Talk:Israel/Archive 4

predominantly Jewish, democratic, et al.
I see an edit war on the first paragraph, messing with the "jewish" and "democratic" adjectives. I'm now trying to make a change to it that I hope people will find NPOV.

Land area
What's written here and what's written at Geography of Israel is inconsistent. Perhaps someone could resolve this problem? Martin 22:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed. CIA info was outdated. --Cantus 23:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So What had we here?
 * I tried to add to the article some information: namely, the area of the state of Israel according to official Israeli documents. I explained exactly what this area figure includes, and explained the rationale for including these areas.
 * Martin figured that having accurate information in the introduction is confusing, and we rather should hide it under "Geography", and have a vague, confusing, and not all correct statement in the intro paragraph instead.
 * User:Cantus replaces the correct explanation for the area figure, with a completely incorrect one, calling it a "minor tweak" (22,145 does not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip, of course).


 * Uhm, I didn't change the figures, I just reworded the paragraph. --Cantus 19:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I never said you changed the figures. What you changed was the description of what these figures signified. Originally, the article said that the figure includes the Golan and parts of Jerusalem (i.e. areas annexed by Israel). You removed that, and wrote that it includes all areas "occupied" by Israel in 1967. So you see - the same figure can be correct when it's used to describe one thing, but incorrect when applied to a different thing. Get it? -- uriber 21:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So we end up with a confused, vague artice, with factually incorrect information, which is cleverly hidden. But wer'e all happy, because is says "occupied" at least once, and it gives the impression that Israel is not really a state, just some "widely disputed" entity somewhere out there. Way to go, Wikipedia! -- uriber 10:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just calm down and fix whatever is wrong with the article yourself? It's Wikipedia, you can edit it you know? You don't have to growl at us. --Cantus 00:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Calming down is exactly what I was doing. I didn't want to get into a revert war over the article itself (after all, the correct version was already up there, until people decided it needs "improvement". I had all reasons to believe that if I reinstate that version, the same people will feel the need to "improve" it again). So instead I pointed out the silliness of the situation, in hope that those who did wrong would come to recognize their wrongness, and fix it themselves. -- uriber 09:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

fixed some things first the gazastrip that was descibed as anly Palestinian poulated and the golan heights is now a part of isreal its under dispute but it is a part of isreal with major isreali poulation User:flash 15:33, 6 oct 2004 (UTC)

Total Area
Since we need to set the record straight on Israel's (and occupied areas) total area, I've done my bit of modest research:

Anyone else got any other reputable sources?

--Cantus 03:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes - the Israeli Statistical Abstract 2003, published by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics :


 * Total Area: 22,145 sq. km. (incl. the Golan Heights and E. Jerusalem - but not the West Bank and Gaza Strip)
 * The Golan Heights (Golan Sub-District): 1,154 sq. km.
 * I believe this should be the primary source for the article. It's based on recent measurements, and you would expect Israeli sources to know best when it comes to facts about Israel. The CIA factbook is known to have mistakes in it. -- uriber 09:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * and what about East-Jerusalem? -- Dissident 16:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, no official Israeli figure on this (since Israel's position is that East Jerusalem is just part of Jerusalem, having no special status), but this site, as well as others, give a figure of 70 (seventy) sq. km. -- uriber 16:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apr 25
Just what is going on here? Rei reverted not only a few of my copyedits, but several other users' edits, with only a note about something being "disputed" (whether Jerusalem is the largest city?). It made no sense at all. Now Jonesy is going ape-mad calling minor language changes "Zionist POV" and "pro-Israeli bias". Jonesy, you are being rather reckless with both your accusations and your reverts. Both of you are trying to revert to some old version for reasons seemingly unrelated to most of the changes that have been made. Whatever the case, I do repeat the objections to the term occupation I listed in /Archive_3 and feel my adjustment captured the key points with less redundancy. -- VV 11:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I don't think the sentence about "occupation" belongs in the intro. A sentence about "dispute" certainly does, and then a discussion of who says what later on, which we have. --Delirium 11:24, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * The reference to the occupation has already been discussed extensively, and it stays. If you want to move it to the second paragraph, fine, but the ref. to the occupation must remain. P.S. - VV, my apologies, but there is only so much space in the comment field, so I only covered the topic that had the most activity - the "largest city" reference. --Rei


 * "Occupation" should not go in the intro paragraph, and neither should "the single multi-party democracy of the Middle-East", as both are disputed and complex issues that should be discussed at more length. --Delirium 06:47, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Single multi-party democracy"
This claim is completely incorrect. Just as an example, look at their neighbor Lebanon. There's several dozen political parties who have done well in the parliament .... they're far more of a multi-party democracy than the US itself is. ;) In fact, it is so-not a single party democracy that most of the people elected aren't even associated with a party. Amnesty International cites nothing wrong with the last election; the closest thing that can be construed as being biased about it in Amnesty's report on Lebanon was that there were arrests of people calling for the boycott of the election (suffrage is mandatory for men, and optional for women with at least an elementary-school education, although their turnout is still rather low - between 30 and 60%, compared to the US which is usually around 50%). Israel complains that Syria influences Lebanon's election process, but it's the case with almost every weak state that strong states play a part in the national debate. This is just one example of a multi-party democracy in the region. --Rei


 * If I may refer you to the WikiPedia article on the word "Democracy", you might see that there is much more to democracy than just the existence of elections. One primary indicator of a democracy is the Freedom of Expression . As far as I know, the only Middle-Eastern country upholding its citizen's right to freedom of expression is Israel. As an Israeli, I have personally participated in demonstrations that oppose the occupation and the opinions of Likud (the ruling party), and have witnessed quite a few pro-arab demonstrations in Israel. Yet I have never heard of a single pro-Israeli demonstration in any other middle-eastern country. Why? Because the only middle-eastern country in which people cannot be arrested or executed for expressing their opinion is Israel. --RP

I am just joining this discussion but Lebanon is more accurately described as a Parliamentary Theocracy divided between the more powerful sects with strong Confessionalism. You cannot compare it to the United States because the U.S. does not have a party system based on religion (by sect e.g. there is not a Lutheran Party) and does not gurantee parlimentary positions by ethnicity/religion, as Lebanon is required to. Amnesty International never sites elections only human rights and in fact Amnesty International has cited people being arrested for anti-Syrian protests. The idea of a strong country having influence on a weaker is valid especially when Syria has 16,000 troops in Lebanon. If you list the countries of the Middle East; Did I get them all? So maybe Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, both just out of civil war, could with a huge amount of imagination and no attention to detail could be called democracies and we will see in June about Iraq. Is Israel a democracy? Probably more than any other country in the region. colinpcarr
 * Afghanistan - Not a Democracy it is run by Warlords (War Zone at best)
 * Bahrain - Monarchy
 * Egypt - Republic controlled by the People's Assembly
 * Iran - We all know this is not a democracy
 * Iraq - there is not even a Government (one big US military base)
 * Jordan - Monarchy
 * Kuwait - Monarchy
 * Oman - Monarchy
 * Qatar - Monarchy
 * Syria - Military Dictatorship
 * Saudi Arabia - Monarchy (the country is named after them even)
 * U.A.E - Federation of Emirates
 * Yemen - Tribal Democracy


 * The US does have a significant religious split in its two-party system, with almost all evangelicals being in the Republican party (the so-called "Religious Right"). It has ethnic splits as well - for example, the vast majority of blacks vote for the Democratic Party. Beyond that, of course we don't have, say, a "lutheran party", but that is because we're a two party system in all but name only. The only particularly valid criticism that you have is that the Lebanese government ensures a split based on ethnicity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have *many* parties, and can vote among them. Amnesty international *does* report on whether there are irregularities in elections . The very first hit, you'll notice, is Amnesty condemning Togo for disapperences of people voicing support for opposition candidates. I disagree with some of your characterizations of nations, but that isn't the point - the statement about Israel is false.


 * Furthermore, the only reason a person would claim such a thing would be to try and compliment Israel. If we were to put in something to the effect of "Israel is one of the few democratic states in the region", we might as well also add in "Israel is the most despised state in the region" (equally true, if you look at the polls). If we're going to be adding in compliments, we might as well add in insults too. On controversial states like Israel, it is critical that we avoid things that could be viewed as either a compliment or an insult. --Rei


 * I think Rei's point was that countries cannot be sorted in two cathegories "democracy" vs. "not democracy". Just because a country has elections doesn't necessarily mean it is very democratic and just because it does not have it doesn't mean it is undemocratic. Just look at USA for an example of a country with elections that many would not consider to be very democratic. Or take Cuba which many (still) consider to be very democratic despite the lack of elections. The issue is much, much more complicated than the two words "multi-party democracy" gives it out to be. BL 15:52, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree we should put Israel is the most despised state, or better language, in the region because it is. I thought Rei's point was that it was absolutely untrue, "the claim is completely incorrect", and that the region had many democracies. I only pointed out that it does not have democracies and posed a question about the democracy of Israel. Lebanon has the same religious rulers as party rulers and the US "religous split" is not even significant compared to the middle east. I agree the Republican Party has changed since Reagan but it is not the Evangelical Christian Party lead by a religous leader. Rei I am not characterizing countries, other than the few comments on states in obvous ruin, those are the facts. The only point of contention is if Israel, Lebanon and Yemen are democratic and if any specific state can carry the title of "Only Democracy in the Region." I think that it is valid non complimentary fact because besides the religious and anti-colonial motivation despots cannot tolerate neighboring states with democratic values as they cause instability within their regimes. colinpcarr


 * No state in the region can carry the label "Only Democracy in the Region", because there is not one democracy in the region. There are many, with varying degrees of fairness in their elections. Again, I'll reiterate: insults and compliments do not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Rei


 * I actually disagree with this being just an issue of a "label", insult, or compliment. I am not conviced that regions cannot have a sole state being democratic or the criteria for Democracy is only elections. If we use the criteria from the Wikipedia we can accurately establish if a state is democratic in the region. If Israel is a democracy that is an important point since it is represented as such. I believe it is important as a historical point and conveys the true nature of the state and the relationship to the region. If it is true that other states meet the criteria of democracy and Israel tauts otherwise this is important and worthy of mention. Just that this discussion is happening proves the point is important and if information, backed by empirical evidence, provides the facts that is the spirit of an encyclopedia article. Otherwise it begins to go the route of a travel brochure :-) --colinpcarr


 * I'm not sure you want too much more than a travel brochure here. The goal with the article on Israel is to try and make it not seem biased. There are *plenty* of articles about Israel and Palestine that have huge conflicts going on. I, personally, would not like to see that happen here. --Rei


 * I agree, I am noticing that now. I also agree with your philosophy of discussion before submission it avoids "edit wars" and misunderstandings. --colinpcarr

If we're talking degrees of democracy here, let's not forget the usual criticism levied against Israel: that it's in control of significant sections of territory whose inhabitants do not have the privilege of voting in Israeli elections. That seems a far more reasonable objection than the objection in Lebanon's case that it has an affirmative-action-esque religious quota system for government posts. Moreover, for partial democracies, see Kuwait, Bahrain - and democratic Turkey is most definitely in the Middle East! Oh, and I almost forgot the fairly vigorous partial democracy of Jordan. - Mustafaa 21:55, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for my own edification. I was not implying Lebanon was "affirmative-action-esque religious quota system for government posts." I must agree Turkey is far more Middle Eastern than European and has been for centuries. I did not consider the disenfranchised population of Israel and was posing the question of is Israel democratic. From my understanding democracies have certain criterias, one of which is citizenship, and monarchies consider the population subjects. --colinpcarr


 * The population being subjects seems undignified to me, certainly, but it would be news to most Brits that their being subjects of the Queen keeps them from being a democracy. - Mustafaa 22:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the Brits are citizens and have been for a while. It is not a matter of dignity; the situation is nobodies fault, it is what it is. --colinpcarr


 * Sure, but they are also subjects. It says so right on the passport. - Mustafaa 22:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Where? Mine says BRITISH CITIZEN. Marnanel 17:55, May 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I misrepresented you - your words were "U.S. does not have a party system based on religion (by sect e.g. there is not a Lutheran Party) and does not gurantee parlimentary positions by ethnicity/religion". The first point is obviously not a valid objection here (Israel, for one, does have parties that are effectively based on religious sect; Shas and the Islamic Party, for instance). The second is what I meant by "quota system". - Mustafaa 22:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, I meant that as a contrast to the US, "they're far more of a multi-party democracy than the US itself is", not Israel to Lebanon. --colinpcarr

History
The armies of five Arab nations intervened in the ongoing war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. I do not think the Arabs countries even said this? I thought the official was Arabs felt Israel was expanding Western influence and Israel felt it was defending the life of Jews? The unofficial was the Arabs would like to drown the Jews in the mediterranean and end colonialism? Why not say something like "In response to Western disruption of regional hegemony and a continued policy of colonialism, the establishment of the Jewish State, five Arab countries immediately invaded after the end of the British mandate." It seems that the entire Israel article not being handled in an objective manner and often compromises are being made to not inflame the firmly held convictions of a supposed audience. colinpcarr


 * Hegemony is a loaded word; it generally can (and should) be avoided. Colonialism is a loaded word, although there are some times when its use can't be avoided. So, I'd say that your proposed sentence is worse than the original. The situation was that from 1945, Israelis waged a guerella war with British troops and Palestinian arabs backed by the Arab League. The Israeli declaration of independence implying the defeat of their allies, five members of the Arab League (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded. The Egyptians gained ground, but the other arab forces were largely halted. The UN then established a 4 week truce; fighting broke out again, and the Israelis make some significant advances; then there was another truce; then in August, that truce broke down, Israel isolated Egyptian forces, and a cease-fire was established that held. I'd say that the original sentence is correct, although "conflict" would probably be a better term than "war". --Rei


 * I agree my sentence was much worse, I like yours better --colinpcarr

Occupation
A controversy has waged over this page for months now - that is, over the inclusion of the term "occupation" to describe the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Basically, a pro-Zionist group of individuals (and they are PROVEABLY biased towards Zionism, for example RK, one of the main opponents of the term "occupied", happened to have a link to an article entitled "a liberal defence of Zionist", and described Ariel Sharon as carrying out an extreme-left programme) has struggled to remove the term "occupation", on the grounds it is not neutral. However, it is those defending the inclusion of "occupied" and "occupation" who have been in consistent defence of neutrality and impartiality, against those with strong political objections who object to the term "occupation" for ideological reasons.

Ariel Sharon, the rightwing prime minister of Israel, has described the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "occupation". So has the European Union. So has the United Nations Security Council. So has the United States. Under international law, it is an occupation. Even the CIA factbook - hardly going to be part of the international Palestinian-Bolshevik conspiracy - writes: "the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip". So do encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia Brittania. How on earth do these people have the audacity to think they have a leg to stand on? When Israel has soldiers in territories which are not part of Israel's political borders against the will of its inhabitants, and which it has accepted will become an independent state, what else are we supposed to call it?

The Israeli occupation is one of THE most important issues of this period. Historians in the future will simply not understand the modern era without referring to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Arab nationalism, Muslim-West hostility, Islamophobia, September 11th, Islamic terrorism, the "war on terror", both Gulf Wars, the Afghan war - all of these issues which dominate our time cannot be understood without reference to the occupation of Palestine. It is a travesty for an article on Wikipedia, in defiance of what anyone else is writing on this matter, to not include a reference to something as important as the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Now, let it be! Jonesy 02:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed the questionable text:


 * 1) Since WP already has articles on Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, why retell the story here?
 * 2) In general, let's stop playing the "brutal occupation" harp and pretending the conflict is over the territories, it has begun way-way before 1967 and 1948.
 * 3) As for the long list above, shall we allow future historians make their own conclusions? --Humus sapiens|Talk 04:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can neutrally call it "occupation" when all sides do not agree. For example, one could just as justifiably call Kurdistan "occupied" by Turkey, as it is occupied against the will of the majority of its inhabitants, and has been subject to a long-running guerilla war to liberate the territory. However, it would not be neutral to describe the region as "Turkish-occupied Kurdistan", as the situation is rather more complex and less agreed-upon. Similarly, here, the situation is rather complex and not agreed-upon. Some Palestinians claim the entire of the former British Mandate of Palestine ought to be an Arab state, and that any part of it occupied by Israel is occupied. Some Palestinians allow for some of Israel to be legitimate, and claim that only the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied. Some Israelis claim that they are all part of Israel, and none are occupied. Whether the Golan Heights is occupied is another such matter---is it occupied territory, or was it territory legitimately won in a war (like Texas, which was won from Mexico by the US)? These are all issues that should be discussed, not glibly assumed in one-sentence soundbites. --Delirium 06:55, May 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say "occupation" is a matter of fact with regard to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; territory administered by a country that has not annexed it is occupied by definition. It becomes a matter for POV only after annexation. However, since the original wording does admittedly ignore the dispute over territory that formed part of Israel before 1967, I propose an alternative wording: "Israel is also embroiled in an on-going conflict with the Palestinians over the division of the territories that once constituted the British Mandate of Palestine." - Mustafaa 07:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I also believe that "occupied" is a statement of fact and not just an opinion. If the Israeli government acts to make the territories legally part of Israel (as they did previously with Golan and East Jerusalem) then it will become a matter of opinion whether "occupied" still applies. At that stage a neutral word would be "disputed". At the moment, however, it is "occupied" according to the meaning of that word in the English language and not as a result of any opinion about historical rights or politico-religio-legal analysis. --Zero 11:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, although I like Mustafaa's proposed wording better, as it captures more of the flavor of the dispute: the dispute isn't just about the territories that are factually considered occupied. Indeed, it's arguably not even primarily about those, as East Jerusalem, a territory annexed by Israel, is one of the main battlegrounds in the dispute. --Delirium 22:34, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Since it's come up on talk:Jerusalem, I'll mention it here. There is a difference to saying "Israel occupied the West Bank in 19xx" and saying "The West Bank is occupied by Israel". The former is an undisputed statement about the action in the past, whereas the latter is a disputed statement about the current status of the territory. IMO. Martin 20:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The recent Israeli Supreme Court decision concerning the security barrier, (see New York Times editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/opinion/11SUN3.html ), contains the following language, 'In his opinion, Aharon Barak, the Israeli chief justice, agreed that Israel holds the West Bank "in belligerent occupation"'. With an authoritative Israeli source restateing this commonplace of international law I think the language used in this article needs to candidly describe the situation as occupation including a link to military occupation. Fred Bauder 16:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * A couple of points on this: It wasn't just Barak but the Supreme Court of Israel (represented by three judges including Barak). Furthermore, the ruling noted that the two respondants, one of which was the Israeli government, did not dispute this description. The official text (issued by the court in English as well as Hebrew, which is quite unusual) can be found here (in RTF). The same decision regarding the Gaza Strip was made by the Supreme Court about a month earlier. In both cases, the court used this finding to infer that that Geneva Conventions and other parts of international law applied to the territories (but this conclusion is not fully agreed to by the government). In the light of this it cannot be said that the Israeli position is one of denying that there is an occupation, it can only be said that Israeli denies the WB&G are "occupied territories" for all the purposes of international law. It you think that doesn't make sense, you are on the right track. More recently, the International Court of Justice also concluded that the territories were under occupation by Israel. --Zero 09:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Israeli government did not dispute the specific wording in this particular ruling is no indication that it accepts that the territories themselves are "occupied"; indeed, it would be disingenuous to suggest as much, as I believe the official government position is that they are not occupied. As for the distinction between a territory being occupied, and it being "occupied territory", if you don't understand the difference, you are on the wrong track. An "occupied territory" has a specific legal status in International Law, one which is at the core of this particular terminology dispute. A territory can indeed be "occupied" while not having the legal status of an "occupied territory" under International Law.
 * As for the statements of the International Court of Justice, its highly politicized statements are (like those of the U.N. General Assembly) both legally and factually meaningless. The ICJ has no jurisdiction in this area, and its pronouncements have no more relevance than if a municipal court in Pakistan made the same determination.
 * Finally, the terminology used here should attempt to both be NPOV and follow Wikipedia usage for other conflicts. Jayjg 15:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I chose my words carefully and stand by them. The idea that a territory can be occupied but not be "occupied territory" is a logical nonsense that is proposed by Israel to avoid the legal consequences of the facts. To the best of my knowledge, no government and no legal authority ever tried to make this argument in any circumstances, except for Israel. The UNSC rejected it many times, the ICJ rejected it, and now the Israeli Supreme Court has also rejected it at least twice. --Zero 02:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I also chose my words carefully and stand by them as well. Occupied Territory is defined quite specifically under the 4th Geneva Convention, and many legal experts (not just Israeli) have stated that the territories are not "occupied territories" as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention. The fact that you us terms like "legal nonsense" and "avoid the legal consequence of the facts" shows your POV bias, but does not make the territories "occupied territories" under International Law. The UNSC is a political body whose rulings reflect political agendas, nothing more; so is the ICJ, which, as stated before, has no jurisdiction over this issue anyway. As for the Israeli Supreme Court, it is neither the arbiter of Israeli policy nor of International Law; I note that the ruling in question made it quite clear that the Court believes Israel had a right to put up the fence in the territories, but that it could not use that specific route. Jayjg 16:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the point - territories being occupied means here that they are held by Israel - but Israel does not have sovereignity of them. Those territories are not in an "occupied territories" status - which means that a country illegally took over them. The situation in that region is quite different from any other in the world- since modern State of Israel inherited its borders from the former mandate of Palestine. The day after the state's creation, surrounding Arab countries (that during the mandate period respected and recognized the international borders with the entity) crossed the int'l borders and invaded the entity; Jordan came up with taking control of the western bank of the Jordan river (up until then they were only east of the Jordan river, and the state's name was actually "Trans-Jordan", as this was a former entity of the original eastern mandate area which became state of trans-jordan, leaving the western part for the Jews) - and Jordan's act is exactly what's illegal occupation is, according the international law. Jordan was an occupying force in the what become to known as the "West Bank"- areas which were legitmly subject to Israeli control - that's why today Israel claims that after it captued the West-Bank (but did not apply sovereignity) - it is holding/occupying it (=no sovereignity) however it is not an "occupied territory", as defined by internationa law. [you can view it another way - what is known as the WB was never under any sovereignity - since Jordan annexaion was illegal and was never recognized, so Israel was capturing (and in this case the facts are in favor of Israel - the WB capture in '67 was an act of self-defence) a 'void' sovereignity area, which can be said that have been a legimately part of Israel at its creation in 1948. Even when ignoring the latter, it cannot be said that the WB is "occupied territory", as defined by international law] (- regadrding discussion and decisions about the fence/barrier- Anyone thought of what if the cease-lines between Israel & Jordan were different in favor of Israel - so the west-bank was smaller and today's sovereign Israel was larger ... the WB lines are only result of Israeli-Jordanian cease-fire lines and cannot actually imply what's Palestinian territory- where Palestinian villages and fields are - and what's not) For the future look - probobly, parts of the WB will be receive Israeli sovereignity, while the rest will become sovereign parts of the future Palestinian state, which Israel has agreed to - over what it sees as its own legitmly originally-supposed-to-be soveriegn territory... (which is one of the reasons why Israel never apply sovereignty over the WB&G) - VICTOR, July 15, 2004. (23:35) UTC

Here is some of the language from the Court decision: "The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter - the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law. The military commander's authority is also anchored in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949. [- the Fourth Geneva Convention]. The question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention has come up more than once in this Court. See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government of Israel; HCJ 61/80 Haetzni v. State of Israel, at 597. The question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review."

I note this language in VICTOR's post, "Those territories are not in an "occupied territories" status - which means that a country illegally took over them." This is not the case, "belligerent occupation" simply means occupation which resulted from war. No imputation of illegality flows from it, nor from the length and difficulty of the occupation which for obvious reasons has been unavoidable. Nor does use of the term mean that it was practical, or indeed possible, to follow all of the required rules which attach to the status. Fred Bauder 17:12, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I had trouble understanding parts of VICTOR's post. Jayjg 18:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fred is exactly right when saying "No imputation of illegality flows from it..." when referring to "belligerent occupation" - which simply describes holding of territories resulting from war.. I agree. Jayjg - I'll be happy to supply clarifications. - VICTOR 18:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
Unfortunately, you have no "edit" mark near the entry "Occupation". That is why, I enter my suggestion for the term in this topic. I suggest to use the term applied in Israeli English-language sources which is "Administered territories". It reflects real state of facts. Under Israeli administration local Arab population is free to express their political views(including anti-Israeli ones), to leave and re-enter the territories for family, business, studies, pilgrimage and other affaires, to have local elections, to publish books and periodicals, to organize demonstrations - even anti-Israeli, but peaceful. Before Autonomy and "intifada" Arab workers were welcomed in Israeli economy. The only things suppressed are terrorist and criminal activities. They are the most democratic territories throught the whole Arab history. Besides, the term "administered territories" enables to avoid discussion on Transjordan occupation and annexation of the UN-proclaimed Palestinian State in 1948, which turned it into Jordan (from Transjordan). The occupation and annexation turned Transjordan emir Abdallah into Hashemite King of Jordan. It's worth to remind that Jordan occupied West Bank included numerous Jewish lands lawfully acquired long before 1948 and prosperous, such as part of Jordan Valley, Etzion Block settlements, Jewish quarter of Jerusalem (including Temple Mount and Western Wall, sacred places for Jewish people), Levona district and many others. Please, remind that so discussed Israeli settlements in "occupied territories" are usually placed on "no-man's" lands, either Jewish lands before 1948, or lands of no proper owner, usually non-cultivated by Arabs. That's why I suggest to use the neutral term "Administered territories".

Having read this talk page, I agree that the notion of saying that it's the only Middle East democracy shouldn't be in the intro. However, I think there is some merit in saying a little more than is currently said about the borders. How would anyone feel about the following:


 * The State of Israel is a predominantly Jewish state in Southwest Asia and the Middle East. Israel is primarily bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea and the Sinai Peninsula, on the south by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the east by the Jordan River and the Great Rift Valley. Its total area is at least 20,000 square km (about 7,700 square miles), although its exact territorial boundaries are heavily disputed..

Two things to note here:
 * "predominantly" Jewish, which makes no political claim, merely relying on demographics
 * "over" 20,000 square km rather than "around". All the sources quoted above agree that it's at least that much, but if you included Gaza, Golan and the West Bank, it would no longer be "around 20,000 square km" but more like "around 30,000". By saying "at least", we're not taking either POV. --ALargeElk 16:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept that, for the most part. However, the claim about "on the east by the Jordan river" is actually "east by the Jordan river along part of the boundary, with disputed territory reaching to the Jordan along the entire eastern boundary". The same thing goes for the Mediterranean Sea. Since both of these issues are discussed in detail later, and we certainly don't want controversy in the intro paragraph, I suggest they be omitted. I agree completely with your use of "over" 20,000 square km, as well as the "predominantly Jewish" claim. Rei 16:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The State of Israel is a predominantly Jewish country in Southwest Asia and is one of the few multi-party democracies in the Middle East. Israel is primarily bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea and the Sinai Peninsula, on the south by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the east by the Jordan River and the Great Rift Valley. The remaining portions of the borders are disputed. These include the northern boundary, a significant portion of the eastern boundary north of the Dead Sea and a relatively small section of the western boundary (where the Mediterranean Sea and the Sinai Peninsula meet). The border in these three areas are not final pending the resolution of outstanding conflicts.

what inaccuracies, if any. what objections, if any. please be specific.


 * First off, you seem unfamiliar with the fact that the encylopedia's goal is not only to not include inaccuracies, but especially to not include POV or to try and persuade readers to have a particular viewpoint. Your edits fail on both counts. Furthermore, the encyclopedia tries for consistancy between articles - you fail on that as well. But I do have to thank you for finally joining us in talk.


 * To go down the list:


 * the "few multi-party democracies" line is intended as a compliment to the state of Israel, ans is consequently POV.
 * *only if you believe that democracy is good. many believe that it is not. the POV is in the reader not the accurate statement.
 * The same line is also inconsistant with other articles of the same type, which 90% of the time do not talk about what type of government the state has in the introductory paragraph (one of the few exceptions being the United States). There is a politics section for a reason.
 * *they should, it makes a difference to their populations and anyone that might wish to travel to the country
 * Your description of the borders is inaccurage (sp?); the Golan Heights is in the northeast. The *majority* of the Jordan river is in the West Bank; and the Dead Sea border itself is also almost exclusively in the West Bank.
 * *where does it say otherwise regarding the golan? perhaps you mistook the disputed border with lebanon for the golan which is the disputed border with syria?
 * *the jordan river is the border of jordan, perhaps it is in jordan rather than in the west bank? does a treaty state otherwise? i have not found one that assigns the river to one party or the other
 * *about three quarters, or two thirds perhaps of the dead sea is in jordan and israel. please check a map such as the one on the page.
 * You did not link the names of the disputed regions.
 * *they could be included, but the final resolution will most likely not be along the armistice lines which define these areas (golan, gaza, west bank). perhaps we should not prejudge the matter but rather leave that task to the parties. its easy to report accurately the settled boundaries.
 * You put entirely too much about the geography in the introductory paragraph. There is a geography section for a reason. The introduction is supposed to be a brief summary.
 * *perhaps all border information should be in the geography section then rather than incomplete inforation...many states have unresolved borders. these include iraq, saudi arabia, yemen, china, etc.
 * but its kinda funny, every page i see has the borders defined or at least the neighboring states (perhaps we should just list Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Eqypt...that's all the states) and be done with it. Iran also lists type of government...havent checked the other 190+ countries for type of government in first paragraph...rather would expect them all to have that "little" detail.


 * On wikipedia, you are *not* supposed to put comments inside an article. That is what the talk page is for.


 * In short, the issue is what I have had to repeat many times: You have attempted to put in place poorly worded, irregularly structured, and most critically, partisan edits into an article that has so far managed to stay in a relatively nonpartisan form. This is simply inacceptable. Since you seem to be new here, here's a tip: Sign all of your posts. Type four tildes when you're done with an edit. Rei 18:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * its not poorly worded...its not partisan...its not inaccurate....your responses please.


 * Another thing about Wikipedia: Interspersing answers annoys the heck out of people, especially when you do it wrong and mess up the numbering on a list.


 * You know very well that almost everyone will consider democracy good. That's like putting a reference in the article about North Korea as "North Korea is a state that uses torture", and trying to defend it by saying "it's only if you believe torture is bad!".


 * This is not a travel guide. This is not something trying to persuade people to visit. This is not a place for compliments, period. There is a politics section for a purpose. You Do Not Just Put Everything Into The Introductory Paragraph. This is not a 10th grade civics report.


 * Even the few articles that do define the government type do not prefix it with a further complientary term such as "few". That is not the "just the facts" approach that an encyclopedia is supposed to be.


 * You clearly are not familiar with the border disputes in Israel. Lebanon's only disputed area is the Shab'a Farms in the Golan Heights. The northern border of Israel is not disputed, although there are occasional border clashes.


 * Rewording: The majority of the Jordan river border is in the West Bank.


 * Wrong about the dead sea. Half of the Dead Sea is in Jordan. 1 third is in the West Bank. Only 1/6th is in an area of Israel that isn't in the West Bank.


 * Of course it should be in the border section! You didn't even bother to look much at the article before you started editing, did you? I'll ask you again to sign your posts. Rei 19:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

your paragraph breaks broke the numbering...everything was numbered "1." please check the history.

many muslims consider democracy bad...one could argue that the life of the prophet is the exemplar for human activity...it did not include democracy. the church does not view democracy as the best government, the vatican provides that and did for centuries over varying parts of the Italian penisula. buddist views of government would be interesting...i dont know them....but based upon history one could not unreasonable think that the Dalai or Panchin Lama should be the leader of the government not democracy. democracy is good is a particularly modern western view. it was not held by washington, adams, monroe, or franklin...these gentlemen much preferred republic to democracy...they feared the excesses of democracy (a bush in texas is better than two in the white house?). this is one reason the senate has 6 year terms...to slow down change.

border in the west bank? border not between two things? come if the border is in the west bank then it is part of the west bank and the border is to one side of the "border"

dead sea...half in jordan, one-sixth in israel...that means less than half in west bank? as i orginally said? 3/4 or 2/3? hmm.... 1/2 + 1/6 = 2/3? damn math is so unequivical (sp).

please see Egypt for an extensive opening section rather than paragraph. if you do mean paragraph, rather than section, we can address that with a single keystroke. ("\n" | ^M | ^J | 0xa | 0xd) heaven forfend we use both ^M and ^J! ;)


 * You know very well that the majority of people who view the english language page on Israel are going to view democracy as a good thing; please don't pretend that you're stupid, I'm sure you're not. "Few" is clearly designed to amplify that. If you're going to debate the difference between republic and democracy, this is hardly the place for it; if you cared about the details so much, you should write that it's a parlimentary democracy.


 * Let me bring some stats to this. The Middle East divides as follows:


 * Multiparty, regular elections: Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen
 * One-party, "elections": Syria
 * Zero-party, elections: Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman
 * Zero-party, no elections: Saudi Arabia
 * Future indeterminate, elections promised: Iraq


 * By my count, that means 7 (soon to be 8) out of 14 countries in the Middle East have multiparty systems featuring elections. Now I would be the last to argue that Egypt or Iran is a "real" democracy - though even that would leave 5 (soon to be 6) out of 14 - but that's a decidedly iffy decision, and Iran at least is technically a democracy whose constitution happens to include the nasty proviso that an unelected body can ban candidates. Either way you take that, that makes "few" an unjustified wording - either half or a third of the countries in the Middle East are democracies. - Mustafaa 20:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * very good. please add to the list the number of elections since 1945 and the number of different heads of state. egypt is famous for its outlawing of opposition parties...but only for the duration of the election. for the good to the state and the people. oh...they number of years in state of emergency would be interesting as well. the soviet union had elections, as does china and many other states....perhaps we should list them as democracies as well. did we forget the culling of the candidates lists in iran? one man, one vote, once or at least once a generation is rather common.


 * What your suggestions lack is a definition of "a democracy". Saying that a state has regular multiparty elections is a fact. In different states, these elections exert differing amounts of influence on the government; that's a fact, if a rather hard one to measure. Drawing the line of how much influence these elections have to have is a matter of opinion - when exactly did Britain become a democracy? Given that Britons do not choose their head of state, is it even one yet? I personally would exclude Egypt and Iran - still leaving 5 out of the 14 Middle East's countries as democracies, more than just a "few" - but where you draw the line is inherently a matter of opinion. - Mustafaa 21:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even more to the point - to cite a frequent objection - is a country ruling a large population who have no right to vote in its elections a "true" democracy or not? If not, that on its own excludes both Kuwait and Israel. - Mustafaa 21:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * How can I word the discussion of the border so that you'll understand? Clearly I am not expressing myself in a way that you can understand. How about this (let me know if you still don't understand what I'm saying): "Of the border that the Jordan river composes, the vast majority of it is a border of the West Bank." Does that work for you?


 * Yes, less than half of the Dead Sea is in the West Bank - approximately one third of its total area.. Only about a sixth of the Dead Sea is indisputably in "Israel". Looking at a map will help you understand.


 * Just because you can find a country's article that doesn't follow typical form doesn't make it right to change this article as such. The standard is a small introductory paragraph which doesn't go into the type of government (again, with a few exceptions), sometimes talks about the borders very briefly (here, since it is a complicated subject, that is best avoided), and then moves on to the main article. Rei 19:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like to thank user 209.135.35.83 for meeting us here on the talk page. I think it will work better to discuss problematic changes, rather than count 10x reversions of "facts".

One of my roles at Wikipedia is as a Mediator. I would like to help 209.135.35.83 and Rei (plus Cantus, Mustaafa and a large elk ;-) create a version of the Israel article that we all can agree on.

All of us care about accuracy and neutrality, right? --Uncle Ed 19:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

absolutely...but i'm just an ip address interested accuracy and neutrality, not a user.

(Rv until you have justified it on talk (and as I mentioned, you're not supposed to put comments into the article!)) ??? does this apply to your reversions or to mine. ???

Rei, only a sixth of the dead sea in israel? you did count the disconnected part below that used to connected to the main body of the sea? looks like 1/4 west bank, 1/4 israel and 1/2 jordan. still not a majority in the west bank. ;(

new intro paragraph


 * The State of Israel is a predominantly Jewish country in Southwest Asia and is one of the few multi-party democracies in the Middle East. The neighboring states are: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. It shares the coastlines of the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Aqaba, the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.

patterned on Jordan:


 * The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, commonly called simply Jordan, is a country in the Middle East. It is bordered by Syria to the north, Iraq to the north-east, Saudi Arabia to the east and south, and Israel and West Bank to the west. It shares the coastlines of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Dead Sea.

Rei's response


 * (Rv; you keep repeating the same problems over and over; complimentary language, inlined comments, etc.)

"Of the border that the Jordan river composes, the vast majority of it is a border of the West Bank." this seems convoluted.

how about "north of the Great Rift Valley" ? less accurate but it side steps the issue entirely...by the way i dont know what a vast majority is...75%, 80% 90%??? significant majority i can map to something around 66% ala veto override...special majority.

"parlimentary democracy." would raise the issue of what does "few" mean. "few parlimentary democracies." or "few democracies."

look if its laudable that israel is a parlimentary democracy, that's okay. each people have the opportunity to make their government into what they want it to be...it process can be long and difficult with many obstacles. hong kong is a very interesting one to watch right now. a wise man once said that people get the government they deserve....by and large that seems to be true.

"Yes, less than half of the Dead Sea is in the West Bank - approximately one third of its total area.. Only about a sixth of the Dead Sea is indisputably in "Israel". Looking at a map will help you understand."

thank you...that was my claim to begin with...3/4 or 2/3 of dead sea outside of the west bank.

"sometimes talks about the borders very briefly (here, since it is a complicated subject, that is best avoided), and then moves on to the main article"

lest i got that part right, or i think i did ;)


 * Once again, I must request that you sign your posts. Next, you keep misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm talking about the borders - I've been talking about borders this entire time. There is more of the border that runs through the dead sea that is the West Bank's border than there is in Israel proper. Third, "few" should not be in there, so the issue is moot. Fourth, I wasn't complaining about the intro paragraph - as you'll note from the reversion notice, I was complaining about the complimentary wording (such "few"), your use of in-article comments (which you've been told not to use several times), and the fact that the article overall reads far worse with your new version.


 * In short, as long as you keep trying to make low quality modifications to an article that has managed to stay relatively NPOV, "just the facts", on a touch issue, they will continue to be rejected. Rei 21:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. - Sign Your Posts!!! Rei 21:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

What other democracies are there in the area? Pollinator 21:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that complimentary terms like that don't belong into an encyclopedia, you posted in the wrong section. Go up to section four of this talk page, read what has been discussed thusfar, and if you're not satisfied, join in up there. Rei 21:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Given the occupation of territories, saying that Israel is a democracy has become POV. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei,

I think your point about signing posts has been heard; you might want to throttle down the reminders to thrice-weekly ;-)

Everybody,

Considering that Israel is probably the single most controversial country in the world, we might want to delay mentioning ideas like predominantly Jewish and multi-party democracies until the second paragraph or ever further.

Don't get me wrong: I'm Jewish and I love Israel, but I promised Jimbo and Larry that I would rein in my patriotic fervor in the interests of our official Wikipedia Neutrality Policy.

Perhaps we could say:
 * 1) the population is predominantly Jewish; or,
 * 2) Boosters tout the nation as one of the few multi-party democracies in the Middle East

I don't think anyone would disagree with sentence #2, because instead of ENDORSING the idea that it's "one of the few" the article merely reports that supporters of Israel CLAIM that it's one of the few. --Uncle Ed 21:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Both of those statements are quite fair and accurate. I'd even say that they're NPOV, if used in a balance of positives and negatives. However, I have to agree with your original paragraph, and add that whether they're NPOV or not doesn't address whether such things should be included. I think once you start including things like that, things that are favorable to one side or the other, even if you start allowing the other side to do the same with information that is unfavorable, you're going to spark a steadily escalating war, and this will turn into another Al-Aqsa Intifada article. Rei 22:14, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Other boosters tout the nation as the only apartheid regime left in the world... Anyway, Israel is not only predominantly populated by Jews, it is also a Jewish state. The Knesset said so in 1985: "Israel is the state of the Jewish people", as opposed to "a Jewish state and the state of all its citizens" that an Arab MK proposed. BL 22:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rei said: "There is more of the border that runs through the dead sea that is the West Bank's border than there is in Israel proper."
 * can someone explain this sentence to me. the length of border that passes thru the dead sea along side the west bank is larger than the lenght of border that passes thru the dead sea along side isreal? is that the meaning? looking at the map on the Israel page geography section, realizing that there are currently two bodies of water south of the jordan river, that these two bodies of water where once connected, that the single connected body of water was known as the dead sea, that the name (as far as i know) applies to both bodies to water, it seems that there is more border length passing along side israel thru these two bodies of water than along side the west bank. what do you say rei?

one issue here is the relative weight assigned to accuracy vs neutrality. perhaps a single example would help. Alex runs a stop light and hits another car. accuracy demands that we state Alex ran the stop light, neutrality demands we omit this detail.

why prefer "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population are Jewish." to the text "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population are Jews." ???

Rei states: "...once you start including things like that, things that are favorable to one side or the other, even if you start allowing the other side to do the same with information that is unfavorable"
 * including a "good" item requires us to include a "bad" item? what if there are more "good" items than "bad" items...are we then required to omit some "good" items so the count or measure of worth remains "balanced". If this is Wikipedia policy do we apply it to all articles? Martin Luther King? Ghandi? etc...what of an individual that is genuinely disagreed upon by significant populations (Osama bin Ladin perhaps, lot more Muslims than Americans and non-Muslim Europeans combined, surely their opinion while not unanimous is "just as valid and worthwhile" as that of a bunch of "neocolonialists" and "terrorist state" per Noam Chomsky)...do we search for a "good" item to "balance" out the "bad" item of September 11th? seems rather undesireable as a policy.

regarding number of Israelis in the west bank as 250,000 hows this for NPOV?
 * This number does not include Israelis in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem under Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967.


 * Concerning the Dead Sea, it depends on how old of a map you look at. :) The southern basin is drying up incredibly fast, since water no longer flows over the Lisan (the strip of land between the two). You might be accurate around the year 1900, but you're not currently. The southern basin is almost completely dry now, except for evaporation ponds used in Israeli and Jordinan potash plants. Perhaps that will change if Israel actually builds the channel from the Mediterranean like they've been considering doing.


 * including a "good" item requires us to include a "bad" item? what if there are more "good" items than "bad" items...are we then required to omit some "good" items so the count or measure of worth remains "balanced". 


 * You shouldn't be doing either in the first place, so we shouldn't need the discussion. But, if one side is going to be allowed to have their perspective, the other side deserves the right to do so as well. That's part of what NPOV is all about. Trust me, for every good thing about Israel that you can say, those that oppose Israel have something just as bad if not worse.


 * one issue here is the relative weight assigned to accuracy vs neutrality. perhaps a single example would help. Alex runs a stop light and hits another car. accuracy demands that we state Alex ran the stop light, neutrality demands we omit this detail.


 * That brings up an interesting point. It depends on what the article is about. If the article is about Alex in general, it would probably be best just to mention that Alex hit another car. If the article is about Alex's accident, then it would be best to mention that he ran the stop light. This is an article about Israel in general. "Fights" that can't be avoided should at least try to be consigned to the subarticles.


 * why prefer "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population are Jewish." to the text "As of 2001, 81% of Israel's population are Jews." ???


 * Because there is no good reason to change it. Do you have a good region to change it? If anything, I prefer the former, because it talks about a religion instead of a "race". There really is no "Jewish race", as the modern "jew" is a varying mix of one of several stocks of asiatic, african, and european peoples (for example, the Khazars, who were Turkic, and lived in what is the present-day Ukraine; they coverted in the 9th century, but ironicly helped the spread of Christianity by their efforts to stop the advance of Islam). The concept of a single "Jewish race" in modern times was most promoted by the Nazis, although zionists and orthodox jews often push the race concept as well. Rei 17:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Rei you may wish to review the recent genetic studies that indicate that Jews are more closely related to Palestinians than to Europeans (see Palestinian ancestry section...which raises the thought that Palestinians may be Jews that converted to Islam 1400 years ago...hard to accept? hard to consider or entertain?)....maybe both are Khazars? Jews are those that practice Judaism or self identify as Jews...else you are dealing with a "race" situation.

Didnt you say that one should not intermix comments?

regarding reestablished communities Rei suggests that "fights" might be better consigned to subarticles....should we remove all the "settlement" material then? why do i expect you will insist that only the reestablishment material should be removed....whose POV?


 * I'm happy to mention the "reestablishment" of a couple of these places - but reestablished settlements are as much settlements as the others (see the dictionary definition.) - Mustafaa 18:54, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * ahhh...so Palestinian "returnees" that reestablish communities would be "settlers" living in "settlements" or does this only apply in one direction?


 * They could be called that, yes; "settlement" is not an inherently bad term, it's the nature of the Israeli settlers that has given it a bad reputation. Given Israeli intransigence, the question is highly academic. - Mustafaa 19:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Mustafaa, you wear your POV thrust so far out in front of you! Did American settlers give it a good reputation? Did Europeans in Australia or Africa? Do Arabs in the Western Sudan? What of the Arabs that settled in various areas in the years after 700? Mustafaa: "it's the nature of the Israeli settlers that has given it a bad reputation"


 * Well, of course European, Arab, Aztec, American, Russian, Chinese, Assyrian, and pre-exilic Jewish settlements should all have given it a bad reputation too. The fact is, they have not. - Mustafaa 19:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So, shall we work on editting wikipedia to have the same level of "compassion" for those settlers as it does for the Israeli ones? Things like preferring to identify Tal Hatuel as a settler rather than a mother. (If you dont recongnize the name, she and four of her children under 12 years of age where adversely affected by the weapons fire of glorious honorable freedom fighters!


 * For God's sake, anonip, this is NOT a debate forum, and this NOT an Israel-glorification forum. Do you want us to start talking about Baruch Goldstein? Do you want us to start talking listing the names of the over 500 children that the IDF has killed during their operations? Do you want me to link in a video clip of Israeli soldiers stoning a man to death? No? Then quit it. That's not what this page is for.


 * Ah Baruch Goldstein...one Jew murders 29 Arabs...once...how many Arabs murder how many Jews to compare against? 500 children...sure bring on the lists. i would like to see the video clip...have not heard of that one. why is it that the honorable palestinians compete to claim responsibility for bus bombing while jews dont compete to claim baruch goldstein's act or to emulate him?


 * The genetic study you referred to didn't compare to Asiatic or North African populations. I just cited a turkic population, for example - the Kazars. The Kazars are closer to the semitic people in ancestry than to the various European subsets. Even most Jewish sites that discuss ancestry don't try and deny the history to people like the Kazars.


 * P.S. - quoting you is not "intermixing comments" - it is just that, quoting you. Additionally, you are making several edits that are disputed that you need to address: 1) Why the compromise version on the UN is wrong on NPOV. 2) The racial vs. religious issue - when the racial issue is in dispute, but the religious is not, why should one use the racial issue? 3) The perceived buildup before the war, and 4) the fact that the vast majority - all but a tiny handful - of the Israeli colonies in the West bank *WERE NOT* established before 1948. Rei 19:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

For the Khazar ancestry, see Arthur Koestler and the links therein. As for the genetic data, the actual results indicated that the Sephardim were extremely close to Palestinians, while the Ashkenazim were close but less close, and were closer than Sephardim to Palestinians, indicating a mixed population. In particular, the paternal line of Ashkenazim appeared to be predominantly Jewish, while the maternal line is strongly European. But that debate is really not too relevant to an article on Israel. - Mustafaa 19:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

i read the book when it first came out...also read they book on which it was based which was written MUCH earlier. Dont Jews identify by whether or not the mother is Jewish?


 * Modern Jews do, yes, but this practice appears to be medieval, as I recall. In earlier times, they were patrilineal. - Mustafaa 20:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * hmm....tribe affliation is from the father, Jewish is from the mother.


 * The only thing I care about is that Southwest Asia must stay in the intro along with "Middle East", as the latter is a very loosely-defined term - Southwest Asia is a better geographical term to describe Israel's location. WhisperToMe 06:03, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The Four Issues
As the anonymous user here wants to make a set of changes on which there has been significant disagreement over, it would appear that there are four issues that need to be discussed. I have already mentioned them, but I will re-list them here to make it easier.


 * 1) Why is the compromise version on the UN wrong on NPOV? This is pretty straightforward; the UN overwhelmingly passed the discussed resolutions; supporters of Israel claim that the UN is biased against them. Does this not sum up the situation? What would you propose to make different if you feel this isn't NPOV?
 * 2) The racial vs. religious issue - when the racial issue is in dispute, but the religious is not, why should one use the racial issue?
 * 3) The perceived buildup before the war. The Egyptian continent - what is frequently cited as the most powerful and agressive - only had 80,000 troops on the border and very minimal armor, compared to several hundred thousand Israelis. Their aircraft were not on alert, or anything of the sort. Many of the other nations involved didn't even attempt to act. Many high ranking Israeli officials, including several prime ministers and several generals from the war, have stated that the threat to Israel was overstated (although some think it justified anyway). On the other hand, there is no doubt that the Israeli public *perceived* it as a very dangerous situation, and that their very existance is at stake. The actions taken by Israel's neighbors only made it worse. But, as far as "troop buildups" go, 80,000 troops from a nation of over a 30 million, is almost nothing as far as being on a wartime footing is concerned.
 * 4) The vast majority - all but a tiny handful - of the Israeli colonies in the West bank distinctly were not established before 1948. It is a plain fact. The only ones are Kfar Etzion, a few setlements on the Jerusalem-Bethlehem border that were built on the site of old villages, Neve Ya'acov, the Gush Etsion block, a tiny portion of Hebron until 1929, and parts of Jerusalem. That's pretty much it. For a comparison, here's 108 set up since 1996:  (there are lots of good charts over there ). This one is particularly revealing:.

Once again Egyptian democratic elections will feature only one party as reported by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram

few democracies, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey

Wrong. Even if you exclude Egypt, there's still Jordan and Yemen. - Mustafaa 19:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on how you define "democracy". If it means freedom of religion, speech and press; and periodic elections of officials, then Israel is one of the few democracies in the Middle East.

If you de-emphasize freedom of religion, then I suppose more Islamic countries could be considered "democratic". Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, all countries other than Haiti (still in turmoil) and Cuba (totalitarian) are democratic.

A lot of Westerners feel that democracy is "good", believing that it tends to bring peace, freedom, happiness and prosperity. But don't a lot of Islamic people feel just the same way about Islam? --Uncle Ed 12:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Why are the two incompatible? Most Muslims I know strongly believe both democracy and Islam are very good things, and want more of both in their governments.

As for freedom of religion, I don't see where that fits into the definition of democracy; if anything, the need to safeguard freedom of religion is one reason the US does not have a pure democracy, and instead restricts the people's freedom to pass laws by adding a Supreme Court and a Constitution. Also, all Middle Eastern countries except Iran and Saudi Arabia let you believe what you want and convert to whatever you want, though most, including Israel, have restrictions on proselytization.

I agree that 5 out of 14 is not among the world's better ratios, but a third of the Middle Eastern countries is more than just a few, in my view. - Mustafaa 17:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Democracy and Islam....as I understand Islam, which is not complete or authoritative...the widely held "offical" view is that Muhammad set the course of the umma and determined the proper religious, social, military/foreign relations, and political forms for all Muslims. After Muhammad's death, these four roles where fulfilled by the Caliph. The concept of elections does not fit anywhere in this picture. 209.135.35.83 18:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Freedom of Regilion is essentially the beneficent tolerance of a minority group within the majority society. This tolerance is an essential part of democracy. The same tolerance that allows one party to lose an election, become a minority party (perhaps even a marginal party) without risks to their personal or organizational security. Without this tolerance...one can not have a democracy...this tolerance ends when the minority group commits itself to changing the existing sitation throught violence...hence the inherent paradox of "freedom fighters" be they American in 1776 or Algerian in 1960. However in neither case were the "freedom fighters" (American or Algerian) allowed to obtain controlling participation in the local or larger governments. This is not the case in Israel, where the Arab political parties are free to participate and just this week an Arab was named to the Supreme Court. (one could argue that it has been a long time coming.) Meanwhile in the "democracy" of Egypt a film producer's conviction for fostering an Egyptian-Israeli friendship group (not unusual between countries that have signed peace treaties) was upheld by the Egyptian Supreme Court "The Arab public does not nead a phony friendship such as this."[ Story has been removed from Current Events....a common occurance at Wikipedia. [[User:209.135.35.83|209.135.35.83]] 18:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If by "pure democracy" you mean "direct democracy" or, simply, majority rule, then you're completely right: America doesn't have that. Our form of democracy was created to preserve "certain inalienable rights" -- not to ensure that a majority can use the force of law to take advantage of a minority.

American democracy is nealy unique in its "separation of powers" approach, which provides "checks and balances" to prevent abuses of goverment authority. I personally believe that the U.S. Constitution is the world's oldest functioning founding document: it's practically in a class by itself.

This has NOT made America perfect, but oddly enough the government with the most restraints on its powers has made this country the greatest superpower in history. And the country which attracts the most foreign criticism also attracts the most foreign immigrants.

Oh, er, but what does any of this have to do with Israel? (sorry) --Uncle Ed 18:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * First off, thank you anonip. again for rejoining the talk page. Also, thank you for signing your talk pages. I really appreciate it. If you're going to be editing regularly here, you might want to consider creating an account.


 * Many muslims - dare I say most - disagree with you on the issue of democracy. While in polls, democracy is typically not often rated as highly in middle eastern nations as it is in western nations, it still is generally seen very favorably. It is for this reason that many middle eastern nations - despite western support for their current dictatorships - have been moving more toward democracies.


 * As was pointed out earlier, even most middle eastern nations have freedom of religion, although there is a state religion. Israel has a state religion, and the "religious right" in the US claims that the US has a state religion as well (I'll disagre with that, but that's another topic). As for the issue of minority and majority groups, that does exist. Look at all of the political parties in Lebanon, for example - many of whom have little or no power, but don't start taking up arms against the government. One could easily argue about, with Israel, the government funding of proselytization and of bringing jews to Israel, to help keep the non-Jewish population a minority, is about as undemocratic as you can get. Furthermore, the people most affected by the Israeli military - the Palestinians - have no vote whatsoever. The Israeli government denies the right of return to help keep its Jewish majority... etc. The concept of a "Jewish democracy", just like a "Christian democracy" or an "Islamic democracy", only works if you can keep the demographics the same; with the difference in birth rates between Israelis and Palestinians, they have a big problem in trying to keep it "Jewish", and consequently have to sacrifice the "democracy" aspect to some degree by funding the tweaking of their demographics.


 * P.S. - On the child suicide bomber article, if you disagree with my revert's stated reasons, lets talk. I'll be available later today over on its talk page. Rei 18:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"*Multiparty, regular elections: Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen"

Iran....election candidates are culled by the Council, thousands of candidates removed this year. Egypt...elections will feature only one party as reported by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram Jordan...what is the role of the legislature vs the King....who runs the country if the two disagree...if its the King, it aint a democracy Turkey...has must elected its first quasi-Islamic government....we will have to see if they allow an election in which they lose power (a central issue in Iran).

We are left with Lebanon, Yemen (which I dont know enough about per Politics of Yemen elections are scheduled for this year...Ali Abdallah SALIH 96.3% of the votes is reminiscent of Soviet elections.) and Israel, with the possibility of Turkey.

Four is few. Less than a handful. "few democracies in the Middle East" we could add this phrase to the first paragraph for each of these countries...would not be out of place. 209.135.35.83 18:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC) (due to edit conflict)

Rei: "Furthermore, the people most affected by the Israeli military - the Palestinians - have no vote whatsoever." Israeli Arabs, who claim to be Palestinians, have the right to vote as do all Israeli citizens. It is unreasonable to expect voting rights without the obligation of citizenship...one of which is commitment to the preservation of the country. 209.135.35.83 19:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You ask about Jordan? See the Honor killing article. The King put forward a law, and the elected Lower House stopped it. In this case, it was a bad thing, but it disproves your point. As for Yemen, I don't know - we'll have to see this year. In practice, the country is more an anarchy than anything else. Anyway, "few" is inherently ambiguous - if you want to mention it, how about "is a democracy in the Middle East"?

You say "Many muslims - dare I say most - disagree with you on the issue of democracy." The polls show that you're wrong. "The World Values Study of 2002 shows that 87 percent of Muslims (in nine countries) see democracy as the best choice.". And in 2003, the attitudes continued. - Mustafaa 19:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and to Ed: I totally agree, a democracy restricted by constitutionality works far better than a pure democracy (which rapidly becomes ochlocracy) - as long as the founding document is well-written. - Mustafaa 20:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa: please identify if this is a question or not then square it with your claim that i am asserting Jordan is or is not a democracy:


 * Jordan...what is the role of the legislature vs the King....who runs the country if the two disagree...if its the King, it aint a democracy

Second, I didnt say Muslims, I said Islam. Surely you know the difference.


 * Democracy and Islam....as I understand Islam, which is not complete or authoritative...the widely held "offical" view is that Muhammad set the course of the umma and determined the proper religious, social, military/foreign relations, and political forms for all Muslims. After Muhammad's death, these four roles where fulfilled by the Caliph. The concept of elections does not fit anywhere in this picture. 209.135.35.83 18:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Are these two purposeful misrepresentations or errors on your part?

SO shall we say "one of 4" or "one of 5" not so easy cause we dont know which...this is one reason we have words like "few" they are deliberately ambiguous as to number but informative as to total population. - 209.135.35.83

Ambiguous is exactly what the situation is - which is why neither "few", "four", "five", nor "seven" are appropriate.

As to Jordan - very well; consider my point an answer to your implicit question.


 * implicit? the lack of a question mark? what is the role of the legislature vs the King? King Abdullah was recently in Washington conduction foreign policy for Jordan. This situation is different from the role of Queen Elizabeth. Given a conflict between Parlement and the Queen, the Queen could be deposed. Can the same occur in Jordan? Does the legislature rule the country or is the King sovereign (sp)? This is a critical question for determining if Jordan is a democracy or not. Please answer. 209.135.35.83 13:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

As to Islam - as I assumed would be obvious, I consider the opinion of the vast majority of Muslims on what Islam says about democracy to be decidely more authoritative than your ex cathedra claim - as supported by the principle of ijma. - Mustafaa 22:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised....I would expect that clerics and judges trained in Sharia would be the authoritities on what is and what is not Islam. The actions of Muslims may or may not over time become authoritative. Two examples could be widespread behaviors in some Muslim communities that those communities insist are Islamic practices that the clerics content are not Islamic practices: Honor Killing and Female Genital Mutilation. Please choose whether the populace or the clerics are authrotative. 209.135.35.83 13:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Another way of approaching it is to say that a religion's prinicples and doctrines are defined by its officials (authorized bodies...al-azhar for instance). the practice of a religion (not its practices, the prescribed set of behaviors, but rather the set of behaviors as observed in acts of its adherents) are defined by those that "subscribe" to that religion. over time ijma may bring certain behaviors into the authorized religion. Now, FGM has a long history, yet it has not been accepted by a the authorized folks (al-azhar etc). similarly with honor killing. so we see that Islam can oppose practices that are widespread among Muslims. Similiarly Islam can oppose the practice of democracy in place of an Islamic State, even if many (most?) Muslims want or subscribe to democracy.

Please respond regarding Freedom of Religion being toleration for a minority population within the majority as I have described above. 209.135.35.83 15:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost forgot... Shura. - Mustafaa 22:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I counted only 1 "real" democracy in the middle east - which is Lebanon - although it is controlled mostly by Syria. As to Turkey - it is not really in the middle east. It is geographically close, but doesn't belong to the middle east.

Votes for Palestinians
As I understand it, Arabs are NOT forbidden to vote in Israel. They can even hold office.

And I may be wrong, but I believe this is even true of Palestinian Arabs, as well.

It is only those Arabs under the jurisdiction of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority who are forbidden the democratic rights we've been talking about.

When comparing Israel to its Arab or other Islamic neighbors, it's not just freedom of religion but the right to vote OUT the current leader and replace him with someone else, which is important.
 * Israel gives MUCH more freedom of religious expression to non-Jews than its Islamic neighbors give to non-Muslims. Perhaps we need an article on Religion in the Middle East to address this in better detail.
 * Israel is hand-down the MOST democratic of the dozen or twenty countries surrounding the fertile crescent. Turkey might have some elements of democracy, but Lebanon is more of an anarchy. Interestingly enough, the countries which have signed (and kept!) peace treaties with Israel are being called "democratic". Reminds me of Rummel's "democratic peace" conjecture. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * First off, I think you've mistaken Arab Israelis with Palestinians. Arab Israelis (of which there are just under 20%, and used to be a lot less (but the higher birth rate has changed the demographics)) can vote. Palestinians cannot - neither those in the occupied territories, nor those being denied the right of return from outside the country.


 * The number under the Palestinian Authority is essentially every Palestinian in the OT. The people most affected by Israel's policies.


 * Lets look at Turkish Prime Minsters changed via election since the founding of Israel, shall we? Sukru Saracoglu, Recep Peker, Hasan Saka, Semsettin Gunaltay, Adnan Menderes, Cemal Gursel, Ismet Inonu, S. Hayri Urguplu, Suleyman Demirel, Nihat Erim, Ferit Melen, Naim Talu, Bulent Ecevit, Said Irmak, Bulent Ulusu, Turgut Ozal, Yildirim Akbulut, Mesut Yilmaz, Tansu Ciller, Necmettin Erbakan, Abdullah Gul, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Many of these served in several noncontiguous terms - for example, Slueyman Demirel served 7 terms in office, but only the first three were contiguous. Bulent Ecevit served 5 terms, with only two contiguous. Etc. Israel has had less prime ministers, at only 11. So, really, this is not an accurate claim about the ability to vote out the leader and replace them with someone else. I could go into other countries if you'd like.


 * Israel does not give "much more freedom of religious expression". Heck, it doesn't even give "much more freedom of expression" period, as Israel's rank on media freedom is 92nd in the world due to heavy IDF and government censorship and interference with reporters (according to Reporters Sans Frontiers, who ranks the world's media). As far as religious expression, this is kind of amusing. Israel is a "Jewish Democracy" - it is founded on a single religious ideal. It consistantly uses government funding to maintain Jewish numerical superiority (proseletyzing, free immigration, etc) to stifle the political expression of religious minorities. Orthodox Jews are granted additional bonuses, such as freedom from manditory military service. If you're an immigrant and you convert to Judaism, you can become a citizen; otherwise, you're subject to Israel's harsh immigration and naturalization laws (for example, children of immigrants don't become citizens like they do in the US, and deportations are far more common). The state funds "religious councils", but they are almost exclusively for Jews. They refuse recognition of various Christian leaders that they don't approve of, such as the elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Eirinaios I (which prevented him from conducting many financial and legal arrangements for the church). Then there was the siezure of the passport of of Archimandrite Attallah Hanna, an Israeli citizen and Greek Orthodox priest. The IDF employs not even a single Muslim chaplain. They prohibit Muslims of under age 35 from making Hajj, and require government permission for the trip. In 2002, they denied entry and residence to 80 catholics assigned for religious duty in the area by the Vatican. I could keep going on, but I think you get the picture.


 * In Palestine, I can't find a major complaint of relations in recent years between Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims - if you can, please do so.. Foreign missionaries are allowed to proseletyze. Churches generally operate under the "Status Quo" agreement established under Ottoman rule. Even the heavily proselytizing churches that have come in recent years (the Jehovah's Witnesses and some evangelicals), while having more trouble getting official recognition and encountering some opposition from both local Muslims and Christians, generally operate unhindered. Religion is taught in all PA schools, but depending on what religion you are, you are taught material relative to that religion. There are some of the same difficulties as present in Israel - for example, Government funding of Islamic institutions - but I've been hard pressed to find anything major. In the "International Religions Freedom Report 2003", they state unequivically, "The PA makes a strong effort to maintain good relations with the Christian community, and there is no pattern of PA harassment of Christians." Christians (of several denominations, with Greek Orthodox being the largest) are the only sizable minority religion in the Palestinian Territories, unless you count the Israeli colonists (who fall under Israeli law, not Palestinian).


 * Just because Israeli apologists like to portray Israel like the best thing since sliced bread in terms of freedom and democracy, and muslim countries as little better than caliphates, doesn't make it true. Rei 19:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei: That is a lot of material. Perhaps we could address just one item first. Please reconcile this with your statements regarding Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority:

Internal violence can also be traced to Palestinian religious heterogeneity. There have always been predominantly Christian cities or villages, but the violence of the second intifada has resulted in increased Christian migration, as cities are taken over by Islamic groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This religious recomposition of cities like Bethlehem has at times resulted in violence against Christian women, who do not cover themselves in Islamic fashion. The belief of Islamic extremists that Westerners sympathize more with Christian suffering has furthermore led some militants to initiate shooting from Christian areas like Beit Jala, in order to force an Israeli reprisal. In this way, they manage to frighten Palestinian Christians into leaving or changing their lifestyle. These tactics deepen the rift between Palestinians of different religions and with increased Christian flight, amount to a shrewd population transfer initiated by Palestinians against Palestinians. 

OR from the Christian Broadcasting Network  Both Abed and a fellow believer, Khalid, were told that local Muslim clerics have issued a "fatwa" or judgment against them. If they do not renounce their Christian faith, the sentence is death. It distresses Khalid that so many Christians support the Palestinian Authority when it routinely tortures and tries to kill other Christians.

OR from the National Catholic Reporter Palestinian Christians face ethnic cleansing please note that it explicitly provides a backhand compliment to Israel: "Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better." Better than in the PA. Please read these two and consider the fate of Palestinian Christians...their plight reminds me of that of the Jews in Europe...nobody loves 'em.

OR Senator Connie Mack: On March 3, 1999, then-U.S. Senator Connie Mack, who had just returned from a visit in Israel, told the Senate, "I had another profound meeting during the week. I met one evening, privately - secretly - with Arabs who were being persecuted for the Christian faith... One man [who was arrested by the Palestinian Authority police] was beaten and hung from the ceiling by his hands for many hours on charges of selling land to Jews, [but] he was poor and had no land. [His son said he was] held hostage to prevent him from talking with people about his faith... It caused me to ask, 'How can the people of Israel find peace when the Palestinian Authority engages in coercion and torture based only upon religious beliefs?'" 209.135.35.83 15:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest that you read the International Religious Freedom Report, issued by the State Department (hardly a body biased in favor of the Palestinians). They investigate all of the claims, and cover most of what you mentioned.


 * First off, you ignored the fact that the National Catholic Reporter didn't discuss the reasons they have been leaving (which they have been - more on that later.). The view presented in the CBN's report is contradictory to most international reports on religious freedom, especially the state department's, and furthermore contradictory to what people I have met who have travelled to and stayed in the occupied territories (who are themselves Christians) have described, based on discussion with local Christians. Connie Mack(R) is one of the most pro-Israel members of congress (with a voting record similar to Lieberman on Israel issues), so naturally she is going to say anything that she can to try and make the Palestinians look bad (as she always does). She was one of two featured speakers (the other being Israel's Ambassador) to the Zionist Organization of America in 1998. She has taken huge amounts of money from AIPAC. In fact, when Connie retired and there was a possibility that Lieberman would be going to the White House, it led the Jerusalem Post to state that this could "cause something of a pro-Israel leadership vacuum in the Senate" . Unless you want me to start quoting Howard Zinn, I suggest that you not quote from officials that are about as partisan as it gets, either. The International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 (cited above) does state: "there have been periodic but not independently verified allegations that a small number of Muslim converts to Christianity at times are subjected to societal discrimination and harassment by PA officials, including detention and questioning by security forces. During the period covered by this report, there were no such allegations." That's about as bad as the report gets; it's really quite complimentary, and in many places even better than the US's report. And this is from the State Department.


 * Back to the subject on why Christians have been leaving Palestine. You try and present it as them leaving because of Palestinian religious persecution. Of course, that is false. As cited in the International Religious Freedom Report, the ~500 Christians that left, according to local Christian religious leaders, left their homes for "economic and security reasons", and not due to religious discrimination.


 * Other things you didn't address: Anything about Israel's treatment of "religious freedom" (which only earns moderate marks); most of the comments about Palestine's religious freedom (education, church agreements, etc) (I can add plenty more: Israel only recognizes Jewish holidays, but the PA recognizes both Christian and Muslim holidays; percentage-based religious representation; Palestinians pay full taxes in Jerusalem, but only get partial services; in Palestine, different courts govern most law depending on what religion you are; both Muslims and Christians have been taking part in the resistance of Israeli occupation; Israel confiscated land from the Baron Der Monestary in Bethlehem to build a road; Israel's closure policies have regularly prevented both Muslim and Christian leaders from reaching their congregations; the leaders of several major Christian denominations protested on April 4, 2002, the IDF entering numerous churches and mistreating the clergy, including the destruction of property, threatening a 70 year old priest with a gun, forcing two Lutheran pastors to be human shields, the shooting and injury of an Armenian monk, etc; the Israeli violation of the Hebron Protocol; the damage of St. Mary's Convent, the Chapel at Bethlehem University, the Lutheran Church and orphanage in Beit Jala, the Latin Convent in Beit Sahour, the Bethlehem Bible College, a Syrian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Pilgrim House, the complete destruction of the oldest Christian Church in Nablus (Mar Mitri), etc; the firing of a missile into the center of St. Philip's Episcopal Church, rendering it unusable; the 2002 damage of the Holy Family Hospital, the Lutheran Christmas Church, and the Dar al-Kalima Academy; etc (all referencing the Religious Freedom Report for 2003)).


 * Something that, in addition to the International Religious Freedom Report, might be a good starter for you: do the following google search: Palestinian Lutherans. Let me give you a starter from one of the results: "Get out! This is a church!" cried the pastor from a second-story balcony, as IDF soldiers stormed the doors of the compound. Readily identifiable in his clerical garb, the vigilant minister rushed down to meet the soldiers, after placing an S.O.S. call to his bishop in Jerusalem. The Israeli commander claimed that they needed to inspect a home that lay outside the church compound. When Raheb pointed out that this house was well outside the church's land, he was ignored. ... While watching the IDF destroy his office, Pastor Raheb was able to answer a telephone call from Bishop Younan, who was desperate to know what was going on. When Raheb replied to Younan in Arabic, the situation escalated. "I believe they thought I was an expatriate pastor until they heard me speaking in Arabic and realized I was Palestinian," said Raheb. Wrestling the telephone from him, the soldiers screamed at him, "Now you are detained. Don't talk." He was then berated by a gaggle of soldiers who barraged him with insults and obscene words, cursing all Arabs and threatening him." I can get you more articles as needed, or if you really want, arrange for you to talk with someone who's lived in the area. Rei 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

State Department (hardly a body biased in favor of the Palestinians)....you may wish to check this claim. the state dept was forced by Harry Truman to vote in favor of partition at the UN. the state dept is widely regarded in Washington as Arabist.

SO there are Palestinian Christians that claim abuse at the hand of Palestinian Muslims and you are saying that they are wrong? 209.135.35.83 18:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that they're rare, while in Israel they're not as rare. The U.S. State Department concurs. Rei 23:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Put info from talk into the articles
Rei, you write really well. I may disagree with a lot of your conclusions, but you marshall the facts and state the arguments better than I do. So I think you really could take a lot of what you just wrote, which was in rebuttal to my "Israel is the greatest" rhapsody, and add it to the various relevant articles.

Every point you made in talk just now, really ought to be in the articles. I don't know everything, and even much of what I'm pretty sure about is probably wrong. Which is why I like hanging around Wikipedia: I'm getting an great historical and political education! If my heroes have feet of clay, I want to know about it. Not because I want to give up on my ideals, but because I want to know precisely how much further work needs to be done to attain them. If America and Israel aren't heaven on earth, then (a) overthrow them and start fresh; or (b) keep the good, throw out the bad, and keep going. It's an American ideal that the people may "alter or abolish" the government when it isn't doing well enough. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't like starting fights, and Israel-Palestine issues are good ways to do that. I'll do my best to balance out any articles that are out there, but I don't do the things that users like MathKnight and TDC do, and start articles solely to bash one side. If another user starts an article trying to portray Israel as being a haven of religious freedom and Palestine as being the most intolerant place on earth - I'll jump right in. But I'm not going to create an article like Religious Freedom in Israel and Palestine because I don't think it is in anybody's best interests to try and create *more* conflict around here.


 * BTW - I noticed your edit over on the human rights situation in post-saddam Iraq. I would be interested in discussing it over on talk there if you feel my revert isn't justified. I've read through the full Taguba report and the Red Cross's statements, and I've been following this via interviews with local Iraqis for about a year now (so it wasn't really a shock when the pictures came out). I would also like, if you're interested, to get some help from the war-supportive side over on the human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq article. I don't want to go and do edits by myself because I don't think it would be balanced, but the article does need more content about what went on there. I mean, it hardly even mentions the Anfal campaign, doesn't discuss the government purges when he came to power, etc. Now, I wouldn't trust anything that came from the Iraqi National Congress and its felon head Ahmed Chalabi, but I don't think the article is covered in enough depth, and you seem to have a fairly cool head about these things. Rei 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

REI you left off the section that state who did the damage...

Although it is difficult to assess culpability in the destruction of and damage to many places of worship in the occupied territories, their destruction or damage affects the practice of religion and religious freedom. Among the sites damaged were St. Mary's Convent, the chapel at Bethlehem University, the Lutheran Church and orphanage in Beit Jala, the Latin Convent in Beit Sahour, the Bethlehem Bible College, a Syrian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Pilgrim's House, and the Omar Ibn al-Khattab Mosque. Both, the ninth century al-Khader Mosque in Nablus, reputed to be the oldest mosque in the occupied territories, and the church of Mar Mitri, the oldest Christian church in Nablus, were destroyed.

If i remember correctly the PA destroyed a Church in Nablus to use the site for a mosque

It is interesting that the state dept report is void of any information of PA abuses of Christians...but for a statement that covers an indetermite amount of damage "Armed action by Palestinian gunmen and members of the Palestinian security services against Israeli forces damaged some religious buildings." a couple walls could have been damaged by gunfire or whole buildings razed...the report provides no information the scale of the damage.

You also left out:

Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers prevented some settlers from reaching Jewish holy sites in the occupied territories during the period covered by this report. Some Israelis were unable to reach Jewish sites in the occupied territories such as Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron due to the ongoing violence, including on religious holidays.

Is our purpose here to pick items and cite them at each other. Are we to engage in tit-for-tat behaviors that I spoke of originally? 209.135.35.83 19:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Why did you boldface that line? That line wasn't critical of the PA.


 * exactly...who does it critize?


 * "If i remember correctly the PA destroyed a Church in Nablus to use the site for a mosque" - I think you're thinking of the reparations of Joseph's Tomb by the PA, which Israelis criticized as making it look like a Mosque.


 * repairs. reparations are payments.


 * The PA does not provide financial support to any Jewish institutions or holy sites in the Occupied Territories; however, it paid for the refurbishment of Joseph's Tomb--a shrine in Nablus holy to both Jews and Muslims--after Palestinian demonstrators damaged it in 2000. In 2002 Palestinian militants again damaged Joseph's Tomb, and the PA has yet to repair the shrine. (same report)


 * Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers prevented some settlers from reaching Jewish holy sites in the occupied territories during the period covered by this report. . I also didn't cite the many, many cases in the report where Palestinians were prevented from reaching their mosques. There were far, far, far more of those cases. Want me to cite them all, or are you going to drop your case?


 * Is our purpose here to pick items and cite them at each other.  Any 3rd grader reading the report can tell where the mass of abuses lies. Or are you claiming that the state department is biased in favor of the Palestinians??? Rei 19:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Rei...you are the one that claims the state dept favors Israel...why are you now arguing the opposite? 209.135.35.83 19:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What gave you the implication that I am trying to argue the opposite? You seem to be saying that the report is biased in favor of the Palestinians, and my criticism of that viewpoint is that the U.S. government is viewed internationally as being one of the bodies most willing to ignore the abuses of Israel and focus only on the abuses of Palestinians. And on the issue of religious freedom, this body finds very little to criticize about the Palestinians (concerning their own people), and a fair bit for Israel concerning its own people and especially the people it occupies. Rei 19:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. - According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the first definition of reparations is: "a repairing or keeping in repair". You're referring to definitions 2 and 3. :)

Rei the US govt is not monolithic. different portions have different POV. that state dept is well known in washington for favoring the arabs. congress is well known to favor israel.

regarding reparations...thank you....i'll remember that ;) 209.135.35.83 19:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

housekeeping request for an admin
Could an admin please be a dear and replace with  in the main page? I'm trying to unlink the old medium-sized flag images and replace them with autothumbnails. Thanks! Grendelkhan 19:22, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Regarding Rei's "colonies"...seems to me that colonies are established by one country in a different area often in a different continent (UK -> USA, UK -> Australia, NL -> ZA, others). Germany and Poland might be an example of colonies within the same continent. Oklahoma a colony of the USA prior to statehood? Not familiar with that description. Israel and Jordan are the two countries that are located in the terrority of Palestine (pre-1922 severence).

Colonies in Jerusalem seems particularly difficult given that Jews living in Jerusalem predates Islam and is indeed an essential element of Christianity...otherwise what was Jesus doing there and what prophecies did he come to fulfill. Hard to understand if we deny Jews in Jerusalem at that time. Would we call German Pennsylvanians living in organized communities within Germany colonists? Probably not.


 * That would be true if they all dated back to then. They do not; most of them are recent. I would accept something along the lines of "recent settlements and ancient neighborhoods".


 * Colonies are the settling of your population on someone else's land. All settlements established after 1967 are colonies (in fact, pretty much all of Israel except a few places is a recent colony, but the Palestinians have all but ceded it, and are only pushing for the 1967 borders - 22% of their historic homeland). Rei 17:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: Actually, your current version is acceptable, since it doesn't state either way. That's probably the best solution - if something is disputed and not critical to the main discussion being made, it's probably best to avoid conflict by not passing judgement in either direction on it and simply leaving it out. Rei 18:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool!

made another change to the Demographics section:

"Israelis in Jerusalem under Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967" -> "....Jerusalem, which was under Jordanian...." meaning the city was under Jordanian control, not the Israelis.

i hope that it reads better as a result.

Do not remove "Southwest Asia"
I am telling you all right now not to remove "Southwest Asia" from this artiucle. I am tired of hounding people who delete it, chastising them, and adding it back. Southwest Asia is a proper geographical term to refer to the land that Israel is in. Middle East is highly ambiguous and therefore is a poor geographical term. WhisperToMe 05:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the article at Southwest Asia, it is a term some geographers tried to popularize, but it has not gained currency, and is not in widespread use. Wikipedia is here to follow common usage, not promote idiosyncratic usage you happen to prefer. --Delirium 06:46, May 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it strictly refers to Southwest Asia - the Middle East can also refer to a variety of North African countries, depending on other people's ideas of what the "Middle East" is like. WhisperToMe 21:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So? The term Northwestern Europe is more precise than Western Europe (since some countries not in "Western Europe" are actually west of some of the countries that are), but nobody uses it. If it were a term in use, fine, but if it's one only pushed by a few people and generally not used to describe Israel, then it's not appropriate in this article. --Delirium 21:54, May 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * My World Geography textbook uses "Southwest Asia" - Geographers use "Southwest Asia" - this is not "a few people" we are talking about. WhisperToMe 21:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I hardly think a high school geography textbook ought to be an authority on what this article should say. I've flipped through a few books on Israel and have been unable to find the term "Southwest Asia" appearing in any of them anywhere prominently near the beginning. Britannica follows standard practice here with its intro, "...country in the Middle East, located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea." --Delirium 21:57, May 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jack, it is authority on what we should say. "Middle East" succeeds on the "political and cultural" areas but fails miserably in the "geographical" areas. And THIS IS A WORLD GEOGRAPHY TEXTBOOK I WAS TALKING ABOUT! WhisperToMe 22:02, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not a world geography textbook, but an encyclopedia. If a term is used idiosyncratically by some geographers, but a different term is used more commonly by orders of magnitude amongst everyone else, it does not make sense to use the idiosyncratic term in the intro sentence. High school textbooks are famous for their idiocy, as well. --Delirium 22:04, May 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think a better, less subjective term to use in the last sentence would be "inaccuracy". The majority doesn't know the "geographic" term. Yet when dealing with the geography of Israel, the geographic term must be used. WhisperToMe 22:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "Southwest Asia" and "Middle East" refer two two different areas. Middle East contains countries such as Egypt, which belongs to Africa, not Asia. Israel belongs to both, and the article should reflect this. At the same time, I don't feel that Southwest Asia is important enough to put it in the first paragraph. Why don't we put it in the Geography section? --Caliper 03:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe it already is there. WhisperToMe 03:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It's in the Geography of Israel article, but not in the geography section of the Israel article. Would it be enough for you to put it in the geography section of the Israel article, and leave it out of the first paragraph? --Caliper 04:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

That will work :) WhisperToMe 04:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

"Settler"
The term "settler" is used in the article without either explanation or a relevant link. The article settler is far to general to be a useful link. I'm sure there are people who would not know what is being referred to, especially because the first use of the word in the article is a reference to "Arab settlers." Is there an article on the settler movement? Is so, where? -- Jmabel 10:33, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Largest city in Israel - Jerusalem
Facts: Jerusalem, consisting of more than 760,000 pop., is the largest city in Israel, by far from any other city. The second-largest city is Tel-Aviv, with more than 360,000 pop.

Now for the recognition technical part: Jerusalem, or at least most of it (excluding the old-city and a few small neightbourhoods) or what known as west-Jerusalem pre-67 is recognized world-wide as under full Israeli sovereignty, or in the worst case de-facto Israeli sovereignty. (not taking the the Arab countries of course)

Either way, there is a recognision of Israel's control of this part. This part of Jerusalem alone (saying west is a bit mistaken, since it is not a western half) is far greater than Tel-Aviv..

So there's no dispute wether Jerusalem is the largest city..

Looking at the bigger picture, 'disputed' just doesn't belong to a "Largest City" category.. And for you spectacles - disputed doesn't belong- at least when not specifying WHICH part of Jerusalem. (i.e. could be any part, or whole, a diplomatic approach.. and we didn't specify how large the city is!) -Victor 21:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does. The Palestinians claim parts of Jerusalem, which makes the situation rather special. Not all of Jerusalem's population is in the "Israeli" area and when and if Jerusalem gets divided up, it may be divided up in a different way. It is best to note that Jerusalem is disputed and that Tel Aviv is the largest indisputed city of Israel. WhisperToMe 23:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually dividing a city of 760,000 pop. will lead in any case to a greater pop. than Tel-Aviv's (360,000+)... so there'e no room for mentioning Tel-Aviv at all. Anyway, we are not the leaders here. If situation changes, we will update this; and now the city is not divided. The point is that when mentioning that Jerusalem is the largest city; any reader can understand this as any-part/whole of the city, and we didn't mentioned the pop. size! -Victor 08:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be exactly divided in half, nor will it. If the majority of the population goes to the Palestinians, Jerusalem can be left with less than Tel Aviv, WhisperToMe 17:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, one might say it doesn't have to be divided at all.. see, this is a politically sensitive thing. With most of the population Jewish (more than half a million), being a rational man and understanding what is "west" Jerusalem; Jerusalem will stay in any way the largest city in Israel. Disputing doesn't really goes here, becuase the part that is recognized as under full Israeli sovereignty ("west..", which is misleading term) will not be subtracted from; on the contrary - after a future agreement internationally recognized sovereign Israeli Jerusalem (what a sentence..) will get additional area - which means additional pop. So, no fear from that. "Disputed" just doesn't have to do with this innocent category - Largest City. It should note just "Jeruasalem" and not disputed. One can understand what he wants from this- parts, int. recognized part, whole.. a diplomatic approach. Don't you agree? -Victor 18:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

english is an Official language in israel. --Jew 20:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for example. (However, during the Mandate period, English was official along with Hebrew and Arabic.) --Zero 17:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * English is not an official language of Israel. It's extended use in Israel is only an "inheritance" from the British mandate on Palestine/Eretz Israel during the years 1920-1948. The Manadate recognized 3 official lanaguages- English, Hebrew Arabic. However, the English language had a superior status as in ambiguaty of the law when presented in the different languages, where English was the followed script. Israeli law, which largely inherited most of the Manadate regulatinos (changing them, and adding its own legislation) changed the status - Hebrew is the official language and arabic is an additional official language. English was cancelled. -Victor 12:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am just wondering. Since when do we have the right to tell another sovriegn country where its capital should. Israel has an absoplute right to declare Jerusalem its capital and calling Jerusalem "disputed" is non-sense. It would be like if your house was painted white and I disputed that, would that mean that the colour of your house is officially disputed. Also any arguments by the UN of sovriegnty by war and its inadmisability is rediculous considering the nature of the world and the many conflicts the UN ignores.

Immigration Section
The immigration section is growing quite rapidly, with several subheadings now. Perhaps it should be moved to a subpage like Immigration to Israel, with a 1- to 3-paragraph summary here, in keeping with the other sections (geography, politics, etc.)? --Delirium 17:00, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia attacked Israel?
I'm aware that Sauid Arabia financed wars against Israel, but did it actually militarily attack Israel? Jayjg 21:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, they did, BUT their force was miniscule. WhisperToMe 07:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "belligerent".
The word "belligerent" is used in the subsection "wars" as an adjective in referring to some of Israel's neighbours. I believe this implies an opinion and thus may reduce the credibilty of the section. I think the belligerence of any group of modern people should be on a discussion page and not a main page. I'd like to remove it.


 * "Belligerent" is an accurate technical term used to refer to a neighbour who is technically (and sometimes actually) at war with Israel. Lebanon and Syria fit that description. Jayjg 00:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

inline Hebrew
Why do we need the Hebrew names of the wars? It is just unfriendly to people who don't read Hebrew. People who can read Hebrew can just breeze over to the Hebrew wikipedia. --Zero 22:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Changed 'parliamemtary system' to 'proportional representation'
In the politics section, changed parliamentary system with proportional representation. The hitherto sentence was simply not correct: the parliamentary system would not involve as many parties (and entail such shaky, ala Italy, coalitions) if the electoral system was first-past-the-post. That it is a parliamentary system is far less (though, of course, not entirely) relevant for the purposes of the aforementioned point. El_C


 * El C, I can't see any of your edits. From the date on your previous comment, you appear to be a visitor from the future; perhaps that is the problem. Jayjg 22:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, from the future! [Sorry to dissapoint, tis actually a typo, I presume I meant it to be 09, for some reason, after a couple of hours the ~ symbol began duplicating the fields whenever I employed it so (was deleting that in haste) I just copy the user code and do away with the time stamp.] As for your question, the edit is in the politics section (4th pargraph, first sentence) of the main article and reads:
 * Because of its Proportional representation electoral system, coalitions in the Knesset can often be unstable and are usually made up of at least two parties. Coalitions can be difficult to form and hard to keep together because of the large number of political parties, many of whom run on very specialized platforms, often advocating the tenets of particular interest groups such as religious sects. El_C

To El_C
El_C, as Jayjg mentioned above, something is going wrong here. You mention various edits on this page but they do not appear in the article itself. For example, there are no recent edits regarding the Peel Commission or the Kahan Commission. --Zero 02:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I am not entirely following you. The Kahan Commission and the Peel Commission articles were not edits, no one had written anything in these entries, they were blank. I wrote the articles for these from scratch. Which is why I said added definition to as opposed to changed as in my (singular) edit of someone elses writing in the main article. Yes, the former two indeed are not in the main article (and the main article was not changed by me adding the definitions to these - I never claimed it was), so if noting it in the main article's discussion is imprudent, I will no longer follow the practice. Naturally, I assumed that any discussion of these articles will take place within the respective article's own discussion field. My added defintion to in the main article's discussion was only designed to serve as a notice (of this having taken place). But I digress. El_C
 * Okay, I will bite on my own words here. I did write comments directed to the Kahan Commission discussion field in the main article's discussion field. Comment moved. My apologies, I tend to be absentminded sometimes. I appreciate everyone's patience. El_C
 * Upon closer scrutiny, it was imprudent. Sorry, wasn't trying to self-aggrandize myself, I am just new to this and there is more discussion here than there is in the other (mostly African and Caribbean) articles that I have written. Was not sure exactly how it worked. I did not, for the most part, add a discussion comment to the majority of articles I authored (usually there wasn't any), but I can (&will) easily retrace my steps to correct any similar discrapencies. At any rate, moved the two added items to where they should be. As far as I am concerned, this To El_C item can be deleted by its author whenever s/he finds it convinient to do so. Clarity has seemingly won over confusion, but for how long...? ;) Hah. Seriously, I really appreciate everyone's patience in this. El_C

good old footnote #1
Why chnage the old footnote?

It was changed to-
 * Jerusalem is Israel's officially designated capital, and the location of its presidential residence, government offices and the Knesset, the parliament. Israelis often describe this city as "The Eternal Capital of Israel." Most refuse to recognize this designation, and consider the status of Jerusalem to be an unresolved issue and recognize only the so-called "corpus separatum" or neutral enclave designated in the 1947 Partition Plan. They believe that the final issue of the status of Jerusalem will be determined by future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and by Muslim and Christian theological requirements. Most countries locate their embassies in other major cities like Tel Aviv, Ramat-Gan, Herzliya, etc., instead, to avoid offending political sensitivities.

Part I of the footnote is changed, so now-
 * Most refuse to recognize - this is not true. If a country will recognize Jerusalem voluntarily (assuming it's not the world's largest power) it putting itself in a very sensitive situation. The point is that even if countries are willing to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, they are "unable" to do so currently, and will wait for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to end and determine this subject. That's why the words "Many countries dissent this designation", as it was previously, are more appropriate.
 * and recognize only the so-called "corpus separatum" or neutral enclave designated in the 1947 Partition Plan". - This addition is misplaced - if one knows itself around the diplomatic world (especially concerning the UN) - except the UN and some UN-related entities, Today, almost no country believe in the "corpus separatum" - again, what will be agreed upon by Israelis & Palestinians is what all countries will recognize; it's like stating a pre-negotiation decision.
 * and by Muslim and Christian theological requirements. - incorrect to say that- (what about Jewish theological requirements?) - but especailly in the light of the previous original paragraph. We cannot know what will be agreed upon by Israelis & Palestinians - probobly many issues will influence the final outcome, including those theological requierments, but only the final outcome of the negotiations will be followed, regardless of how it was achieved and what were the influences.


 * Moreover, some of the dissenting countries do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital at all. These states instead recognize Tel Aviv, the temporary capital for a time in 1948, when Jerusalem was under Arab siege, as the continuous legitimate capital, and as a result keep their embassies there. Other entities maintain that Jerusalem must be internationalized as originally envisioned by the United Nations General Assembly. See the article on Jerusalem for more.


 * The previous version explaing that a part of the dissenting countries did not recognize the 1950 declaration (for various reasons, such as that in that time (1950) those countries believed in the corpus-seperatum) as well as the reunification. Why not leave as it was?

-Ribba, Aug 20 2004, 22:45 UTC

It was not mentioned...
How is it decided what it fit to be mentioned, and what is not. Since I do not know, maybe there is a legitamite reason nowhere is there even an inkling of a few historical issues pertaining to Israel. No one relates to the US military aircraft that was shot down, or the US navy ship far off the coast that was sunk. No one thinks of the Israeli nuclear program. Note, the aircraft and ship were destroyed because Israel though they were spying on their nuclear facilities, which they were. I remember when military aircraft were spotted within Chinese terratory, the Chinese complained, so the US treatened war. Luckly, no one bought it. Then again, there is a good reason it cannot be mentioned, US policy forbids foreign aid to any rouge state that has nuclear capabilities. And the US sends up to $10,000,000 in foreign aid, a third of total US aid to foreign countries. A country that has no reason to need it (it has a great economy, the palistinians need it), and only spends it on strengthing its military and terrerizing palastinians (I'm not even mentioning the wall they built on top of innocent people's houses). One that is smaller in population and land than Hong Kong.


 * First of all, provide sources for everything you allege. Secondly, diatribes are not considered good form on talk pages. Thirdly, it's pretty much necessary to sign up for an account and thereafter sign all comments from oneself using your username before anybody takes you seriously. Impi 15:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swastikas
Some bright intellectual has inserted numerous swastikas throughout this article, turning a forum for knowledge into another stage for hate mongering. These antisemitic symbold do not appear in the "edit this page" text, and cannot be easily removed. This illustrates the urgent need for some sort of overall editorial control.


 * The swastikas were entered as so-called HTML "character entities", and in the edit page they look like "&amp;#21328;". These entities can easily be removed, and indeed they were removed 36 minutes after they were first entered. I can't see how this case illustrates a need for some "overall editorial control", more than the kind of "control" we already have. Nyh 07:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The funny thing is, those swastikas are manji, which are Buddhist religion symbols. The hakenkruz (hooked cross) used by Nazi Germany is the "real" hate logo. It is fairly obvious that they were inserted to insult Jews. WhisperToMe 22:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Disputed territories
I briefly added Israel, Palestine, Category:Israel and Category:Palestine to Category:Disputed territories, which I was recently trying to fill in with articles. I was trying to be both thorough and neutral at the same time, but I realized that adding these articles to that category would most likely be opening a pandora's box of trouble. For some reason, everyone assumes that any edit made to articles associated with any of these subjects is inherently POV, whether or not its fact. I was trying to be NPOV. After almost immediate anxiety nausea and a query for advice from Yoshiah_ap on edit-politics, I decided to revert my edits until there could be a discussion on what constitutes a territorial dispute. As I understood it, there are many diplomatic parties that recognize only one side, and many that recognize only the other side, and many that recognize both. If there is disagreement over the legitimacy of a territory, it would seem to be that that clearly constitutes a dispute. And if there's a dispute, I add it to the category for territorial disputes. But I don't want to be anyone's enemy in the process &mdash; I don't want to be seen as "taking sides" in this almost universally boolean political subject, when that's the very last thing I ever want to be doing. So, for the time being, I'm leaving things the way they are now, and I apologize if my attempts at diplomatic neutrality offended anyone on any side of the issue. I shall return to editing articles about geology and the drier sides of science. - Gilgamesh 06:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, the category should be added to articles about specific disputed territories, not all countries that contain land that is disputed. For example, some of China's territories are disputed: I would think the category could reasonably go on Tibet, but not on China. Similarly, the category could go on Gaza Strip, but not Israel. --Delirium 19:46, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright. I was actually thinking about the diplomatic sides of half the Arab world as well as Iran not recognizing Israel at all (which I think is a stupid stance, but I'm not going to say "they are stupid" in Wikipedia articles or anything along those lines). But if there is collective neutral concensus that the whole of Israel is not disputed territory, then I'll go with that. - Gilgamesh 19:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Jayjg": Who are you?
Who do you think you are to repeatedly revert my edits without any reason? And why did you remove the NPOV notice? If you have issues discuss them here; and keep your bullying tactics for extremists like yourself. HistoryBuffEr 03:50, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor who objects to major edits on controversial pages without discussion first. And from what I can tell, this is the first time you've deigned to actually discuss any of your POV edits on the relevant talk: pages. Well, to be more accurate you haven't actually tried to discuss your edits yet, you've merely made ad hominem comments about me (yet again). If you want to change something on the page, please bring your proposed edits here first. Jayjg 04:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone thinks he is defending Israel by distorting history and/or he thinks his virulent Zionist POV is God's truth and objectivity is a threat to the Jewish state. I support HistoryBuffER. This article needs a big POV warning. I can't believe someone has the gall to insert completely biased and inflammatory language and then remove the POV warning. Such chutzpah! Alberuni 04:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, HistoryBuffER deleted large parts of the text; I merely restored them. The language and text is not particularly mine. The npov notice was a minor thing, lost during the revert; I have no objection to it. Regardless, let's try to keep the discussion here about the article, not about me. Jayjg 04:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Linking to the more NPOV History of Israel page was better than the POV fairy tale that is being shoveled under the History section now. Alberuni 04:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If there are significant differences between the two articles they need to be reconciled, rather than deleting one version in favour of the other. Jayjg 04:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The History of Israel page has already been reconciled. There is no need to duplicate it or try to reconcile it with this highly POV page. Just link to it. Alberuni 05:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Israel section was also reconciled. Obviously the editors of both pages felt the final versions were NPOV. If they differ, they need to be reconciled with each other, rather than deleting the one you dislike and linking to the one you favour. Jayjg 06:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV on history and creation of State of Israel
According to some people, the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of a noble dream, a passive act of redemption to an original state of grace. The victims of Israel simply "fled". None were killed or terrorized. They simply left of their own volition to become refugees by choice. The evil Arab armies hoping to crush the innocent baby state of Israel rushed in to annihilate the innocent Zionists.......etc etc etc.Alberuni 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the "evil Zionist armies hoping to kill innocent Arab babies" version that HistoryBuffER is trying to promote? Jayjg 04:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is sickeningly POV and looks more like an Israeli textbook for 1st graders than an encyclopedia for objective adults.

I support HistoryBuffERs edits. Alberuni 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I condem HistoryBuffERs edits. 06:30 January 31 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I'll support some of them too. However, they need to come here first, so they can be NPOVd by all parties. Jayjg 04:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, Wikipedia is not your private sandbox
Jayjg, despite what your mom may have told you, this and other Israel related pages are NOT your personal property. And no one needs your permission to edit this or any other page on Wikipedia.

So, instead of whining ask mom to get you your very own private sandbox where you can dictate who can do what. Meanwhile, leave Wikipedia editing to adults. HistoryBuffEr 04:48, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to restrict your comments to discussions of proposed edits, rather than the continued ad hominem statements. Jayjg 04:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you learned to read yet? I said that no one needs your approval to edit. Now, go back to reading "Pet Goat" and leave this page alone. HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to study Talk pages and NPOV tutorial as well. I look forward to working together with you to improve the article. Cheers. Jayjg 05:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If anything, it is you who needs to conduct yourself as an adult, History Buffer. Personal insults have no place in an intellectual discussion, and I do think Jayjg has been extraordinarily patience with your personal attacks (certainly more so than I would in his place). Can you not see that you are defeating your own point in virtue of such poor conduct? El_C