Talk:Israel/Archive 2

Jewish refugees
Re-added the following removed sentence: Starting in 1947 600,000 Jewish refugees from arab countries whom were forced to leave their native arab lands, were absorbed by Israel. This was removed as "unsubstantiated", but it is in fact quite well-substantiated that several hundred thousand Jews were forced to leave Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and Tunisia, among other countries; at least as well-substantiated as the claim that there are Palestinian refugees, which remains (correctly) in the article. --Delirium 17:16, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

State vs. Nation
In the editing process, one important factual distinction was lost that goes to the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, that the Israeli nation covers a different smaller area than the state. In the 19th century the belief grew up that every nation (a shared collection of identity, history, culture, heritage and identification) should have its own state(independent governmental unit), and every state should be based around a nation. That is not always the case. The post-war boundaries of the two Germanies (now one) did not cover everyone who viewed themselves as German. The boundaries of the state of Poland did not cover every area whose population viewed themselves as Polish, nor indeed was every Russian in Russia. Éire originally dealt with the existence of hundreds of thousands of people who defined themselves as Irish but who lived in Northern Ireland by its controversial Articles 2 and 3, where it talked about the island of Ireland (all 32 counties) as being the "national territory" (ie, territory of the Nation) whereas the state of Éire (now the Republic of Ireland) covered 26 counties. The current problem is Israel is not one of having Israel only, or replacing Israel with Palestine, but in finding structures that allow the significant minority within the Israeli state boundaries who view themselves as part of the Palestinian rather than Israeli nation, to have their identification recognised in structures of a state also, what is often called self-determination or national determination. And how to do that in a way that does not destabilise the Israeli state through the danger that such a national Palestinian state might be used to attack Israel. The Oslo Accord was an attempt to reconcile the one state, two nations problem by allowing a second state to evolve in those areas where the majority aren't part of the Israeli but the Palestinian nation. It is important that the article in passing mentions the distinction between state and nation in Israel because their difference is at the heart of the problem and will in whatever form be at the heart of the solution, if one is found. I have included a sentence on this. FearÉIREANN 19:36, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While I generally agree that your view of this is correct, it seems that Israel is in some ways being singled out in the encyclopedia for this comment -- Turkey, for example, does not have a similar sentence distinguishing "Turkey" as a national identity from "Turkey" as a state (which includes Pontian Greek, Kurdish, and other national identities within it). --Delirium 19:47, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

It is only mentioned because here it is relevant, and the point didn't strike me until I noticed it had been in an earlier draft and lost when a paragraph was shortened. Ideas often dawn on people that way and later on get used elsewhere. It isn't singling out Israel and certainly shouldn't be interpreted that way. It is just that Israel is almost an identikit example of the problems that arise where nation and state aren't coterminus. (I suppose Israel is also on my wiki mind right now because I spent part of the day dealing with the vandalism of Israeli topics by a user whom, after I appealed for it, Jimbo banned.) I don't know if there is an article on Nation-state but the issue could well be a worthwhile topic, expanding the idea and using Turkey, Ireland, Poland, Israel, Germany, Russia etc as examples of states smaller than nations, nations smaller than states, and most places where they pretty much match. FearÉIREANN 20:21, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Now that you've put this strange notion into the article itself, I guess I have to answer it, no matter how little sense it makes.
 * If you understood political science you would know it is perfectly straight-forward term.

There is no such thing as an "Israeli nation" which is distinct from the state of Israel. There is a Jewish People (or Nation) - and Israel is its national state. Israel, like many other national states, has minorities in it. The Arab Israelis are not Jews - however the are Israelis. They carry an Israeli passport, and enjoy full civil right just like any other Israeli. They take part in Israeli political life, and they are represented in the Knesset by several parties.


 * People in Northern Ireland can have British passports and view themselves as part of the Irish nation. The Scottish have British passports but still belong to the Scottish nation. It is a patently ludicrous claim.

The term "Nation" has basically two meanings: one refers to a group of people (and therefore, has no geographical meaning, and can not be compared (in size, or otherwise) to a geographical entity such a state). The other meaning is just a synonym for a country or state. You cannot draw the borders of the Jewish nation, the Irish nation (in its meaning as "the Irish People"), or the Arab nation. You can speak about "areas populated mainly by Xs" (where Xs can be Jews, Arabs, or Irish) - but such areas do not usually have distinct borders, and it makes absolutely no sense to compare them with countries.


 * Again that is a gross misunderstanding of the terms.

Also, by your definitions, you should also mention that there are are around 200,000 people who see them selves as part of the Jewish People ("the Israeli Nation" by your terms) and live in the areas of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip (which you probably do not regard to be part of Israel). Hence the "Israeli nation" is not only smaller than the state of Israel, it is also larger at the same time.

I would revert your change myself, but I know the result will just be an edit war. So I'll let other people read your explanation and mine, and I'm sure the article will end up with your paragraph massivly rewritten, and moved down as a comment about the Demographic composition of the Country.

uriber 20:37, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Israelis and non-Israeli Jews to know the answer to this question -- do non-Israeli Jews consider themselves essentially part of the same "Jewish Nation", or is there a strong separate "Israeli" identity? I know, for example, that the Greek diaspora consider themselves to be of one nationality with the residents of Greece. If that's the case with Jews/Israelis as well, then Israel would be both an example of a state larger than its nation, and of a state smaller than its nation -- one could argue, for example, that certain parts of Egypt that had majority-Jewish areas should've been part of the Israeli nation so defined. --Delirium 20:41, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

It is a fair point, but it proves the nonsense of Uriber's rather weird comprehension of what the term nation means. For example, Popular monarchy is based on the idea of monarchs linking their title not to a state but a nation, eg, King of the Belgians, not King of Belgium. And Kings of Greece called themselves Kings of the Hellenes linking them with the broader Greek community and not just the state. It is an elementary aspect of political science. That Uriber can't grasp that is simply his problem. Israel is unusual in so far as nationality incorporates religion, which is not a usual aspect in the equation. Normally 'national identity' is taken to mean the broadest sense of nationhood, incorporating those living in a state, those is the diaspora, etc. 'nation' is often seen in a narrower sense as a community grouped together in a territorial area. In the 19th century, and in particular after World War One, the concept of matching state to nation developed, with the replacement of the supra-national states like the Austro-Hungarian Empire by separate states like Austria, Hungary, Czechlovakia, etc. The creation of Israel was an example of nation-state building, however the complexities of having in effect two nations on the same geographic area, the wars that changed boundaries, etc made Israel a particularly complex case because the Israeli state and Israeli/Jewish nation are not coterminus. It is a simple problem to describe but a nightmare to try and come up with a solution to. FearÉIREANN 21:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The sentence removed from the article was


 * The Modern day nation of Israel, on a much smaller territory than the modern Israeli state, was established in 1948 after the British government agreed to withdraw from their mandate of Palestine.


 * I believe this was refering to the fact that the State of Israel was orginally proclaimed only in the territory that the UN partition plan granted for the "Jewish State". Therefore I rewrote the section as


 * In 1947, the British government agreed to withdraw from their mandate of Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition Plan split the mandate into two states, giving about half the land to each state. Arab authourities rejected the plan.


 * On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed in territory given for the Jewish state in the UN plan. The armies of five Arab nations attacked the new state. Israel captured an additional 20% of the mandate territory, and annexing it to the new state.


 * That Israel contains a large minority of Arabs and that a number of Israelis live in the Palestinian Territories is important information, but would be more aprorate in the "Demographics of Israel" section. - Efghij 21:04, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While Jtdirl seems to know quite a lot about 19-century Europe, he is somewhat less knolwdgeable about the subject discussed here - namely, national identities in Israel. I've happen to live in this country for my entire life. I am a proud member of the Jewish People, and a loyal citizen of the State of Israel. The above statements describe my national identity and my citizenship, respectively. The vast majority of Israeli Jews would agree with these statements. I have never heard the term "the Israeli Nation" (which in Hebrew would translate into ha-le'om ha-Yisra'eli or Ha-umma ha-Yisra'elit) spoken by an Israeli. Arab Israelis identify themselves as such: "Arab Israelis" (or, sometimes, "Palestinian Israelis") - reflecting the fact that their nationality is Arab, and their citizenship is Israeli. When asked whether they would agree to turn in their Israeli citizenship for a (future) Palestinian one, most of them reject the idea completely.

"Israeli state and [Jewish] nation are not co[n]terminus" - true. So are the German nation and Germany, the Irish nation and the Republic of Ireland, etc. This does not make Israel a special case. Many (probably most) nation-states have national minorites living within their borders, as well as native nationals living abroad. Israel has both - and is not different than any other national state in this respect.

"It is a simple problem to describe but a nightmare to try and come up with a solution to. " - it is neither a problem, nor a nightmare. It is simply a description of a (quite common) demographic and geographic situation.

Oh - one more thing - my "failing to comprehend" what the term "nation" means. Since we are dealing with definitions here, I can only point you to the tool I usually use when in need of definitions - a dictionary: Senses 2 and 4 are irrelevant to our discussion. Senses 3 and 1 are those I described above in my own words: 3 is "a people" (no geographical aspect), and 1 is a synonym for a country (no ethnical aspect).

uriber 22:43, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the following addition:


 * Supporters of Israel argue that the Arabs chose to move. Opponents and critics of Israel claim the mass changes of population were due to ethnic cleansing, with Arab lands allegedly seized by Jewish emigrants moving to Israel. As a result, the nation of Israel (those who identify themselves as part of the broad Israeli identity, culture and heritage) and the state of Israel are not identical, with the state covering a larger area than that which is universally populated by people who identify themselves as Israeli. Though a divergence between state and nation is not unusual it is more usually the case that the state is smaller, not bigger, than the nation. The divergence between both in Israel is a key cause of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, as with the Oslo Peace Agreement and others aimed at finding a way to reconcile the conflicting national identities with the territory of the Israeli state.

Yes and no. Supporters of Israel today do not claim that the Arabs chose to leave en masse. They will distinguish between different circumstances. Some examples are: in Haifa, the Arabs left because of promises by the Arab Legion that they would be restored to their homes once the Legion was victorious; in Ikrit and Birim, two villages in the Galilee, the villagers were forced to move by the fledgling Israeli army with the promise that they would be allowed to return to their homes once the fighting was over--despite numerous appeals and several victories in the Israeli Supreme Court (most recently two years ago), the villagers have not yet been allowed to return to their homes; in other instances, such as Ramle and Lydda, even the most die-hard Israeli supporters will agree that they were forced from their homes (in that case by Yitzchak Rabin). Without stating my own position, this is the position taken by the vast majority of Israelis today. Each instance was different and should be adjudged as such.

Also, Jewish emigrants from Arab lands (and post-Holocaust Europe and more recently the former Soviet Union) were settled in Arab lands by the Israeli government after the villagers left. In other words, the government seized the land and settled new immigrants--most of whom had little idea of what had happened--in those Arab lands. The new immigrants did not seize them--they were pawns.

I do not understand what is meant by the nation of Israel and the state of Israel. Does it mean people who identify themselves as Israelis vs. people who identify themselves as Palestinian? In that case I do not understand the next statement: Though a divergence between state and nation is not unusual it is more usually the case that the state is smaller, not bigger, than the nation. Actually, that is not the case. Take Spain, for instance. There are significant Basque, Catalan, Galician, and other minorities, whom, I would venture to say, identify with their own ethnicity more than with the Spanish (Castillian) nation. Most countries have ethnic minorities and similar situations with various degrees of conflict resulting. Of course, I am now speaking of Palestinian Arabs living within the pre-1967 boundaries.

Arabs living outside these boundaries are under occupation, plain and simple. Even the Israeli government recognizes this. In 1977, prime minister Menachem Begin signed peace accords with Egypt that promised "autonomy" to those areas. Without getting into the intentional vaguaries of that promise, it was official recognition that they are not part of the Israeli state proper. Considering it as such is like considering Iraq part of America today because it too is under occupation. This cannot be the "state and nation'' distinction then.

In Israel today, it is common to regard Diaspora Jewry as part of the Israeli nation--Israel calls itself the Jewish State (regardless of whether diaspora Jews accept this assumption or not--many Jews I know would rather identify with the countries in which they live, rather than with Israel, even though Israel considers them "potential" Israelis). In that case, however, the Israeli nation is considerably larger than the Israeli state (more Jews live in the diaspora than in Israel).

BTW, I do think that all these issues and more should be addressed in the Israel article. I do not think, however, that they should be treated in such a perfunctory manner, where the statements do not adequately portray the complexity of the issues. what makes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict so daunting is that the issues are more complex than can be telescoped into one or two sentences. Danny 01:44, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I reinstated the proper distinction. BTW, am I not the only one under the suspicion that these two new users engaging in the edit war with Jtdirl (take a look at their user histories or lack of user histories) are RK? 172 04:42, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl's addition does not belong in the "History of Israel" section, because it is not about the history of Israel. It is also POV, in that it does not consider other possible causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (economic, religous, etc.) and in some cases factually incorrect.


 * Which two users are you refering to? The only other person to have removed the section is user:Uriber, and he has a long history of contributions (252 since May 30), although he obviously has a similar perspective on this issue as RK. - Efghij 05:06, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No. Nationhood implies a range of communal links, which often includes shared religious values or respect for difference. That is implied in the difference. You have a problem with it because it did go into detail with the full list. Delirium has a problem because it says too much. Solving the entire Israeli-Palestinian issue is easier than trying to get agreement on this page. FearÉIREANN 09:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to be shorter and hopefully more to the point. The basic issue as I see it is that there is a significant minority group in Israel that considers itself not really "Israeli," much as the Kurds in Turkey do not consider themselves really "Turkish." I don't think it needs 5 sentences to say this. --Delirium 07:40, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Actually it is much more complex than that and you actually missed the point completely. Israel was created as the classic twentieth century nation state. Like many of those states, the 'nation' (shared sense of identity, culture, religion, ethnicity, history, economy, social structure, etc) and the 'state' (governmental institutions, institutions of state, territorialised economy, etc) are not coterminus, the standard word used in political science. They do not perfectly overlap. While many states do have small ethnic groupings they do not have situation where one nation displaced another in the same geographic area, whether that displacement was deliberate or a result of other's actions. So it is not like the Kurds, unless the Kurds had once covered Turkey and their more extreme elements defined their aim as reclaiming it. It is more akin to Northern Ireland where two communities share a space, but with each side convinced the other "took" it from them, with both communities in Northern Ireland possessing clearly defined 'nation' idenifications; nationalists as Irish, unionists as British. And each side determined (or at least up until recently) to force the other to 'be' part of them; the unionists insisting that the nationalists, as they possessed British passports and were part of the United Kingdom, were British whether they like it or not. And nationalists insisting that because they were born on the island of Ireland, the unionists were Irish whether they liked it or not. The solution, in so far as it is working, in Northern Ireland, is to redefine the the territory so that it can accept each others' 'identity symbols', saying in effect 'we can't agree on the past, but lets agree on mutual respect for each others' differences for the forceable future. That particular framework is not required in Israel, as there is a degree of geographic separation not available in Northern Ireland, and the population sizes of the relative groups are different. But the Israeli state is going to have to be adopted, probably through offering complex self-government with different state symbolisms, to those areas largely made up of Palestinians, in a sense allowing them the structures of their 'nation-state' but in a way which does not endanger the survival of the Israeli state and in a way which does not offend the sense of Israeli national identity. It is far far more complicated that Delirium thinks even cutting it down to 5 sentences is next to miraculous. FearÉIREANN 09:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)