorships (i.e. Egypt, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, etc.). okedem 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

213.42.2.10 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Sheesh, if you look to my posts I haven't personally attacked you in any way, but you resort to vulgar words (spit off?) Anyway, I will be the wise guy here and ignore that. You claim Jews didn't have equal right under Arab rule? Not even in Andalusia? Well where is your proof? If western jews had problems with thier states that definately doesn't apply to Arab states. For your information Syrian Jews were equal citizens, they had MPs in the Parliament and ingaged as regular citizens in the commercial and social life in Syria. I remind you, we distenguish. As for Uganda claim, Did the "Land of Israel" got lost and needed to go look for it? That proves that they were looking for the best spot to occupy, and they chose a darn good one: My LAnd. And nice try turning the conversation towards those states, though might be discribed as you mentioned, at least we don't bomb innocent civilians? Does Qana ring a bell? Dier Yasin, Al Aqsa Massacre, Hebron Masaccre? I really feel sorry for you, each and every time you are faced with something true that condradicts what the zionist brainwshing tought you, you resort to name-calling.


 * I aswered angrily, as your post had nothing to do with what I said. The land of Israel was not lost. The Uganda plan came from a suggestion by the British minister Joseph Chamberlain, to lease a part of Uganda (actually in today's Kenya), which was under British rule. The plan to settle in Israel was harder, since it was under Ottoman rule, a country not sympathetic to the cause. However, the Jews chose the harder plan, to settle Israel, because of their beliefs and historic connection to it.
 * If you'd like to talk about killing civilians, how about suicide bombers?
 * Al Aqsa Massacre - I'm not sure what you mean by that, but please read [|here] in the "2002" section, about the Palestinian's fraudulent claims. You can read about Battle of Deir Yassin, and see there was probably no wrong doing, but a simple battle. I'm not sure though, there's quite a lack of credible evidence. Qana - was a simple mistake. It happens during wars, and is always regrettable. The "Hebron Masaccre" was an act of terrorism by an individual, Baruch Goldstein. I'm glad he was killed by the arabs there. If I were a soldier there, I would have killed him myself. But again - that's an individual. If you want to blame an entire people/country for the acts of individuals, let me remind you that there are a whole lot more arab terrorists than israelis. And I say again - address my claims directly, and stop with the ridicules claims of "brainwashing". That's a poor tactic. okedem 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

195.229.241.180 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Well nice story, it gives you the sence of struggle, good for the morale. As for the "suicide bombers" it is debatable, even amongst muslem scholars. What you consider civilians are considered by us Settlers who expelled us from our own land and settled thier own lands. Do think that who ever lives now in my own hometown (might be you!!) is a legal owner of the land?? Look it from our perspective even for once and you will understand that the majoraty sees you as an extent to the military occupation that created this state and our catastrphe. Next, I see you made Dier Yassien a battle??!?! And Qana a simple mistake? FOR YOUR INFORMATION THEY WERE TAKING REFUGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL FORCES HEADQUARTERS, WHO COULD THAT BE A MISTAKE? So what about Kufur Qasim, is there a cover up for that too, and Sabra and Shatilla? Will tell me the the Christians did it?


 * 1. The land I live on was legitimately purchased from arabs. If you claim otherwise - bring proof. It was not the Jews who had the power in Israel, but the arabs. When the Jews came here, they were weak, and unarmed. When they were attacked by robbers (arabs, by the way), they hired guards (also arabs) to defend their lands, because they couldn't do so themselves.
 * 2.Dier Yassien - did you even read the article? Qana - again, did you read it? Yes, it was a miscalculation (targeting long range cannons i