Talk:Israel/Archive 14

Israel Passport
This section needs citations and some clarification. The paragraph discusses countries that do not allow people in due to evidence of visiting Israel on their passport and the lists are of countries that do not accept actual Israeli passports. There should also be a section describing the checkpoints. Through their own inhabitants are not allowed to pass. 69.76.20.62 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Events Totaly Biased
This line is the most biased "According to Israel, the UN, EU, Kuwait[11], G8 and the USA, the soldiers were captured in the Israeli town of Zar’it". So what's the standpoint of the other side?? The described events on whats happening recently in Lebanon is totaly biased. There is no indication that Israel was and is STILL occuping a small part of Lebanon. According to Hezbollah, they saw the soliders on their occupied land and simply defending themselves. Clearly both sides have to be presented. Also there is no mentioning that over 50% of the Lebanese causuilties are CHILDREN and almost ALL of them are civilians, whilst most of the Israreli causilties are soldies. Smells biased biased biased to me.


 * I agree with you. Although I oppose any violence, lets remember, that in actual fact, the Hizbollah bombs are falling into Palestinian occupied territory, not Israel.

umm...are you out of your mind? or just don't actually pay attention to the news? last time i checked, haifa is in israel-proper, not in any occupied territories Italic textin actual factItalic text. and while most of the lebanese casualties ARE civilians, it's because hezbollah uses civilians as meat shields, and is careful to parade dead babies in front of ap reporters. so quit talking about things you know nothing about. Parsecboy 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact check. According to the UN Israel had fully withdrawn from lebananese territory. Sheba farms is not lebanese territory at all. Even Lebanese officials such a Walid Jumblatt state it is Syrian territory captured by Israel during the 6 day war. NPOV please

I think what you're missing in this discussion is the reality that a state isn't defined by whether or not it is accepted as legitimate. If a government has sovreign jurisdiction over a piece of land and its occupants and has the military force to back it up, it is a state. Like it or not, that's the reality. The discussion of whether or not it is a good or a bad is a totally seperate issue and has no bearing on the legitimacy of a state. It would be more accurate to say that Lebanon is an illegitimate state, since its own government can't seem to control what goes on within its borders.

What is reflected in this challenge of the article on Israel isn't a desire for accuracy and balance, but a bias against Israel itself. In what other context, for instance, would we ask for the opposing viewpoint of terrorists in an effort to sustain neutrality? Why on earth would we question the conclusion of the international community in determining where the kidnappings took place? Who cares what the terrorist pigs say when they have proven to be completely unscrupulous?

Real Jews
I think a more detailed history on how real Jews was and is oppsosing the state of Israel. According to the Bible, the exile can not end until the Messiah comes. And only then can a true peaceful Israel exist. Traditionally the vast majority of Jewsih scholars strongly opposed the ideas by the secular Theodor Herzl. Further they argue zionism is one of the worst enemy of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.228.145 (talk • contribs)
 * Wha!?! How do you figure? Axeman89 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I think perhaps a criticism section would be appropriate on an article about Israel, detailing why it has recently come under fire (recently beeing the last 50 or so years), who it has come under fire from, and the like. Not that the section would not include rumours, and everything would have to be sourced, but it might just put an end to the vandalism, and the systemic bias Wikipedia has in favour of its demographics. Ideas/ Comment? HawkerTyphoon 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of thing is better suited for separate articles. Country articles do not tend to have a lot of criticism (or praise) built into them. Though Israel has obviously had a tumultuous existence, adding explicit criticism of the state to this article would be to submit to those who feel their hatred of Israel justifies vandalizing the article. Criticism of Israeli actions, on the other hand, certainly has its place in other articles about specific incidents or modern Israeli history. Schrodingers Mongoose 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're advocating violating policy..NPOV

''All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. ''

POV forks

''A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.''

So no, taking anything that might reflect negatively and putting it in a separate article is not acceptable. This article suffers from systemic bias. Sarastro777 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't "systemic bias" meant to indicate things like why we have more coverage of Pokémon characters than African history, or whatever? That is, I always thought systemic bias was the term of art for "wikipedia's coverage is uneven because we have a lot of tech and sci-fi geeks, and not as many people interested in serious scholarly things."  This would seem to be a case of normal bias. I would add that Israel is a fairly unique state in the extent to which a significant portion of the world views its entire existence as illegitimate.  The only vaguely similar case I can think of is the PRC/ROC issue in China, and of course our Republic of China issue puts a lot of emphasis on that stuff.  It seems to me that, whether one agrees with the Arab view of Israel as illegitimate or not, it is a pretty basic fact of Israel's existence, and needs to be discussed in the article.  Israel is also fairly unique in that it occupies and administers a wide swathe of land which is not generally considered to be part of its sovereign territory.  The only comparable instance I can think of is Morocco in Western Sahara.  Israel's actions in these areas are also important, and deserve to be discussed in this article. Like it or not, Israel is an almost uniquely controversial country, and as such it is not a POV violation to discuss that controversy in the article. john k 21:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether a subject should be talked about or not. This is an encyclopedia.  I believe there should be a section about Human Rights because there are sources from Amnesty Int. and HRW but the "controversy" surrounding the Israeli state does not belong here. Waynepl107 17:29, 25 July 2006 (EST)


 * I have absolutely no idea what your first two sentences mean. At any rate, the fact that the Arab states have, for fifty odd years, claimed Israel to be an illegitimate state is one of the basic facts about the State of Israel, like it or not.  I don't see how some discussion of this can be avoided. john k 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with your position on the basis that every country can be deemed controversial. Look at the USA, for example, The arab world criticises the USA in unambiguos terms. But there is no "criticism of the USA" in the United States of America article. So rather than complain about what does not work, I would appreciate proposals on how to better the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Arab world criticizes the United States, but it does not question the legitimacy of the United States as a state in the international state system. It's not a comparable situation.  The entire history of Israel over the last 58 years has been determined by the fact that its neighbors believed it to be (and, for the most part, still do, to an extent) an illegitimate state.  This was the story of the 1948 war, and it informed Israeli-Arab relations at least until the Camp David accords.  It still remains the official position of many Arab governments.  The PLO only changed its charter to remove that statements a few years ago.  And even though various Arab governments have now recognized Israel, it still remains pretty strongly the general viewpoint of the Arab public.  I don't know that this should be discussed in a specific section, but I don't see how the Arab rejection of Israel can be avoided as a topic in this article.  That Arabs don't like the United States is a detail that has nothing much to do with the United States as an entity.  That Arabs don't like Israel is a basic existential fact of Israel. john k 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * see PLO -- it is disputed that the PLO Charter was ever changed. Rabbi-m 03:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, even more so, then. john k 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * John k: You need to re-read WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't patronize me. How is my opinion that this article should mention the rather unique fact that, since its creation, a significant portion of the world has thought the state of Israel to be an illegitimate state, an example of me not understanding what wikipedia is not? Looking quickly over that page, I don't see how anything I've said falls under any of those categories. Perhaps the soapbox one is the one you have in mind?  But I'm not advocating that wikipedia say that Israel is not a legitimate state.  That would be ridiculous.  I'm just saying that wikipedia should note the issue, and discuss the arguments that Arab states have made on this subject in an NPOV way. john k 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? john k is following policy that is pretty standard: no POV forking. It's impossible to avoid a section discussing criticism because it's a basic fact of life for Israelis, and it has led to much bloodshed on both sides of the issue. It's going to painful, much work will be needed, and we won't be able to please everyone- but we must try to add a Critism section. Let me put it this way: every country article should be an FA- they're the bread and butter of any encyclopedia- but this article lost it's good status, and is nowhere near FA staus. We have to set aside our biases (notice that I haven't mentioned what side of the conflict I'm on, even though I, like every interested party, am on a side) and work towards making an article that strikes the right balance. That means that all of us must be prepared to include details that we may or may not agree with, but are documented facts (or documented opinion, as the case may be). We can do this, I know it. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it when this article gets a pretty gold star next to its name. --Ringmaster j 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this link added to this section: http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html


 * Me too, we should add the above link
 * Nope. That is not a reliable source, as it is a partisan website. You may want to link, maybe, to the UN website, such as, or , if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the fact that Israel's legitimacy is questioned by the Arab states should be mentioned in the article, although, not because the idea has any credence to it, but because it is necessary in order to explain the behavior of its neighbors. I fail to see the problem.

Rumors Of Ariel Sharon Poisoning Attempt
Many Rumors are increasingly running that present Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might have complotted with other extremists to poison ex-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in coma since for being considered to soft on Palestinians after giving them back land that was taken from them earlier to built Jewish settlements

There are specifica Wikepedia rules that all facts must be verifiable. Rumors are not verifiable and should not be in any article. This type of suggestion sounds more like typical anti semitic demonization Michaelh613 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)michaelh613

Why Israel? Why the Jews?
Every article related to Jews, Jewish ideals or Zionism always says at the top,"Due to recent vandalism ..." I'm so damn tired of this. Do we really need these racists on Wikipedia, who, even though they don't really know what it's like to be a minority, still has to vandalize these articles. I'll tell you right now what's real crap: Albert Einstein, a Jewish scientist, up there with Darwin, Da Vinci and Galileo, is considered a "controverisal topic"., Surely you can't deny it was because he was Jewish. These sock puppet accounts used by these narrow-minded bigots need to stop, we can't let personal ideals come into unregarding to the NPOV rule. Israel is being vandalized, as everyone can see, for being edited by these damn skinheads and surely we can all agree that this needs to stop.

24.216.71.36 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Tromboneplayer


 * Skinheads? You're referring to Muslims. Their Internet Jihad is constant problem at Wikipedia.


 * While vandalism by anti-semitic ######## is obviously a problem, it's not really that big a problem - straight out vandalism is easily reverted. It's obviously unfortunate that there's so much of it, but it doesn't really hurt our actual articles.  More complex POV pushers (on both sides!) are a more serious problem in terms of actually improving our articles on zionism related subjects (in particular - I don't think other Judaism related subjects have nearly the same level of actual controversy, even if they also suffer from vandalism). john k 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is hopeless there is just too much up for debate here. From the use of the word "terrorist," the creation of the official state of Israel, to the POV attacks on Israelis, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims.  We will just have to wait till this controversy dies off to get a fairly non-biased article (probably not in our lifetime). Waynepl107 19:04, 25 July 2006 (EST) (I don't like UTC)


 * I would disagree wit such pessimistic view. I have seen article as contentious as this one or more, arriving to an NPOV state. But it requires collaboration, patience, civility, and most important, to check or biases at the login page. Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I disagree -- Wikipedia is a battleground of ideas when it comes to contentious topics, or when racists seek to push their POVs.--Izaakb 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have always thought the same thing. But truly, this is beyond Wikipedia's control. Anti-semitism will never stop. In my opinion however, Anti-Semitism is what keeps the Jewish people's vitality. If the Jewish people were to die off, it will not be from anti-Semitism, but from acceptance. Kabbalah teaches us to find the hidden good in all things, and I do believe that there is a postive side effect to hatred; unity and hope. Masterhomer [[Image:Yin yang.svg|20px]] 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It will never stop because the jews only want their point of view on this site, and so free thinking people who don't blindly support the zionist occupation and buy into that "anti-semitism" garbage will attempt to correct glaring errors and propaganda. Full stop.

Muslims always pull this shyt against everyone....they say allah is the name of god and shoot people who call god something else when allah just means god as said by the sufi muslims who everyone hates

From what I see, it's the one who commits the crime that gets all the fingers pointed at. You see, when Israel kills, in one single hit, 62 Lebanese civilians among which 42 are children in Qana with the use of internationally banned weapons, after that they spent long days and nights in a shelter with a shortage of transportation, food, roads, medicine, even ambulances. Then you get to think again: why people point fingers?

When ambulances are targetted. When all roads are cutoff. When all ports and airports are destroyed. When all border exists/entrances are cut. When TV stations are attacked. When Electricity companies are attacked. When villages are razed to the ground. When a country is being invaded. When the deathtoll goes exponentially. When every moving truck is shot down, and at places, every moving thing is shot down. When chemical phosphorous and uranium based weapons are used. When milk factories are attacked. When the RED CROSS has to transport the wounded, BY WALKING IN A RIVER, because all bridges are down. When the constant sovereignty of Lebanon has been overruled by an occupation ever since 1982 both on land and in air. When thousands have been kidnapped from Lebanese soil and taken to Israel and held for years.

And then you ask yourself again, WHY people point fingers? 213.175.169.4 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget Israel is the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons, breaking international law, posing a threat to many neighbouring countries. Although extreme anti-jewish comments are off the key and not acceptable, lets not get forget the many breaches, illegal actions of Israel. I have many jewish friends who oppose Israel and the existence of Israel, which doesn't get any mention on Wikipedia. I regret any past violence or biased targetting of the Jews, but at the same time we should as jew's and humans also recognize the many many wrong doings of Israel and help to make Israel-Palestine a peaceful place. The problem in the middle east is a domino effect, many palestinians get kidnapped and put in Israeli jails with no or rare western media coverage, Israeli soldiers beating up little palestinian kids etc., which you only learn from if you dig deeper in unbroadcasted reports and documents. Then can we understand the rage of the Palestinians. Lets remember Palestine does not have an army nor any armed civil forces, so the only way of them seeking retaliation is by not-so popular means such as suicide bombings, on the other hand Israel has an army and many pro-Israeli media organisations on its side. Like Cherie Blair said, the actions of the Palestinians is out of desperation. In other words, they have no other means of getting back. So we have to watch out of not blaming the Arabs too much and also realising that most of the attacks are an indirect action of Israel. In other words, I stick the needle in your back side, and you hit me back with a slap. Everyone will see you as the wrong doer but infact it was me who provoked it. Many of Israels policies and actions are provocative and calculated, and many of the politicians know the reaction from the Palestenian and Arab community will be a negative one, but still proceed inorder to re-emphasize to the world that they are facing terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.102.80 (talk • contribs)

"Friends?" What Jewish friend would oppose Israel? You either have no friends, or you're making it up. OR. You have no friends AND you're making it up.

Either you are uneducated about opposition against Israel by Jews, OR you are too caught up in your own world. While I'm not going to disclose information about my close circle of friends, feel free to see fellow Jews burning the Israel flag, speaking out against Israel in TV interviews that never get covered in the west, orthodox Jews protesting in New York and angry why the media never covers their side of the story while portraying the false pretense that 'all' jews are for Israel, infact you should look at some recent polls showing the strong opposition of Israel amongst religious Jews. If you actually read the Torah, it is much against the things Israel stands for. Here are the links, there are lots lots more. If you don't have anything intellectual to disclose, then please refrain from replying things such as the 'of no use' childish remarks you made earlier regarding friends.

http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/jaz_full.jpg - Thousands of jews protesting in New York against Israel and Zionist movement http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/capt1.jpg http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/jaz.jpg http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/NKIantisem_small.jpg - A jew against the Zionist movement (The occupation of Palestine) http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/jewsburnisraeliflag.jpg - The burning down of the Israel flag by religious jews http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/rabbi.asf - Rabbi and his counterpart speaking FOR the Iranian president Ahmadinejad and opposing the State of Israel in an TV interview. (You have to open the file with Windows Media Player 20.1mb)

So try to do some research before speaking on such a critical issue.

how on earth do you say israel poses a threat to it's neighbors? israel has never invaded a neighboring country, yet it's been invaded several times. as for the palestinians not having any armed civil forces, that is flat out wrong. the palestinian authority maintains a police/security force (that does nothing to stop terrorists, i might add). regardless, saying that some jews don't support israel is a non-issue. there are always people who go against the grain. in a recent poll in germany, something like 12% of the population wished the berlin wall was still up. you talk of the palestinians like they're the victims of israel, where if they're anyone's victims, it should be of their fellow arabs. give me one example in the history of the world where refugee populations are forced to remain in camps and not allowed to integrate into the local populace for almost 60 years. i'm talking about the refugees in saudi arabia, jordan, and other arab countries. it wasn't the jews who made them leave israel. they left on their own accord, very unlike the jews who were forced out of almost every arab country following the inception of israel in 1948. and yes, i do accept palestinian desperation in their current situation. but it has more to do with decades of plo corruption than it does with israel's policies. yasser arafat stole billions of dollars from internation aid and squirreled them away in his swiss bank accounts, leaving palestinians without jobs, public services, etc. and then he has the audacity to blame all their problems on israel. the core problem (and not just for the palestinians, but the whole middle east) is education and access to information beyond the anti-western, anti-semitic propaganda pushed by the totalitarian governments. if you're raised from day one with the "knowledge" that america and israel are responsible for the fact that you live in a hovel, your parents have no jobs and thus no money, and you have to scrounge for food every day, you'll accept it without thought. and then when the same people tell you that if you blow yourself up in an israeli cafe or alongside an american humvee you'll go straight to heaven, you'll have your 70 virgins and a goat, and you'll live in happiness forever, you'd leap at the chance to escape your hellish existance without hesitation. so before you blame israel for the palestinians' plight, look at the whole picture first. Parsecboy 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps you can't recall Israel's previous invasion of Lebanon and attempt to seize land from Egypt. In the eyes of many middle eastern countries Israel remains a threat. If your neighbour's house was occupied by people who then called it their house, then acquired Nuclear weapons, tried to occupy your other neighbours, wouldn't you feel threatened?. The problem is that Israel's provacative actions are mainly done in the name of 'defense'. Perhaps the word 'defense' should be re-defined to suit Israel's actions. It would be of interest to you to watch this news report: http://news.sky.com/shared/videoasx/0,,galloway_060806-31200-bb,00.asx

Site one instance of Israel doing something "illegal", along with several independent, non-arab sources, then I'll start to take you seriously. There is no such thing as "international law" since there is no way to enforce it, and since the international community has no jurisdiction or authority in a sovreign state by definition. Basically, if Israel has bigger guns and can manage to take territory, it doesn't matter what international law says about the seizure of territory. By the way, Israel has never done this despite the fact that they do have bigger guns. They've been attacked several times and have taken territory in the process of defending themselves, but they have always given it back. Where has it gotten them? Ignorance is more dangerous than the state of Israel will ever be.

Regarding the underground groups
The underground groups section did not address the fact that most of their actions were against Arabs and civilians too, it seems that (from the author's POV) that those groups targeted the brits only, which is historically not accurate, also it was not mentioned that the heads of those groups where elected as prime ministers of the state of Israel.


 * From Wikipedia's own article: "All told, Irgun attacks against Arab targets resulted in at least 250 Arab deaths during this period." I agree, the section is very misleading as it stands.Smitty Mcgee 14:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The undergrounds groups ONLY TARGETED BRITIANS. These was a period when they retaliated against attacks from the arabs, but generally it IS TRUE they only targetted the British forces, that was their main idelogy, and hence why they're not terrorists in many ways.


 * This section should be renamed to denote a historical essense. Jewish Underground Groups sounds like a present-day faction like the kach party.  The Irgun Tvia Leumi and Haganah have been dissolved and their replacement was Zahal.  I suggest this section be named Haganah and Irgun, the seeds of the Israeli Defense Forces.Labaneh 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem Here is with Wikipedia Conventions
Hi folks, I am a new "editor" on Wikipedia, my SN is Eliot1785. I just wanted to chime in and say what, from my new user's perspective, I believe to be the cause of the current controversy over the Israel article.

Basically, it seems that Wikipedia's conventions (not rules, but how things are actually done) are to not allow POV sections in countries' entries. I think before the current debate about the Israel article can be resolved, there will have to be broader changes in how countries are treated in Wikipedia articles.

The folks who are posting here in defense of Israel do have a point - it would seem to be biased and unfair to add a "Criticism" section to Israel when no other countries seem to have it. And creating separate articles to contain points of view isn't just POV-forking, it also inherently degrades those points of view by cutting them out of the main article.

What Wikipedia needs is to break out of the conceptual box wherein articles about countries cannot include criticism of those countries, and start doing that. Once *OTHER* countries have criticism sections, it will make a lot more sense to add such a section to Israel. Then everybody with a point of view on the country can make sure it is listed, and their detractors can post the standard responses to those points of view.

One other thing - I don't think you should simply create a section called "criticism." I think that criticism sections should somehow be divided by topic, for example, "Criticism of Foreign Policy" or "Criticism of Socioeconomic Conditions." That will make sure things stay on topic and the section doesn't become an all-out struggle for the legitimacy of the country.

My $0.02 User:Eliot1785

(note: please sign by using four tildes . Thanks) ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A section called "Criticism of Israel" would be silly and POV. But having a section on human rights in Israel would be fine, so long as the section itself is NPOV. Having material critical of Israel, or presenting POVs which are critical of Israel, should be fine, so long as it's presented in a balanced, NPOV way. Part of the problem is that many of the people who are eager to add such material are not capable of doing this, which allows people supportive of Israel to just bollocks the whole idea. john k 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, including criticism in a country article seems like an unusual step. Wouldn't it be better to go to articles about specific events and ensure that criticism and support for certain actions is included? Once again, it feels like Israel is being singled out simply because its neighbours hate it. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we also going to have a human rights section in Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and so on? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've noted before, I would say that Israel's human rights record in Israel proper is probably comparable to that of other western countries, and doesn't warrant discussion here. Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories is rather unique, and quite possibly warrants a brief discussion here (if it could fit in some already existing section, that would be fine), and its own article. There's a human rights section in People's Republic of China, as a sub-section of "Government and Politics."  Why wouldn't this be appropriate for Israel? john k 12:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading over the human rights section in People's Republic of China, it seems to me that this is a good model, and would be appropriate to add into numerous articles. If someone wants to right a human rights section on Germany or Australia, and uses good sources and does so in an NPOV way, I don't see why that's a problem.  Israel's unique position in the Territories makes human rights a more salient issue there, and I think a section modeled on the one in the PRC article would not violate any wikipedia policies that I'm aware of.  john k 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though I am a strong supporter of Israel, I think a human rights section is warranted since there are a number of people who believe it is an important topic to be discussed. However, it is blatantly obvious here that none of us are able to keep an unbiased tone when discussing Israel. My suggestion is for someone to start a separate page about Israeli human rights issues, and if we can all do a good job and keep it unbiased, maybe we can eventually merge it with the main article. Alcarcalimo2364 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This might be a good way to proceed, with the caveat that the human rights article should stay where it is, and that a short summary of it, with a link, should be what is added to the main article here. That said, while the difficulties of not getting carried away by emotion on Israel issues are always present, they haven't stopped us from having a large number of articles and so forth about Israel/Palestine issues.  I don't see why human rights should be any different from anything else.  The clash of POVs, when conducted by people acting in good faith and assuming good faith in one another (which is often a tall order),  can sometimes actually help make an article better - certainly articles on Israel/Palestine issues are much better sourced than articles about, say, the Buffyverse. john k 18:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * John, you didn't really address the issue. Have you added human rights sections to any other country articles, and if not, why are you starting with Israel? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I, if you will read above, am not starting with Israel, and I've actually written nothing on the subject. I am saying that it would be valid to add such a section in this article.  It would be valid to add such a section to virtually any article, so long as it is well sourced and NPOV.  I was not aware of anything in our NPOV rules saying that an article is POV because it's organized in a different way from another article.  If so, then obviously the PRC article is POV, in that it has a human rights section when other country articles do not. john k
 * You're still not addressing it. My question is: why are you here with this idea, and not on some other country page first? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm here because this is a page I happen to watch, and somebody else suggested it on this talk page. Or possibly because I'm a self-hating Jew.  Take your pick. john k 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * John, China is still a Communist dictatorship, although a paradoxically capitalist one; it doesn't really make sense to compare it to Israel. The article on Russia, which is rife with Human Rights issues, has no Human Rights section. Nor does that of Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chile, etc.  Even countries like Australia and Canada, known for decades of abuse of their indigenous populations, and the United States, which not only oppressed indigenous peoples, but also African-Americans and even Hispanics, has no section. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me that if it is acceptable to have a human rights section in the China article, it would be acceptable to have one in other articles. And where do we draw the line?  Given the radical inconsistency between wikipedia treatments of different subjects, I don't see how we can say that because other articles aren't organized in this way, it would be POV to organize an Israel article in this way.  It might not be the best way to do it, but just because it's not how other articles are organized, doesn't seem like a good argument.  And I think human rights sections in articles on Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chile, Australia, Canada, the United States, and so forth, would all be perfectly acceptable, if someone wants to write them. john k 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as a gesture of good will, you could do that, in case anyone thinks you're simply out to make an anti-Israel point. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you should assume good faith. I have no particular interest in myself writing a section on human rights in any article.  But even if I was just interested in writing one on Israel, that is not an indictment of me, any more than if I, say, was interested in making a list of Kings of England, but not of Kings of France shows my pro-English (or possibly anti-English) bias.  People have specialized knowledge.  You can't require people to write about subjects they may not know about or have any interest in simply to prove that they are even handed. john k 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat (yet again) an earlier suggestion in this regard. There is a small article called Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, but it isn't really about that...it's about allegations of human rights abuses on both sides. I think there is a great opportunity here to rename it and use it to showcase the strengths and weaknesses in human rights issues in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I think we should try to reach a real consensus on this and build a balanced article that highlights both the good and the bad on all sides. For this to work, though, we need co-operation from a lot of people with wildly differing views. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving that article to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories might be a good start. A well-developed article on the subject would also make it much easier to have a brief summary in this article, if we are so inclined. john k 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, in case it isn't clear, that I am not among those who thinks this article is POV because it doesn't contain a section on human rights, and I think that noting that other articles don't contain such a section is a perfectly good defense against the idea that the lack of such a section in this article shows a pro-Israel POV. But that doesn't mean that such a section would be POV. It obviously very easily could be POV, but it isn't inherently so. john k 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is inherently so, if it appears that Israel is being singled out in any way. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you would first of all write such a section on, say, Australia. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And your argument would be a lot stronger if you would first of all argue that the human rights section in People's Republic of China needs to be removed. Also, wouldn't all of these arguments you are giving apply equally to my writing a section on human rights in Australia? One could just as easily say, "well, look, Israel and Indonesia don't even have sections on human rights, and they're much worse than Australia.  I suspect anti-Australia bias."  If one thinks there ought to be human rights sections in country articles, one has to start somewhere.  Why shouldn't it be Israel?  john k 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Israel gets singled out far too often, as you know, because you're one of the people who does it. Australia has quite a serious human rights problem. Once you've written a human-rights section there, it'll be easier to take your claims of neutrality seriously. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "You can't require people to write about subjects they may not know about or have any interest in simply to prove that they are even handed." Beyond that, I take some issue to the claim that I "single out Israel far too often."  I'll admit that, on wikipedia, I have, on a number of occasions, argued against a pro-Israeli position on a number of issues.  As far as I am aware, almost all of these discussions were on subjects specifically relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict already.  I can't think of any instances where I have insisted on the insertion of discussion of Israel somewhere where it was not discussed, or anything of the sort.  My involvement in the current discussion is only because I happened to clean out the page and got looking at it again.  Normally I avoid these subjects, and the vast majority of my work on wikipedia has nothing to do with this stuff.  You are accusing me of bad faith, and I've done nothing to deserve it.  Also, I have no need to demonstrate my "neutrality" any more than you do before I can propose changes to this article (and you are obviously not any more neutral on Israel/Palestine issues than I am).  We all have a POV, that's unavoidable.  My POV is no less valid than yours.  Ideally, our differing POVs would complement each other, and allow us to work together to improve articles, but your attitude that my POV is invalid, and that I have to prove that I'm not motivated in what I say by "anti-Israel bias" before I can edit here.  Being motivated by anti-Israel bias is no more invalid than being motivated by pro-Israel bias, so long as one keeps a clear head and follows wikipedia policy.  If I wanted to write articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because of my passionate commitment to the Palestinian cause (I generally don't, and I don't think I'm passionately committed to the Palestinian cause, but, for the sake of argument...), that would be just as valid as any other reason for editing an article.  (BTW, Human rights in Australia, while recognizing some serious abuses in the past with respect to Australia's immigration policies and treatment of the Aborigines, does not identify any outstanding issues comparable to Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories). john k 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, the human rights situation in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon is a high profile issue now. If a country is to be the first (or second) to have a human rights section, then why not Israel? You say it is singled out far too often, but I think this isn't the place to try to compensate for percieved bias. If enough people have something to say about Australia's human rights, then I hope they create a section in that article. Further, the form of government, Communist, Democratic etc. is irrelevant to whether or not the human rights issues can be compared - if it's an issue, it's an issue. Regarding a section on critisism of Israel's right to exist, I take the same attitude - this is a contentious and prescient issue which many people (not just anti-zionists) want to read about and discuss. If there should be a similar question over East Timor (or Australia) I hope they would have that forum. BTW I'm Australian and favour free expression. - Marc.

May I suggest creating seperate articles for human rights allegations? I think the category in China is also misplaced. There should be seperate articles for these issues because human rights issues are extremely transient in the historical sense. This might allow a forum for human right issues outside of the central article. Waynepl107 17:56, 1 August 2006 (EST)


 * It could very well be a category (or even a topic): Human Rights Around the World with topics Human Rights in  for all countries containing short or long, depending on whether longer explanation is needed, description of their status on human rights. That page could then be linked to each and every country's 'own page' without any bias. - G3, 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Israel is the only country in the region with a justice system that prosecutes or imprisons convicted criminals with reasonable and fair punishment. Every system is broken and every system has errors, but Israel's is the closest in the entire Middle-East to reasonably good.  Advocates for Israeli human rights violations fail to connect these dots.  With the exception of Turkey, mobs publicly lynch people for merely speaking positively about Israel in the muslim world.  This has a commanding effect on the people's ideology, and creates entire societies that can only think, speak or act in an anti-Zionist tone.  That, to me, is the biggest human right violation.Labaneh 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert as much as you want
But never say you have my permission to attack LEBANON


 * In any case, anonymous user, Wikipedia is no place to discuss your personal ideals. Ariedartin JECJY 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ariedartin, who asked you? And who cares?


 * You posted publicly, which is an implicit request for comments. If you don't want people posting their opinions on your opinion, then keep your opinion to yourself.--Izaakb 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support Israel's actions. In fact, I would fight, side by side with them. They are doing right, the Hezbollah group are bloody radicals. Destroy all brutes.--66.218.13.28 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Another cyber jihadist.

Hamas not terrorists?
I find it unusual that there is a debate regarding the Hamas group being terrorists.

Considering that several Hamas members are on the InterPol arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze list, as well as terrorist watch lists for most European countries, and the United States, it seems inarguable. --Izaakb 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it's a matter of perspective. To put it simply, to the groups that the Hamas are helping, they aren't terrorists, but to the groups that are victimised, they are terrorists. Ariedartin JECJY 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, seems to me that they could also be terrorists who are being helpful. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * to Ariedartin-- to the caged bird that you feed and care for, does he care that you are a murderer? Yet, he is still just a caged bird.  Even the murderer and gangster Al Capone wrote to his mother regularly and signed it "your loving son"--Izaakb 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite the same unless Capone were to be sending his mother money or information that she needed with the letter. I think you are mistaking the issue of kindness vs. a perceived need. The American Revolution was undertaken by terrorists is a very viable sentence from one perspective. Generally though in the U.S. we refer to them as revolutionaries or heroes. I believe that is the point being made. The real issue is that terrorist and terrorism are overused words, because they really refer to any person/group which instills fear in another, and this description is applicable to an enormous amount of the worlds groups and people. Speaking without bias would be to describe their actions (both good and bad, though the bad may outweigh the good) and not refer to them with a term which doesn't convey any facts, but feelings.


 * Well, I agree with the unsigned user above. The word "Terrorist" is not NPoV. The neutrality of the Wiki on Terrorism is disputed. The talk section there is burning. The problem I see with the use of the term is that it is so emotive. It is now so simple for any country to deal with legitimate or illigitimate violently dissenting factions by immediately branding them as terrorists and receive almost immediate and unblinking support by a lot of people around the world. In addition, there is the question of State Sponsored terrorism. There seems to be plenty of evidence that state organised intellugence services have done their fair share of terrorism as well. The French Secret Service blew up the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand for instance. The CIA, Mossad, KGB have done their fair share of assassination and "terrorist" activities around the world (to name just three). Where would anyone like the definition to stop? Better to keep to the facts of what they do/have done to be on the safe side.
 * So as far as Hamas being a "terrorist" organisation better to avoid the issue and explain how they operate and what they do. It would also be better to keep a discussion about who sees Hamas as what and from which perspective to the Hamas entry (which I see is already done there).
 * Candy 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)    (minor edit here as I had forgotten to login)

Clean up this talk page!
This is ridiculous. Nobody can make a good argument on this page anymore because stuff is all over the place. I say it's high time we clean slate it and start over... Alcarcalimo2364 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. And it's only been ten days, too!. If we clean now, we'll have two or three archive pages devoted entirely to debate in July 2006. john k 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever goes on this page is going to affend someone. I may have already missed it but I think the article should have the two points of view to make it a neutral point of view. --MrBobla 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're wrong. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite my fear of being told that I am wrong, I must say that Mr. Bobla has a point. The article as it stands describes Israel from the stance of its supporters. In order to balance out this bias, a voice must also be given to the nation's detractors.Smitty Mcgee 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsupported assertions are neither an argument nor a proof. Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Support can be found in the arguments above, as well as in the pages of human rights reports issued by countless non-governmental organizations. It would be an unjustified bit of censorship to leave out this information.Smitty Mcgee 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More unsupported assertions, mixed with emotional scare-words like "censorship". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly are the unsupported assertions being made? That the article "describes Israel from the stance of its supporters"? john k 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of the main ones. "Countless NGOs" is hyperbole, and misleading. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, lots of NGOs have criticized Israel's human rights record. Although, one should note, most human rights NGOs criticize everyone's human rights record (except, apparently, Iceland). john k 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That, in fact, is what is misleading; NGOs criticize everyone (though they do seem to have a ###### for Israel, shared by the U.N., and prompted by a number of unfortunate and unsavory factors). Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, one could disagree about the motivations (for the NGOs, at least). Human rights organizations function by shaming countries into doing a better job.  Israel, as a democracy, seems like it should be a more effective target for shaming than, say, the Sudan, or Myanmar.  What does Kim Jong Il care about what HRW says about his regime?  Monitoring a country like North Korea is, of course, useful, but it's understandable why less effort would be put into it - because there's not much an NGO can accomplish there. It seems fairly understandable that a democracy with some serious human rights problems, like Israel, would be potentially a more desirable target of action than a brutal, insular dictatorship that doesn't give a damn what human rights NGOs say about them. john k 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the country Israel. To describe Israel politics, society, economic, history, religion, etc., we have other articles. I would argue that specific aspects such as controversy about separation of church and state, human rights, etc. can be explored on the relvant sub-articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To describe Israel's politics, history, society, economy, religion in detail we have other articles. But surely all of these things should be (and are!) summarized in this article? john k 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Main details about the country should be here. But specific controversies, not necessarily. You may want to check how this is addressed on other countries' articles. Treating this article different from any other country would not be wise. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May I also remind you of what Wikipedis is not? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep throwing that at me? I don't even know what you're specifically referring to.  And we would not be treating Israel differently from the article on every other country to have a section on human rights - there are such sections at People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Cuba, for instance.  Are we only allowed to have such sections in articles on communist countries?  And while North Korea is probably uniquely bad, I think it could easily be argued that wikipedia is showing bias against the PRC and Cuba by having such sections in their articles, but not in articles about, say, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan, and so forth...surely Sudan's human rights violations are considerably worse than Cuba's? Are you arguing that we remove the human rights sections from the PRC, PDRK, and Cuba articles? john k 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to imagine why someone would think that the Human Rights situation in Israel is in any way comparable to that in China, North Korea or Cuba - at least, why someone who was at all familiar with these countries would suggest that. Spain would be a better comparator.  Or the United States. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Way to knock over that straw man. That's not what I was saying.  I don't think that having a section on human rights in a country is, in and of itself, an indictment of that country's human rights record.  I think it would be acceptable to add a well-researched and NPOV human rights section to any country article.  I don't think that this needs to be done in some sort of hierarchical order of worst to best.  You however, seem to think that we cannot have a human rights section on a country until all countries with worse human rights records have such articles.  This is not only rather silly, but also is directly at odds with the current wikipedia situation, in which Cuba and China have sections for pretty workaday political oppression, while a country with an ongoing genocide (Sudan, again) does not have a section on human rights at all.  Why is it unacceptable to have a section on human rights in Israel because there aren't such sections about Australia and Indonesia, but it is acceptable to have a section on human rights in Cuba even though there aren't such sections about Sudan or Myanmar? Why does the issue of whether this article is NPOV have to be tied up with a comparison to 190 other articles? john k 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem; other countries could get normal articles, but when it's about Israel people want to create one-sided fiascos like this: Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A balanced discussion of the true state of Human rights in Israel should be welcome by all Wikipedia editors for the good of the project.  The intent of the above is to propagandize and attack. Elizmr 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem terribly fair to attack an article for being POV when it is first created. This is what the wikipedia process is about - working on the article back and forth until a good article is created.  It would seem to me that it would be more constructive to try to improve our coverage of these things, and make sure they stay NPOV, than to use it as an example of why our normal rules should be abandoned when it comes to Israel.  Basically, my issue is this - there seems to be a mindset that because there's a lot of anti-Israel editors who are stupid and incompetent, and who create articles or sections that suck, that means that we have to develop this whole set of far more stringent rules when dealing with issues of Israel.  I don't think that's right.  I think we should use the same rules.  The fact that people create ###### articles can be perfectly well dealt with using the ordinary rules of wikipedia, and the article you point to has been the subject of considerable debate over the course of the day, with a lot of changes (not sure how good all of it is).  I understand the concern that anti-semitic (or, at least, anti-Israel) garbage can get into wikipedia, but the way to deal with that is not to set some kind of good will test, where I have to prove that I don't have any ulterior motives by writing an article on human rights in Switzerland or what not before I gain the right to deal with Israel, as SV apparently suggested earlier.  The whole point of wikipedia is that it shouldn't matter if we have ulterior motives.  So long as we take care to verify our information with reliable sources, to avoid original research, and to insure that all points of view are represented in a way to give each its due weight, it shouldn't matter that editors have POVs - editors are supposed to have POVs.  And sure, Middle East topics attract more than their fair share of bad editors, but we can't condemn something on the basis that it would be done badly.  Certainly that's not how wikipedia works for any other topic. john k 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<< We have an article on Human rights in Israel. As per WP:FORK, we could simply summarize that article in a sentence or two and link to the main article with the details template. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that would be my suggestion as well, although I'd say "a short paragraph" rather than "a sentence or two." I didn't mean to suggest I favored anything else. I will say that that article is pretty #### right now, and it may take a while before it's in a state to be summarized. john k 02:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, we can take a break from this, wait until that article is stable and then summarize here. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * J Kenney--I see what you are saying in the long quote above, but actually according to Jimmy Wales it is every editor's duty to maintain balance at all times. See my user page for his discussion on this.  OK?  Elizmr 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, every editor should strive to achieve NPOV. But every editor also has their own biases which color their view of what wikipedia is.  There is not and has never been an injunction that one has to be unbiased to edit wikipedia - the very idea is, at any rate, absurd.  Everyone is biased in one way or another.  Notice that Jimbo says that it is incumbent on all of us to try to achieve balance in our writing.  That is to say, we should try to overcome our biases and be fair-minded when trying to write for wikipedia.  We should not come to wikipedia with the purpose of writing one-sided polemics, even if we feel like the people we disagree with are doing this.  But what SlimVirgin seems to be demanding is that, on Israeli/Palestinian topics, at least, one has to prove beforehand that one has no  "bias" against Israel before one can contribute.  I know perfectly well that, at least compared to the Zionists who seem to populate wikipedia articles on this subject, I have a "bias" against Israel (I don't think I'm reflectively anti-Israel in any way, but i find the Israeli government's actions to be frequently repugnant, and I think the origins of the State of Israel are morally questionable at best).  But I don't think those views, even if they can be characterized as "anti-Israel" (which I think is an unfair characterization, at any rate), should in any way disqualify me from editing and discussing articles on the subject, any more than being sympathetic to Israel disqualifies one.  What is required is an ability to be open to opposing points of view, and to be fair minded in trying to insure that NPOV is met.  This is the point of Jimbo's comment that  neutrality is not "best achieved by warring camps."  The point isn't that people can't have opinions, it's that people shouldn't be writing in bad faith in a way to purposefully promote their POV. john k 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, John, This is Wikipedia, where a Nazi can edit the article on The holocaust, and an christian fundamentalist can edit the article on Islamism. But that would only be possible, if we discuss the article a not not the subject, or our ideas on the subject, keep our cool, and make extraordinary efforts not to use these talk pages as a battelground of ideas. For example, your comments above about your views are absolutely unnecessary. I do not care a about your views. All  I care is: can you edit this article and add value? So far I have see a lot of smoke, but not fire. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned my own views as an example, because SlimVirgin seems to feel that people need to prove that they don't have "bias against Israel" before they can edit this and related pages. As to editing this article, as I think we both agree, there's not much to be done here at the moment.   If you'd like at my comments at Talk:human rights in Israel, I think you'll find that I've been trying to moderate positions on both sides, and that I don't agree with the "propaganda of one side will be balanced out by propaganda from the other side" perspective.  My most recent comments here have been in response to the rather bizarre idea that SV has expressed that one has to prove one's good faith by writing sections on human rights in Australia before one has earned the right to advocate for a section on human rights in Israel here.  As I think I've stated before, I'm not terribly interested in writing articles about human rights (although now that I've gotten myself into the Israel mess, I feel some responsibility to make an effort to see that it doesn't end up a complete POV disaster), but I find most of the general arguments against such a section to be dubious, and I have ever right to point this out in talk if I want to.  As to my personal views, I was merely stating them for the purpose of explaining my biases, which can, I think, be useful, in that it reveals where everyone's coming from.  I'm glad that you don't care about my views.  I don't particularly care about your views, either.  At the same time, it's always useful to know where somebody is coming from, as it helps you judge what they are saying.  In particular, it keeps you on the look out for statements against interest, which can be useful in judging whether somebody is being fair-minded.  But, anyway, as usual, I find this exhausting and deeply dissatisfying.  I don't want to have to write long essays in defense of general wikipedia principles, but articles on this particular subject seem to be so full of strange attitudes towards things like NPOV and original research that I tend to spend much more time than I'd like doing this kind of thing.  Anyway, I'm done with this.  This is tiring and all it seems to result in is SlimVirgin accusing me of being an anti-semite (or something...) and you repeatedly telling me to look at "What wikipedia is not".  I'm going to keep looking at the human rights article, in hopes that a little sage guidance from me will help move things in the right direction, but ovverall I find the whole thing exhausting.  john k 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:NOT from time to time, is a good thing, and I do that myself to remind me that this is an encyclopedia and not a place for advocacy journalism, a battleground of ideas and a myriad of other things. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Many wonder why Israel is in the critical state it's in today, what are the roots of the current crisis and of the crisis before that and the one before that...unfortunately great part of it is due to European racism, or rather the racism of European Jewry. Jews in Europe suffered horrendously before, during, and immediately after WWII in great part because of entrenched anti-semitic and racist views held not only in Hitler's Reich and in Mussolini's Italy, but also in France, Russia, England, and even the US. Tragically many of Israel's own "founding fathers" held similarly racist and anti-semitic beliefs regarding Arabs and Muslims in general, these views of course were in no way original or limited to the European Jewish intelligentsia, they were the views of the "civilized world," of the West as a whole. These beliefs and the colonialism they cyclically fed from and nourished have had grievous consequences for the West, and today we in Europe and America are reaping the whirlwind, the intergenerational holocaust that was bloodily planted by our forefathers: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Roosevelt. But in Israel it is worse still, there the woe of its people the madness that is colonialism is being put on display, as it was before in Indochina, Algeria, and South Africa. A European minority entrenched and armed to the tooth, indoctrinated with notions of religo-racial superiority, and caught in the grasp of social and political ultraism, is doomed to implosion–this was the lesson of the American South, Haiti, Angola and South Africa. Yet, in the case of Israel its history and its lessons will prove doubly tragic, for if European Jewry had, beginning with the first settlments in Ottoman Palestine, demonstrated a respect for its Palestinian neighbors and a willingness to live in conditions of equality and fraternity with Arab Muslims then the seeds of a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational state would have been laid. Such was the only way, such the only viable Israel.

Maimon (found this essay, I think it particularly relevant today)


 * Congratulations, that is as irrelevant as it is false and disgusting. Do you have anything of value to add or just vicious Jew-hatred? You need to read a history book or two....it was not the Jews who attempted to eradicate their neighbours in a 1948 war of aggression. The tolerance you insist the Jews of the 40s should have shown to their peaceful Arab friends would have resulted in a Holocuast-proportion bloodbath. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You call that vicious Jew hatred? I saw nothing in those comments which is anti-semitic, although it's clearly fundamentally anti-zionist. The statement has nothing to do with improving the article, and as such isn't a useful contribution to this talk page, but neither is your comment.  And perhaps you should read a history book as well, instead of just the Israeli propaganda version of its history. john k 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "A European minority entrenched and armed to the tooth, indoctrinated with notions of religo-racial superiority..." <-- Jew-hatred and disgusting racist rhetoric. As for your "Israeli propaganda" comment, which part did you mean? The part where Israel's neighbours tried to eradicate it (and its people) in 1948? I don't need propaganda of any kind to tell me that this is simply factual. Sorry for shooting my mouth off though...I know it isn't helpful but lines like the one I just quoted are pretty upsetting. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Maimon or the essayist is talking about the 40s, the essay describes a racist precedent set by European Jewish settlers pre-WWI, and in a Palestine still part of the Ottoman Empire.

Marsiliano 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

--68.106.63.89 00:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

wasnt tel aviv its capital
wasnt tel aviv its capital at some point of time, nids 12:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe in 1948-49 it was the provisional capital. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tel Aviv IS the capital of Israel as recognize by the UN. Only Israel (and two other contry: Costa Rica and Salvador) consider Jerusalem as their capital. As a consequence all the embassy are situated in Tel Aviv.
 * Countries do not have to ask the rest of the world for permission to designate their capital. The law of Israel says Jerusalem is the capital, and the headquarters of all of its branches of government are located in Jerusalem.  Jerusalem is therefore the capital both "de jure" and "de facto", meaning it is the capital, period.  6SJ7 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The current situation, with Jerusalem listed, but footnoted, with the footnote giving an explanation of the controversy, is fully appropriate. john k 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah john, the current situation is fully appropriate, but when i started this topic there wasnt such things. so we can close this topic now. nids 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

6SJ7 is being disingenious. Countries do not need permission to designate cities in their country as a capital. But they cannot occupy a city contrary to international law and then declare it their capital. As far as international law is concerned, Jerusalem does not have the status to qualify for a designation, because the achievement of complete control by the Israeli state of the city was done contrary to international law. As far as international law is concerned, Jerusalem is not Israel's and therefore cannot be made its capital. Of the hundreds of state on the planet, a grand total of three, El Salvador, Costa Rica and the United States, regard Jerusalem as Israel's capital. 97 regard Tel Aviv as Israel's de jure capital, while the rest refuse to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital as treat Tel Aviv as the de facto capital by basing their embassies and consular missions there. Even in the United States, the recognition of Jerusalem was highly controversial at the time and split America.

Nor is the non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital limited to governments. Among those who regularly refer to Tel Aviv as Israel's capital are the BBC, CNN TV5, RTÉ, RAI, etc.   FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Countries can dispute Israel's claim to Jerusalem, but they cannot claim Tel-Aviv is the capital. Any organization claiming so is simply unprofessional - there's nothing to designate Tel-Aviv as the capital! All of the Israeli instituitions are located in Jerusalem - the Knesset (the parliament), the government ministries, the Supreme Court, the president's home, the prime minister's home, and many others. Jerusalem IS within Israel - Israel controls it fully. While you may think this shouldn't be, it's still the fact. Jerusalem's function as de-facto capital of Israel is unrefutable. (BTW, all of the instituitions I mentioned reside in west-Jerusalem, which was under Israeli rule from 1948/9).
 * If you wish to claim Jerusalem isn't the capital, try defining "Capital City" first, and see how that goes. okedem 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, wrong. Their argument, and it is accepted by most lawyers worldwide, is that Israel started off with Tel Aviv as its capital. It claimed ownership of Jerusalem contrary to international law (under international law the city is not owned by any one state) and claimed then the right to move the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However as under international law the change in designation is invalid, ipso facto the situation before the designation remains the legal situation, namely that the city stripped of capital status by virtue of the supposed grant of that status to Jerusalem legally did not lose it and so continues to have the status it originally had, that of Israeli capital.


 * Nor is there any requirement that parliaments and head of state residences be in the capital. The old Irish parliament met on occasion in Drogheda. That did not make it the Irish capital. No parliament met in Tara, yet it was the Irish capital. The King and Estates-General met in Versailles, yet Paris was still French capital. There are numerous examples of capitals not having parliaments and state residences, and of parliaments and state residences not being in capitals. Most people regard the capital of the EU as being Brussels. Yet plenary sessions of parliament, the formal meetings, occur in Strasburg, the official premier seat.


 * This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda sheet. The fact that Jerusalem's status is disputed, and that much of the world regards Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, is indesputable. That doesn't mean that Jerusalem isn't and that Tel Aviv is. Nor vice versa. It just means that internationally few regard Jerusalem as Israel's capital and most regard Tel Aviv as being so. (Only tonight a BBC report I heard stated "A Tel Aviv spokesman stated that . . .") It would help if people stopped acting as spokespeople for Israel, or critics of Israel, and started being neutral compilers of information. Unfortunately most articles on the middle east are scarred by the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian POV-pushers.  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint) 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You still have not defined what a capital actually is. Is it what the UN says it is? Is it what the country says it is? Is it defined by the function?
 * Also, remember that before 1980 (when Israel passed a law about Jersusalem), 13 countries had their embassies there: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. (from Positions on Jerusalem). okedem 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel can declare Jerusalem as its capital but it is a violation of the international laws as declare by the UN (Resolutions 476 and 478, see also the UN document "The status of Jerusalem" in The question of Palestine and the United Nation, www.un.org/Depts/palestine). There has been a world consensus, after the second world war that the UN were the last resort for international controversy. Even if the UN decisions (particularly in this part of the world) are not often respected, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia that try to be as objective as possible should refer to UN decisions as last resort.

Furthermore, for Okedem, there are several countries that do not have their institutions in their official capital (found on Wikipedia):

Bolivia: Sucre is still the constitutional capital, but most of the national government long abandoned that region for La Paz.

Chile: Santiago is understood to be the capital even though the National Congress of Chile is in Valparaíso.

Côte d'Ivoire: Yamoussoukro was designated the national capital in 1983, but most government offices and embassies are still located in Abidjan.

Nauru: Nauru, a tiny country of only 21 square km, has no capital city.

The Netherlands: Amsterdam is the nominal national capital even though the Dutch government and Supreme Court are both located in The Hague.

In South Africa, the administrative capital is Pretoria, the legislative capital is Cape Town, and the judicial capital is Bloemfontein, the outcome of the compromise that created the Union of South Africa in 1910.Votre 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really do not think very much of what you brought up is either relevant or correct. First of all the United Nations is notoriously biased against Israel, especially the general Council due to global demographics and the like. It is ridiculous to suggest that a nation's capital is not determined by the nation itself. Second of all, your points about the individual nations you have brought up is completely irrelevant. Even if some countries have different administrative and constitutional capitals Israel does not. All of their important government buildings (besides embassies whose locations are usually chosen by the respective foreign governments) are located in Jerusalem such as the Knesset and such. I can really not stress enough the fact that the UN is not the sole perveyor of International Law and has repeatedly proven itself to not be competent for that duty.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moshe, your definition of UN General Assembly bias against Israel, takes the same form as Britain's 'bias' against the British National Party or Workers' Liberty. Most people don't support them because they don't like their policies, simple. Since we are talking about the largest gathering of the world's official representatives, are you seriously saying 'it's the world that's in the wrong?'. Anyway, be realistic - it doesn't matter where Israel decides to put its government buildings, as long as foriegn governments decide where to locate their embassies, Tel Aviv, as the diplomatic centre of gravity, will remain the internationally recognised capital city. Tie-in to the topic: I think WP should use internationally recognised places, borders etc. to the maximum extent, and this case is no different - Marc.


 * If Wikipedia should only include internationally recognized borders, capitals, etc., Wikipedia will not have Republic of China, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, or anything similar to that regarded as sovereign entities (which they de facto are). Wikipedia has articles on nations that de facto exist, and regards them as sovereign entities, whether people want it or not. To make long words short, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not Tel Aviv, not Haifa, not any other city. Period. You can have a footnote about the "internationally recognized capital of Israel" at the bottom of the infobox, but Jerusalem is still the "eternal capital of Israel" (if I quoted it correctly), de facto and de jure (in Israeli law). Designation of capitals does not have the disclaimer "subject to international approval." --physicq210 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to cite legal opinion rather than ad hoc statements of various Wikipedians views. International legal opinion is divided, a common state with most topics involving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

In reference to the above-provided historical claims, the following history (text citation notes deleted) from Charles Bryan Baron, “The International Legal Status of Jerusalem,” 8 Touro Int'l L. Rev. (Spring 1998) 1, at 9-10:

“On November 30, 1948, the United Nations Cease-Fire Agreement was concluded between military representatives of Transjordan and Israel. This agreement delineated the respective military positions in Jerusalem. On April 3, 1949, these positions were subsequently incorporated as armistice lines in the armistice agreement signed by Israeli and Jordanian representatives in Rhodes.

In late 1949, despite the rejection of Resolution 181(II) by the Arab states and the Arabs of Palestine, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 303(IV), which provided for the complete territorial internationalization of Jerusalem through revival of the corpus separatum. The Israeli government categorically rejected the territorial internationalization plan in 1950 by declaring that "upon the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem once again became its capital." With this emphatic declaration of Jerusalem as its capital, Israel transferred its governmental headquarters to Jerusalem and applied Israeli domestic law to the western sector of the city.

The Jordanian government likewise rejected the corpus separatum plan envisaged for Jerusalem. On April 24, 1950, the Transjordan National Assembly adopted a resolution annexing the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem into the Hashemite Kingdom.

Later in 1950, the United Nations' attempt to resuscitate the idea of establishing a corpus separatum for the city of Jerusalem was thwarted. The Soviet Union withdrew its support for territorial internationalization of the entire city, since neither the Jews nor the Arabs would accept such a scheme. In addition, two proposals to the United Nations General Assembly, one calling for territorial internationalization, or corpus separatum, and the other providing for the functional internationalization of the Holy Places in Jerusalem, failed to receive the requisite majority for passage. Accordingly, during the period between 1952 and 1967, the search for a solution to the Jerusalem issue based on the principle of internationalization was suspended.”

In short translation, claims of internationalization and corpus separatum quickly became a dead letter after 1948. Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in 1949 and there has been de facto recognition since that point. For political reasons, most embassies were established in Tel Aviv; few countries entered into legal reasons for this decision at the time.

Questions on the status of western Jerusalem are separable from those relating to post-'67 east Jerusalem. The following quote summarizes the schools of legal opinion on this subject -- from Ruth Lapidoth, “The Future of Jerusalem: A Symposium: Jerusalem – Some Jurisprudential Aspects,” 45 Cath. U.L. Rev. 661 (Spring 1996) at 672-273:

“There are four basic opinions on West Jerusalem. According to the first, Israel lawfully acquired sovereignty in 1948. When Britain left the area, a vacuum of sovereignty ensued which could be validly filled only by lawful action. Since Israel acquired control of west Jerusalem in 1948 by a lawful act of self-defence, she was entitled to fill that vacuum and thus became the lawful sovereign.

Under a second opinion, sovereignty over Jerusalem is suspended until a comprehensive settlement is agreed upon.

According to the third theory, the Palestinian Arab people have had and still have "legal sovereignty" over the whole of Palestine including Jerusalem since the mandatory period.

Proponents of the fourth opinion maintain that the status of Jerusalem is still subject to the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 1947 which recommended the establishment of a corpus separatum under a special international regime and administered by the United Nations.

Most foreign nations have not adopted a clear-cut policy on the status of West Jerusalem. Although their approaches differ, certain similarities emerge with regard to basic questions. Foreign States were not prepared to recognize the legality of Jordanian or Israeli rule over zones of the City under their respective control. ……..

Despite this non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty, most states have nevertheless accepted the de facto applicability of Israeli law…”

There is no forseeable resolution to these debates. However, just as it is the right of individuals to choose their own names, so too it is the right of nations to choose their names, capitals, flags, and other symbols. The function of an encyclopedia is to record these decisions, not to challenge their legitimacy.--Jlockard 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is clear, de facto and de jure (by Israeli law) that Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, is the capital of Israel. The designation of a nation's capital should not and does not come with the disclaimer "subject to the approval of the UN and other sovereign entities." --physicq210 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy and Neutrality Tag Added
Given all the above, it seems pretty clear why this is needed. The article on Palestinian refugees (a link from this page) has it loud and clear at the top, as do many other links from this page. It seems self-evident then that this page should too. For example, this page claims that the Palestinian "fled" in 1948 rather than were forced out. Some people may agree with this and some people may not, but it is obviously a statement whose factual accuracy is not accepted by everyone. In fact, these "factual accuracy" tags should also be semi-protected from vadalism (in this case, vandalism is removing them) simonhartigan 12:45, 30 July 2006 (EST)


 * Agreed--Oiboy77 05:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out the factual accuracy of the earth being round is also factually disputed. Is that a POV that should be left out of a Wikipedia article or equally balanced?Michaelh613 12:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)michaelh613

Certainly many Palestinians fled, although some were also forced out. This is more of a POV issue than a factual accuracy issue, if it's an issue at all. john k 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fled" is a good NPOV word to use here. People "flee" both voluntarily and under duress. To say "left voluntarily" or "were forced out" would be POV and would warrant editing or possibly the tag. The tag is certainly not warranted for the use of this word. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems sensible. john k 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence from the Israel article should be changed as follows, "The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First and Second Temples of the Jewish King, Solomon." should become: The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First Temple built by the Jewish King Solomon, inaugurated in 1026 BC, and the Second Temple built by Zerubbabel in 515 BC.

Human Rights Criticisms
Humus Sapiens deleted the ONLY sentence in this section that hinted at any criticism... which was: "These viewpoints are contested for various reasons by the U.S. Department of State, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The World Bank, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee." It had EIGHT sources for the one sentence.

Mischaracterization of Dept. of State In its place, he put: According to 2005 US Department of State report on Israel, "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas..." [22] If you go to the source, the complete sentence is: " however, there were problems in some areas, including the following:

"
 * serious abuses by some members of the security forces against Palestinian detainees
 * Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers
 * resulted in the death of 29 civilians and an IDF soldier within Israel
 * poor conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities
 * improper application of security internment procedures (see annex)
 * institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens
 * discrimination in personal and civil status matters against non-Orthodox Jews
 * societal violence and discrimination against women
 * trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers
 * de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities
 * government corruption

We can start listing specific areas of criticism, as this edit completely mischaracterizes the reality of the situation -- but I thought we wanted to keep this brief here? Or the fact that since your outdated source was created, Israel has been placed on a special Human Rights watchlist by the Dept. of State?

Freedom House

He also added: "In 2005, the Freedom House rated political rights in Israel as "1" (1 representing the most free and 7 the least free rating), civil liberties as "2" and gave it the freedom rating of "Free". [23]" -- We already documented on the Human_rights_in_Israel page that this report considered Israel and its "occupied territories" separately. Again, if this is considered then the rating is "6, 5, Not Free."

'''Please stop this blatant POV pushing. It is outrageous to delete the single critical Human Rights sentence and then include two mischaracterizions. What you edited to is not reflected by the citations either here or on the Human Rights in Israel article. '''

Sarastro777 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In this list I think I've finally figured out why I'm just not happy with this whole section. Listing all the human rights abuses that go on in Israel and in the Palestinian territories (not counting those perpetrated by the Palestinians themselves) makes Israel look pretty bad. But the problem is you could make a list like this for any country on the planet and make them look bad...most a lot worse than Israel. I'm not disputing that Israel does bad things when it comes to adhering to a universal code of human rights. I'm saying that any list like the one above is naturally and automatically prejudicial. It would only be fair to include such material if a massive amount of context could be established, and I'm not sure we have that kind of space in this article, or if any of us have the ability to do it in a fair and unbiased manner. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is problematic. Problems like "de facto discrimination against the disabled," and "government corruption" in particular, seem not terribly important.  I think if we have a section, it should touch on major issues - Palestinian terrorist violence, Israeli army violence in the territories, destruction of homes, settlement expansion and the wall, perhaps discrimination against the Palestinian population in Israel proper.  Before getting into this stuff, we could also mention that Israel is a liberal democracy, with civil rights and liberties, and such being generally observed within Israel itself, and such like, to mitigate the bad.  It should not be in the form of a bulleted list, but of text, and should link to the main article which, at some point, would hopefully be an actual good summary, rather than the mess it is now. john k 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from but I remain concerned. Again I think it comes back to context. Take, just for example, the west bank barrier. It would be easy to simply list the ways this imposes hardship on the wesk bank population and has been condemned by external organizations. However, there are extremely compelling arguments for the barrier....not the least of which is that it has been demonstrably effective in thwarting suicide bombers from crossing into Israel to target and kill civilians. In general, whenever an Israeli abuse against the Palestinians is cited, I find myself asking what any other democratic state would do in the face of murderous acts against its civilians (or its soldiers for that matter). There is a growing movement in the US southwest, for exmaple, to build a similar barrier to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico. What would America's reaction be if those Mexicans were blowing themselves up in restaurants and churches in Phoenix? How would any of us react? Context is tough. Schrodingers Mongoose 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the issue people tend to have with the wall is not the existence of the wall per se, but the way it is built not on the Green Line, but in such a way as to include as many settlements as humanly possible, and thus not only protects the settlements, which are illegal under international law, but makes life very difficult for the Palestinians whose freedom of movement is greatly impeded. There wouldn't be nearly this level of protest against the wall if it had been built along the Green line, or even with moderate adjustments from the Green Line.  I'd oppose my country building a wall along the border with Mexico, but let's note that a full analogy would involve the American government occupying northern Mexico and using its occupation to subsidize the construction of illegal American settlements in northern Mexico on land owned by Mexicans, all while disenfranchising the Mexican population and not giving them American citizenship (stuff which happened in the Palestinian Territories before there was any serious  indigenous terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza).  I don't think that the discussion here needs to go into much detail with justifications.  The history section discusses the history.  I'm happy to mention Palestinian terror attacks as part of a discussion of human rights.  I kind of see where you're coming from that any discussion is going to be short on context, and thus problematic, but I think that there's plenty of context on the conflict in the article as a whole, and hopefully there will be an entire article on human rights which can give context. john k 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel is the only country in the region with a justice system that prosecutes or imprisons convicted criminals with reasonable and fair punishment. Every system is broken and every system has errors, but Israel's is the closest in the entire Middle-East to reasonably good. Advocates for Israeli human rights violations fail to connect these dots. With the exception of Turkey, mobs publicly lynch people for merely speaking positively about Israel in the muslim world. This has a commanding effect on the people's ideology, and creates entire societies that can only think, speak or act in an anti-Zionist tone. That, to me, is the biggest human right violation.Labaneh 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
Do the actual stats(population, area... etc)include the WB/Gaza?


 * No, they don't. The figure for area does includes East Jerusalem and the Golan, as they were annexed by Israel (see the "Geography" section). okedem 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note - the population figure does include Israeli settlers living in the West bank, as they are Israeli citizens. okedem 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section on Israeli state-sponsored Terrorism & the Apartheid System Legally used in Israel

 * There should be mention of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism
 * There should be sections in this article dealing with the Apartheid system of Israel
 * The citizens of Israel are classified based on religion and race, inlcuding rights. Why is this not mentioned?
 * The funding of Israel and the Israeli economy by foreign subsities is also not really mentioned

69.196.164.190

Schrodingers Mongoose 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * POV
 * POV
 * Citations please
 * If people feel Israel's receipt of foreign aid is relevant, perhaps it could be discussed. Of course this would probably necessitate a section on foreign aid given by Israel, including its well-established global disaster response teams.

This is an interesting subject. Finklestein has in the past rejected the characterization of Aapartheid to Israel claim some significant differences in the way the two systems are/were set up. Since then he has changed his mind. The governement of south africa has initiated an embargo as a result of a perceived similarity between their own racist past and Israels racist present. I think there should be a section. Perhaps it should be put under the heading of right of return which should also be a heading or sub heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavidBurgess (talk • contribs)


 * Fortunately, Finklestein is not an authority on which we can base the creation of sections of this article. If you can provide a reference for this South African embargo on Israel, then it perhaps should be included on Israel's foreign relations page, but in terms of a "right of return and apartheid" section, I question whether there are sufficient, if any, NPOV sources out there on this topic to be able to back up such a section - pm_shef 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a section on the right of return in the Arab-Israel conflict page but not in the Israel page. Perhaps there should be some mention there.

Here you go

 * In Israel, Arabs dwelling within the pre-1967 boundaries are subject to these forms of discrimination, and those in the occupied territories are treated far more harshly. Inability to serve in the military might appear superficially as an advantage to non-Jews, but it is evidence of less than complete citizenship, and important state benefits are attached to military service in Israel. The doctrine that Israel is the state of the Jewish people in Israel and abroad, not of its citizens, is now part of the Basic Law of that country, and one Supreme Court Justice stated publicly that "it is necessary to prevent a Jew or Arab who calls for equality of rights for Arabs from sitting in the Knesset or being elected to it."


 * http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/may94herman.htm

''The ownership of land in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Israel Land Authority, which applies as a "fundamental criterion" of land use, religion and nationality. As noted by Professor Uzi Ornan, "Those registered as `Jews` have full rights in regard to most of the land, cities, and settlements; those who are not registered as `Jews` are barred from owning real estate in most sectors of the country" ("An Amazing Resemblance to South Africa," Ha'aretz, Feb. 10, 1991). These restrictions apply to over 90 percent of Israeli land, within which, as Israel Shahak states, "the non-Jewish citizens of Israel--and of course all the non-Jews of the rest of the world too--simply cannot live; they cannot rent a house or an apartment, or open a business, unless they surreptitiously sublet it from a Jew." Shahak goes on to say: "One can imagine what a storm would be raised if such official policy of discrimination was practiced against Jews" ( Lies of Our Times, May 1991).''
 * http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/may94herman.htm


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4111915.stm

The political awareness that Israel was an apartheid state existed for many years among most anti-Zionists in Israel. But in the wake of the breakdown of the Oslo Accords, before the eruption of the second intifada, that awareness began to spread beyond the circles of committed anti-Zionist activists and academics to circles that would not necessarily identify themselves as anti-Zionist. By 2000 a loose coalition of activists based primarily in Jerusalem and Haifa had begun a campaign under the slogan “No Apartheid.” Although their work was cut short largely due to the intifada, they left their mark on society and were a catalyst in spreading the understanding of Israel as an apartheid state.

Scholarly interest in the parallels between Israel and South Africa dates back to immediately after the June 1967 war and George Jabbour’s seminal work in 1970, Settler Colonialism in South Africa and the Middle East. In 1976 Richard Stevens and Abdelwahhab Elmessiri wrote Israel and South Africa: The Progression of a Relationship, in 1986 Jane Hunter wrote Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and Benjamin Joseph wrote Besieged Bedfellows: Israel and the Land of Apartheid in 1988, followed by My Israel: An Apartheid State in 2001 (first published in 1987).


 * http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20020604ib.html


 * http://www.robertsilvey.com/notes/2005/03/jews_against_th.html


 * there are some links. Your right labeling a terrorist is POV, POV that Israel has managed to manipulate in its favour, but one thing is definite Israel uses terror tactics, assaniations, blackmail, collective punishment, and cold blooded murder--sorry POV--I mean executions. Israel is also a frequent breacher of humanitarian law, international law, and UN resolutions. 69.196.164.190


 * None of your sources except the BBC is remotely acceptable...and it puts "apartheid" in quotation marks because it's an opinion, not fact. No dice. On another note, all the things you list Israel of being guilty of pale in comparison to the acts of Israel's neighbours...though that isn't relevant to this article. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Zmag.org is a partisan website and not acceptable as a source as per WP:RS
 * robertsilvey.com is a blog and not acceptable as a source as per WP:RS
 * thejerusalemfund.org is a partisan website and not acceptable as a source as per WP:RS
 * The only usable information is the one on the bbc website, and can be added if it is attributed to Dana Alexander, of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the Druze, who are Arabs, act as full Israeli citizens - proof that Israel only "terrorizes" those who are known to pose it a very real threat, not "non-Jews." But perhaps the Jews and the Druze are in cahoots on this one... after all, the ways of the Elders of Zion are often mysterious and obscure. --Eliyak T · C 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eliyak, it's racism against one group, not excused by the fact that it isn't committed against another. Are you so sure that every Arab is a 'very real threat'? It's racist, collective punishment and points to a 'very real' human right's problem, it deserves to be considered. Are you serious? - Marc.
 * Oh, again with the lies, and with an aptly named source, no less ("Lies of Our Times")...
 * The bit about ownership has no basis in reality. I don't even know which part to begin with - it's just so completely false. Well, the main point - there are no differences in land/real estate/business/home ownership (or renting, or whatever) between Jews and non-Jews.
 * The part about serving in the army: for those who don't know this - the Israeli army is conscription based - meaning most of the people are drafted for a 2/3 year service when they're 18. The arabs don't have to do this. Many Israeli-Arabs identify themselves as part of the Arab Nation, and as Palestinians. The Israeli army has to fight with Arab armies, and with the Palestinians. I think the reasons here are quite obvious. I'm not sure what would be the reply if an Arab youth would want to join the army of his own volition. The Druze do serve in the army, so do some of the Beduin. I very much doubt the Arabs in Israel would agree to be being drafted into the IDF like the Jews. There are very few benefits for military service, all of them easily surpassed by not spending 3 years of your life in the army, getting less than $100 a month.
 * There are several Arab Knesset members, and they say a lot of things most Israelis don't like. They're still there.
 * The only law that could be considered discriminatory is the "Law of Return", which lets any Jew come to Israel and become a citizen. The law is a direct result of Israel's nature - a Jewish country, which exists to serve as a home, a safe place, for Jews everywhere. It's not there to be a home for Arabs/non-jews everywhere, and so doesn't give this right to non-Jews. About Israel's "fear of an arab majority". You can say it's wrong, or it's racist, but quite frankly - just look at all the Arab countries - most of them third world dictatorships, and even the rich ones are incredibly backwards. Not even one democracy among them. Think about that, and tell me if you can really blame the Israelis for not wanting an Arab majority?  okedem 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, when a country like Lebanon DOES democratically elect members of an unpopular group (Hezbollah), there is a call for regime change. Basically that means, roll the dice until you get a result you like. I don't think that Hezbollah elected politicians are the ones shooting the guns or launching the missiles - they're playing the game legally and by-the-rules, representing the interests of their group to the government. Anarchy45 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

History section disproportionate.....
I personally feel the history section has been laid out incorrectly and with not enough emphasis on Israel's modern history (ie. 1970--->), which it seems is what everyone argues about and is constantly a source of interest and discussion. There is too much emphasis on the all of the events leading up the creation of a Jewish state, the immigration, underground groups, indepedance and so on and so on. I personally think all of this is far outweighing current or recent political and social developements that are occuring in Israel, that are far more relevant to today's world politics.

I mean I see a brief outline of Israel in the Lebanese Civil War, a few quote's about Peres' leadership, one mention of the Al-Aqsa Intifada then one, two, skip a few and where upto 2006. All of the recent political and social events that happened in the last 20 years involving Israel are having severe rammifications and consequences in Middle Eastern and world politics than anything 60 years ago.

Not to say we shouldn't focus on Israel's creation, which is obviously why we have such a delicate and tense political atmosphere in the Middle East now, but we need definately more mention of recent events which is what people are hearing and seeing in the media and unfolding the future of relations and politics in the Middle East and so on.

Personally I haven't got the time to rewrite this article, but if a knowledgable, good natured person could include some more recent history, I think the article would be more informative.

--211.26.45.85 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)AmarP89

The article should provide a pretty basic overview of history, and not go into much detail. Most of the basic occurrences of the last 25 years are discussed. Why do we need more than that? john k 20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote about this months ago. It seems that everyone has something to say on the subj. not realizing that this is only a summary. I won't be surprised if soon this section will be longer than the article it supposed to summarize. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

this article is such a great example of what's said in the below website
The Jews will rush to delete this edit soon enough http://newsbusters.org/node/5043
 * That's spelled Jooz. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, get it right...if you're going to accuse Jews of international conspiracies, make sure to toss in something about Jooz owning the banks and hollywood too. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought Mel Gibson (and his bartender) had this subject all taken care of for the week. 6SJ7 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical accuracy error
The following sentence from the Israel article should be changed as follows, "The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First and Second Temples of the Jewish King, Solomon." should become: The land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First Temple built by the Jewish King Solomon, inaugurated in 1026 BC, and the Second Temple built by Zerubbabel in 515 BC.

70.58.181.240 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Eric 8/2/06

Solomon is generally considered by modern scholarship to have lived in the 10th century BC, and the 2nd Temple was rebuilt by Herod in the 1st century BC. john k 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The IP user is correct, Zrubavel was responsible for building the second temple. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 03:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed - read about the Second Temple, and Herod's Temple. okedem 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know Zerubabbel built the second Temple. But the remains of the second temple might not be remains of the temple built by Zerubabbel, but of its rebuilding by Herod.  Herod, unpopular as he may be, was a Temple builder as much as the other two. john k 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He certainly was a temple builder & I expect remains from all the temple phases might be found. My observation was simply that at present this article says that Solomon built both the first & Second temples & this should be corrected. 70.58.181.240 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it should be. All I was saying was a) we should use the date for Solomon attested by modern scholarship; and b) we should mention Herod as well as Zerubbabel as builders of the second temple. john k 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God/Gods/Earth Mother/Whatever, somebody please archive this page
I'm too scared of screwing it up, deleting something, and having Oiboy77 launch 23 judicial proceedings against me. But it's gotten a wee bit big, yes? Schrodingers Mongoose 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * archived. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where the soldiers were captured
This section was just the subject of an edit and revert and I wanted to check something...other than very early reports that have since vanished, I have seen no evidence of any credible claim that the soldiers were attacked and taken on Lebanese soil. Every source, Hezbollah included, seems to concur that this was a cross-border raid. Early claims to the contrary seem to have ended, and there appears to be no doubt remaining. Is there any reason not to let the article reflect that the attack took place on the Israeli side of the border? Schrodingers Mongoose 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A note before people start screaming at me....I just put BACK the part about the early claim that the attack was in Lebanon even though I don't think it should be there. It should be discussed if possible. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I slightly modified the text to make it clear from the beginning that it is not just 'Israeli sources' (which in the eyes of many people have no credibility at all) saying that the action took place in Israeli territory, but also the UN, EU, G8 and USA. The UN and EU are decidedly not pro-Israel organizations. I am quite surprised at Garvo's edit (or was it Garzo) with this weird lie. He is a British administrator, not a Muslim vandal. I left a message on his talk page and am eagerly awaiting his response. --Daniel575 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't like be talked about in this way — please, don't make this personal. My edit was a revert (this one). I saw that, who has made very few edits, deleted referenced material. Even though the suggestion is inflammatory (as I can tell by the hot heads here), you can see that my edit summary aims at discussing the nature of this addition. You will have to check back through the history to see who added this, but it looks like it has been there for a little while. I am glad that my actions have led to a discussion of it here. I am not a lier, and if I eagerly await anything, it's an apology. — [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes] 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't know anything about the subject of the article, doing what you did is not the smartest thing. Everybody knows that the Hezbollah militants crossed the border and captured the soldiers inside Israel. The UN says so, the EU says so, the USA says so, the G8 says so, Israel says so. Yet you feel free to revert a version which claims the opposite. That was very, very weird. All the more so since you are an administrator. Perhaps the next time you should judge the situation from more than a merely technical point of view. --Daniel575 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I think Gareth Hughes did a reasonable thing, considering the fact that the sentences in question were 2-3 days old, and were referenced. His edit summary reflects this, saying that it should be discussed. Although the outcome was that these misleading sentences were readded, his intentions were good. Please, although there are many malicious editors working on this article, let's try to Assume good faith... okedem 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just as a word of advice, it's usually best to try to moderate things like this and then start a discussion about them than to revert them. this is what I tried to do here and I think it has worked out. Still, if there is no credible source that claims the attack took place in Lebanon, even the small bit remaining about this unlikely possibility should be removed. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. On the other hand, if it is true that after the first Israeli soldier was captured Israel retaliated by capturing hundreds of Arabs there including elected officials and also by destroying Gaza's electricity grid then this should be mentioned in the article, as this disproportionate response may explain Hezbollah's subsequent cross-border raid that started the whole mess in Lebanon. Dianelos 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * The Palestinians attackers also killed several Israeli soldiers, in an attack in Israel's territory.
 * This was the spark that lit the situation. The Hamas/Jihad etc. have been firing Qasam rockets at Israeli towns for years, even during the last year, when Israel is no longer in control of the Gaza strip.
 * The "elected officials" are part of a terrorist organization (listed as such in the US, EU, UK, and others), the Hamas, are responsible for the attack, and refuse to return the captured soldier.
 * "Gaza's electricity grid" - Can you bring a source saying it was "destroyed"? I'm only aware of minor attacks on it.
 * "disproportionate response" - is your opinion. I find it too weak a response, considering.
 * The events in the Gaza strip have nothing to do with Hezbollah or Lebanon. Using the same logic, I can say the Israel has a right to attack in Ramallah, because Shiite extremists attacked Americans in Falujah. okedem 08:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, Hezbollah's motivations aren't really relevant to an article on Israel, whether those motives were justified or not. Schrodingers Mongoose 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. So let's bring out the facts and leave the reader to decide whether Hezbollah's or Israel's actions are justified or proportional. Dianelos 09:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

--Daniel575 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (--> What is my signature doing here??? I did not write the above! It was written by User:72.195.144.113 and not signed by him, instead he signed it under my name. I do not know why and hereby clarify that I have nothing to do with the above post. --Daniel575 09:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't mean to be rude, but - what the hell? okedem 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that is Israel is to blame for all the violance. It is an oppresive state and a sponsor and wielder of terrorism. After all it is Israel that detains citizens of other states without reason, tortures, kidnaps, assasinates, etc. 69.196.164.190

Proclamation of the state of Israel
"The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the Palestine Mandate." I'm reading this becasue of current events because I don't know much about the subject. However, as I read this, it is unclear who proclaimed the State of Israel. Perhaps someone in the "know" could clarify this with "was proclaimed by XXX on May ... blah, blah, blah". I'm guessing the UN but I would like it specified for the sake of clarity.

84.112.104.223 09:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Opps. Just noticed the above comment was mine. I must have forgotten to log in. Candy 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not the UN. It was proclaimed by "The People's Directorate" (literal translation from hebrew, I don't know its actual name in english), the leaders of the Jewish prensence in Israel, and read by David Ben Gurion. The UN decided, on November 29th, 1947, that the British mandate in Israel should end, and that two states, a Jewish one, and an Arab one, should be established in Palestine (see 1947 UN Partition Plan). okedem 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and Vaad Leumi. This main article on Israel necessarily treats the subject in a "summary" style, and omits this detail.  I suppose it could be added in, but then the question would be what other details also would be appropriate, and then the article starts to get very long.  That is why there are separate articles and cross-references.  6SJ7 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical useless debate about Israeli's & Palestinians - making a fuss about the details and no consideration for the human injustices. Mission accomplished for the powers that be.
 * Did you put this comment where you had intended? It does not seem to fit the rest of this little section, which so far has been a completely appropriate discussion for contributors to an encyclopedia, about whether a particular fact is stated, where it is stated and where it should be stated.  There has been no "debate" and in any event, Wikipedia is not a forum for debate or discussion, except regarding the contents of the articles.  6SJ7 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So getting back to the proclamation - could it be referred to as a self-proclamation or is that some form of paradox? Candy 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Problems
The infobox cites Jeruselem as the Capital of Israel. As this "fact" is disputed by most of the world I suggest we change it to Tel Aviv and add a reference to Jeruselem as the proclaimed capital on the bottom of the page. It is wierd that you have to scroll to the bottom to read that its disputed.--Oiboy77 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Capital" in normal parlance (with a few exceptions), means "city where a country's government is located." In a few cases, a country has officially designated another city as their capital, even though the government is located somewhere else (e.g. the Netherlands, or Ivory Coast).  It would be absurd to say that Tel Aviv is the capital, because it conforms to neither definition - the government is not located there, and it is not declared by the Israelis to be their capital.  Listing Jerusalem, with a footnote to explain why much of the world does not accept this designation, is the only reasonable way to do this. john k 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, saying Tel Aviv is the capital is absurd. It never was Israel's capital de jure, only de facto, for a year. The Knesset was there 1949, when Jerusalem was secured by the IDF. That's basically it. The only city Israel has ever designated as capital is Jerusalem. okedem 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Prime Minister/President
Someone has edited the info box to place the office of Prime Minster above that of President, with the edit summary stating that the PM is of "higher authority" than the President in Israel. I don't think this is a burning issue and I will not change it, but I think as a matter of "protocol" a head of state (the president, Katsav) should be listed above the head of government (the PM, Olmert.) While it is certainly true that the PM has more "power" than the president, who has almost none, it is really not correct to say that the PM is a higher "authority". In parliamentary systems, a separate "head of state" is required, and in the modern world the head of state is almost always a figurehead (such as the Queen of the UK and all the European monarchs, and the presidents of such countries as Germany, Italy and Israel), but in at least the symbolic sense, the head of state is "higher" on the list. 6SJ7 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

sentenced to death
Question about phrase: "Eichmann became the only person ever sentenced to death by the Israeli courts." . Is the phrase right?, I mean, when I read in the papers about some "selected target" who dies after some military operation from israeli forces, are these activities "legal" (as a conequence of a sentence issued by some judge) or are they "not legal" executions? -thegreeneyessee-


 * Yes, that sentence is correct. The assasinations of terrorists are military operations, not death sentences by courts. This is usually for people who Israel can't capture (Hamas leaders, etc.). okedem 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect - seven people were senetenced to death in Israel, only two executed (of the others - three where murderers who were sentenced prior to the cancelation of the capital punishment, and upon it's cancelation, their senetnce was changed to life imprisonment, and the other was john demnianuk who was sentenced to death - but appealed his verdict and won the appeal). (unsigned, added by User:Deror avi).
 * I stand corrected. I understood it as (and I believe that's what the asker meant) people who were actually executed, not sentenced but had their sentence commuted, or succesfully appealed. However, according to the Hebrew article, only Eichmann was sentenced by an actual court. okedem 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * not correct - seven were sentenced.
 * Two were executed, only one of them (Eichmann) was sentenced by a legitimate court of law. The other one was basically murdered. The other 5 were sentenced, but not executed. ok? okedem 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Some cause for cheer, and reflection
Considering how controversial the entire subject is, I feel this article, and the associated talk page, is remarkably insightful and while NPOV is perhaps not fully achieved in all sections, at least there is a healthy balance of POVs, which is perhaps the next best thing.

The strength of the Wikipedia project rests ultimately in the conviction of the majority of users that there is such a thing as objective truth, and their commitment to its discovery and publication, however difficult the task.

To me, it seems almost axiomatic that Israel is guilty of signficant human rights violations and "gets away with murder" in the eyes of the Western media, of which Wikipedia is ultimately a part. Else how could such a State be carved out of nothing in the space of 50 years? Given the indisputably contentious position of Israel in the world today, it can hardly be anti-Semitic to at least draw attention to the debate surrounding Israel's legitimacy and its foreign policy. If we don't do this, we will only detract from the usefulness of our resource. Ribbit 10:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like:.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Please alphabetize the.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.


 * Have the right order for interwiki ad hand! Should I put it in?--Stone 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Under the 1970's section is found the sentence "It was also agreed to lend autonomy to Palestinians across the Green Line." I don't understand what's being said.  Should "lend" be "give"?  Should it be "to cross" rather than "across"? Could those knowledgeable of the event reword and clarify it?  Thanks.

UN agreements
Are still for debate, especially with Shabaa farms, it is amazing it's 14kmx2 and i dont know why that should be the problem of not returning it to rightful owners of Lebanon, such disproportional action can not be justified... http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/07/israeli_airstri.html And there are the Syrian hills, still a subject to debate, Israel wanted to return half, but Syria declined that offer, it should be much more than that.

Displacement
Of Lebanese people, site says 300 000, needs to be changed to at least 1 000 000, 35% of dead (now 1100) kids below 13. I agree to that and also information about Israeli commandos, there were at least 2 fatalities when that Tyre city was attacked, died of wounds.

Real Jews (Haredi anti-Zionism)
I think more detailed history on how real Jews was and is oppsoing the state of Israel. Accoring to the Bible, the exile can not end until the Messiah comes. And only then can a true peaceful Israel exist. Traditionally the vast majority of Jewsih scholars strongly opposed the ideas by the secular Theodor Herzl. Further they argue zionism is one of the worst enemy of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.228.145 (talk • contribs)
 * I am one of those Jews who believe that the State of 'Israel' is the most horrible disaster that has ever happened. G-d should speedily cancel the existence of the Zionist state. This must be done through peaceful means only, and it cannot be done by the Arabs, unfortunately - since they would kill all Jews in the Holy Land.
 * Now let's get to the point. Yes, I agree with you. Such a section should be added. You are probably referring to Neturei Karta, which is quite famous and hated amongst nearly all parts of the Jewish community. A better group to write about are the slightly less extreme Hassidim of the movements Satmar, Toldos Aharon and Dushinsky. Take a look at JewsAgainstZionism to read more about what real Judaism says about Zionism. Neturei Karta is not the right one to ask or to write about; they have only a few hundred members, even though they claim they have thousands. Satmar alone has more than 100.000 members; they are a much better subject. I will get to work on this soon. --Daniel575 09:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a nice and neutral section on Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish opposition to Zionism. (I myself am somewhat affiliated with the Dushinsky Hassidic movement - see here.) Hope you like it. --Daniel575 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That content belongs to Anti-Zionism if anywhere. _This_ particular article is about the State of Israel. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It belongs here, since it is a fundamental part of the history of the Zionist state. It is very important to note the difference between Haredi Judaism and Zionism. I do not see why such a section should hurt anybody. Please do not remove it again. If necessary, we will hold a vote on it. --Daniel575 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know some editors try to turn every article they touch into a clone of Anti-Zionism. WP is not a blog and not a battleground. _This_ encyclopedic article is about the State of Israel. With all due respect, please express your or Mr. Teutelbaum's feelings someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This "Mr" happens to be a "RABBI" and his name is Rav Teitelbaum. I would rather propose that you remove the views of Theodor Herzl y"sh (may his name and memory be wiped out) from the article. Good, we will make a vote on this. --Daniel575 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Israel, not Zionism. In the Zionism article there's a whole section about anti-zionists, which are a small fraction of the Jewish population worldwide. This deserves, at most, a sentence in the Zionism section in the Israel article. BTW, I wonder - do the anti-zionist Jews refuse to accept the Israeli government's financial support? okedem 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they refuse financial support from the government. They do not accept anything from the Bituach Leumi and do not accept state funding for their schools. So the lies circulating that these people would be hating the state yet profiting from it are just that: lies. These people don't vote in the elections either. --Daniel575 11:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Relax, I was just asking. Anyway, they still benefit from its existence (infrastructure, security, health, etc). okedem 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't accuse you of lying. It's just something you commonly read, a common accusation - which is false. And yes, they do benefit from the infrastructure and security services. Health is a different issue, there are separate arrangements for that. I am slightly more moderate myself- I do use regular Israeli health services (kupat cholim Maccabi, should it interest you), I have a pretty positive view of the police in general and I don't run around screaming Israel should be destroyed, like some Neturei Karta freaks do. Just that it would have been better initially if this state would not have been founded, and if there were a peaceful way of doing so, we should immediately dismantle the state and we will let the UN take over here. That's what Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum said. --Daniel575 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "If there were a peaceful way of doing so", a lot of things would be different and Israel and its environs would not be a battlegound on Wikipedia, or in real life either. But it doesn't look like there is.  Anyway, this is sort of becoming a debate forum rather than a talk page for an article, so let me say, my answer to your question below is "no", it doesn't belong here.  I don't really like these instant polls so I haven't "voted" though I may do so later.  6SJ7 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was a peaceful way to live, Zionism wouldn't really exist. Israel was founded because wherever they went, Jews encounted violence and hatred. Israel was founded so Jews could be safe and free, and so nothing the Pogroms or the Holocaust could ever happen again. okedem 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Does a section on Haredi Jewish opposition to the State of Israel belong on this page?
Vote expires on Friday, 18th August 2006 at 14:00 Israeli time.
 * SUPPORT
 * 1) --Daniel575 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE
 * 1) The  Y  mode 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in a major way. Not all ultra orthodox or Haredi Jews oppose the State; it is very much of a minority position. Elizmr 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENTS
 * Also, what is their influence on Israel? Did they affect its history/geography/politics/etc. in some way? Nope. What's for sure, they are being used by anti-Israel propagandists totally out of proportion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This subject shoud be explored in one of the sub-articles, and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It seems like it might be worthy of a brief notice, but no more than that.  john k 00:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is: America is to Native Americans as Israel is to Palestinians
Do we have a page for this or something similar? - Peregrinefisher 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is one obvious flaw in that statement, Jews are an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites. If we were to believe your statement, we could assume the yanks yielded bows and arrows and said hao when approached. JHJPDJKDKHI! 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This analogy is completely false. Native Americans had presence in what is now the United States before settlers long before those settlers arrived. Jews have had a constant presence in what is now Israel for thousands of years. Schrodingers Mongoose 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ashkenazic Jews from Europe did not particularly have such a presence until the very end of the 19th century, though. But we generally don't have wikipedia pages about analogies made by some editor. john k 12:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yah. Besides, if the analogy were correct, someone else would have showed up in Palestine before the Jews did and inadvertantly killed off some 80% of the population via smallpox and other diseases. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * John, if you call 1830 the 'end of the 19th century', you are completely correct. --Daniel575 22:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article on Zionism:
 * Before the 1890s there had already been attempts to settle Jews in Palestine, which was in the 19th century a part of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited (in 1890) by about 520,000 people, mostly Muslims and Christian Arabs -- but including 20-25,000 Jews. Pogroms in Russia led Jewish philanthropists such as the Montefiores and the Rothschilds to sponsor agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine in the late 1870s, culminating in a small group of immigrants from Russia arriving in the country in 1882. This has become known in Zionist history as the First Aliyah. Aliyah is a Hebrew word meaning "ascent," referring to the act of spiritually "ascending" to the Holy Land. In modern Hebrew, this word is used in place of an equivalent to "immigration."
 * This suggests 1882 is the official ur-date for Ashkenazi settlement in Palestine. And even then the community was tiny for several decades.  I said "Ashkenazic Jews from Europe did not particularly have such a presence until the very end of the 19th century," not "there were no Ashkenazic Jews from Europe in Palestine until the very end of the 19th century.  Jews were still only about 10% of the population in 1922, and that includes the previously present Sephardic communities.  I think my comment stands. john k 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)