Talk:Tel Aviv/Archive 1

older entries
Note should be made of the prominence of trance music in Tel-Aviv's culture.

On Tel-aviv being the capital of Israel or not, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_city The captial city of Israel is Jerusalem. A Capital city is where the seat of government is, and its fixed by law. Even if most countries don't accept the fact Jerusalem is the Israeli captial(only two nations except israel recognise this), its not a question of what the rest of the world decides. A capital city by definition is something that is decided by the country of that city and by that country only. since Israel declared Jerusalem it's capital and did the required procedures, Jerusalem is the Israeli captial and not Tel-Aviv. Wikipedia is ment to publish the truth, and not what most of the world thinks. Most of the world once thought the world is flat, that Iraq had WMD, that the Nazis didn't kill jews, and so on. If the popular belief is not true, Wikipedia's job is to show the truth, and not cofirm the mistake.

And again i would say to those who missed the point, **ALL** countries(apart from arab countries that refuse to accept Israel) accept Jerusalem as Israel's captial. That includes the UN. The thing they don't accept is the fact that Israel declared East Jerusalem(which was conquered in the 1967 six days war) as part of the united Jerusalem. Most don't change the place of their embassy because of Arab pressure and the fact that Tel-Aviv is in the middle of the most populated area in Israel.

May I please inform you that this is wrong. Only two countries other than Israel accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The US still keeps its embassy in Tel Aviv ([]). The united nations does not accept jerusalem as a part of Israel, nor as its capital city, but maintains that it is international territory. In fact it does not define a capital city for Israel ([]). Countries do not maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv due to convenience, but as a political statement. This can be contrasted with the reunification of Germany and the change of capital from Bonn to Berlin which occured about 40 years after Israel declared Jerusalem its capital. Despite the fact that Berlin is less significant economically than many German cities including Bonn, and is located in east Germany where nearly no economic activity goes on, all countries have moved their embassies, despite the inherent convenience. Futher to this, once can observe that most countries in addition to having embassies in Washington D.C. also maintains consulates in New York and Los Angeles for the convenience caused by that, and the fact that very little except politics occur in DC. Nonetheless, as the US declares its capital Washington D.C. they maintain their embassies there.

On the topic of what city is the capital of Israel, it should be noted that for a city to be a capital city, it must be in the country, and very few countries a part from Israel recognise Jerusalem as Israeli territory. According to the UN, the UK and most other countries it is international territory under illegal occupation by Israel.

Empty Dunes
Empty dunes? This is a fertile coastal region. Who is feeding the lie that these zionists made the desrt bloom. What a crock.

I love the way certain anti semitic parites are incapable of engaging in discussion or issuing their view without vomiting forth a tirade against "zionists".

Altonoyland? Really? I know the English translation is usually Old New Land, but since I have no real idea what language Herzl wrote the novel in (German? Yiddish?) I wouldn't make a change to the entry yet. Is there anyone out there who knows? --MichaelTinkler


 * Sorry, Altneuland, of course (My German is ... well, non-existent). Anyway, the book was written in German, so its name is in German too. --Uriyan


 * A further explanation of the symbolism of the name might be in place. IMO, it is a beautifull and brilliant translation of Herzl's book title: Tel is not just a hill, but a hill created by thousands of years of human settlement (see Tell). Spring often symbolizes renewal. So, it is indeed an Old New Land... What do you think, should this be put in the article or is it more fitting for a future article on the book itslef? --Lidless Eye 15:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Ben Gurion Airport isn't in Tel Aviv, The airport is in LOD (few miles to the south), So I delete the paragraph. --Artist

Dunam vs kilometer
I believe using the dunam unit is just confusing people. With more than a few different dunams with no name difference I believe that using the dunam measurement instead of kilometers is just going to confuse people. You can guess it probably means 1 square kilometer, since we're talking about cities in Israel, but I doubt most people who know the dunam unit are even aware that there are "other" dunams that are different from "their" dunam. I believe it is best this article (and others) use the kilometer unit. Medfly 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK lets go for it.--Flymeoutofhere 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
So is it Tel-Aviv or Tel Aviv? The article is not consistent. --seav
 * Yeah I'd lie to know the answer to this too. The title is Tel Aviv but most of the article uses Tel-Aviv. 82.35.10.202 09:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does the page say "three countries" recognize Jerusalem as the capital at the top, while "two countries" are said to have said so at the bottom? Rickyrab 01:12, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

AFAIK the number of countries accepting Jerusalem is three. But someone removed the US. I understood the US had changed its stance under Bush and accepted Jerusalem, hence the three. I presumed that whomever made the change had more up to date information. I'll put back the reference to three. FearÉIREANN 18:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

When are you going to unprotect the Tel Aviv page? I'd like to edit it to say it's part of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem megalopolis.


 * I've unprotected it - not really sure why it was protected at all (it may have been accidental). --Camembert

Tel Aviv

I reverted Uriber's change. I think the changes bizarre. The fact that 90% of the planet thinks Tel Aviv the Israeli capital is so central that it has to be mentioned up front, not buried in the bottom. As to the Tel aviv-Jerusalem megapolis, I think we need more information before including it. FearÉIREANN 18:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, Jtdirl, we should do research to find out if, indeed, the Jerusalem/ central Israel corridor constitutes a megalopolis. That's why I brought it up- and, besides, Jerusalem is so close to Tel Aviv that the embassies are within commuting distance of the Knesset, anyway. As for the "temporary capital" point, we also ought to mention that New York City was once the temporary capital of the USA, and that the same also goes for Philadelphia. Other former national capitals that I am aware of: Istanbul, Nara, Ravenna, Vichy, Kyoto, and Honolulu, of the Byzantine Empire, Japan, Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy, Vichy France, Japan, and the Kingdom of Hawaii, respectively. Rickyrab 20:40, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(The comment above is by User:Rickyrab), not by me. -- uriber 19:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl - please provide some kind of cite for the claim that "90% of the planet thinks Tel Aviv the Israeli capital". No - the fact that most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv does not mean they "think it is the capital". If they do think so - they are simply wrong - and the Wikipedia should help them set things straight - not confirm their mistake. I can hardly understand why anybody reading the article would be more interested in the obscure fact that Tel-Aviv served as a temporary capital for a few months 55 years ago, than in the city's population, or its current significance to Israel as center of financial and commercial activity. uriber 19:39, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More on this issue: The embassies of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Peru, and Uzbekistan, are in Ramat Gan - does this mean that these countries "think that Ramat Gan is the capital of Israel"? The embassies of Bolivia and Paraguay are in Mevaseret Zion (a suburb of Jerusalem, BTW). Does this mean they think Mevaseret Zion is the capital? I mean, it's a nice little place - but as far as I know it has no claims to being Israel's capital. -- uriber 20:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK,I'll chime in on this one too,since I it was in reverting my change that Jtdirl page-protected the article to prevent my fixing it again.

My concern is that it be admitted that the whole idea of countries declaring that a city in another country is that other country's capital,regardless of that country's government being elsewhere,is very unusual. That the censors here won't allow this obvious fact to get into either the Jerusalem or Tel Aviv article is deeply biased for all the claims of NPOV. L.E./12.144.5.2

Checked with UK Foreign Office, Irish Dept of Foreign Affairs, embassies of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Norwegian Foreign Affairs, UN office and others - asked the question 'what city do you recognise as the capital of Israel?' Answer 'Tel Aviv'. 'Do you recognise Jerusalem?' 'Absolutely not', 'No' and 'there can be no question of that' were the replies. In off-the-record briefings (hence I am not naming the sources) it was said 'Israel breached international law in its claim that Jerusalem is the capital of the state. That option was explicitly not available.' 'The recognition of Jerusalem depends on a broader solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Until that is solved to the satisfaction of the international community there can be no question of recognising what is an illegal claim unrecognised by the international community.' 'The diplomatic corp is not based in Jerusalem and will not be based in Jerusalem. Israel can no more unilaterally declare a city that it illegally seized to be its capital than the Palestinian Authority can unilaterally declare Jerusalem the capital. The city's status will have to be decided as part of a broader solution to the whole issue of Israel and Palestine."

For the record, states are entitled to name any of city or urban centre over which it has legal control to be its capital. States are not allowed in international law to name cities it does not have legal ownership of. Israel's seizure of Jerusalem is disputed in international law. As a result, until Israel's control of all of Jerusalem is accepted in international law the international view is that there can be no question of accepting Israel's designation of Jerusalem, hence the basing of most the world's diplomatic community in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. It is not wiki's job to say who is right and who is wrong, merely to point out that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital, most of the world says that designation is illegal. If Uriber thinks that the fact that the location of the world's embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem is of no consequence, for convenience or to do with real estate prices, he really knows shockingly little about international diplomacy and diplomatic protocol. Embassies are generally located in capitals. For every state on the planet bar a tiny number to refuse to base their embassies in Jerusalem is a co-ordinated diplomatic snub make it crystal clear that 'we don't accept Jerusalem as your capital' is dramatic and unambiguous. It says 'we don't accept your seizure, contrary to international law, of the entire city of Jerusalem. On the world diplomatic circle, the world's capitals are Washington DC, London, Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Harare, Canberra,. . . and Tel Aviv'.

As the diplomatic community expects Jerusalem eventually to be accepted as Israel's capital is not in doubt. So all expect to have to move there at some stage. For that reason, some have chosen, often for administrative reasons, not to locate in Tel Aviv but in cities that ambassadors chose as their preferred location to live and work from, pending the move to Jerusalem. But all are clear that there is no question of a move to Jerusalem until Jerusalem is recognised as the capital, and that won't be done until it is accepted that Israel can in international law designate Jerusalem as its capital. And that won't be done until there is a broad consensus agreement on a solution to the status of Israel and the Palestinians. It may be that that will be as some sort of deal whereby Jerusalem is accepted as a capital for both the the Israeli state and a Palestinian state. But until some agreement is reached that is accepted in international law, the recognition of Israel's right to control all of Jerusalem is not on the cards. And without such international legal recognition, Jerusalem in international eyes does not qualify in international law as a city that can be designated as a capital of anywhere by anyone.

I was very careful not to call Tel Aviv the capital in the article, but say it is viewed as the de jure capital by most of the world, just as I was careful not to say that Jerusalem was or was not the capital, but use the carefully neutral designated capital, which leaves it up to the reader to decide whether they accept that designation or not. I was equally careful not to say whether Israel's seizure of the entire city was right or wrong It is not wiki's job to take sides, merely explain. Stating categorically that Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, or that Tel Aviv is or isn't the capital, would be expressing a POV over who is right and who is wrong. That is something we cannot as an NPOV sourcebook do. FearÉIREANN 21:12, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So long as you say that by "de jure" you mean "by international law", not by national law (which says differently and which is enforced by a pretty strong organization of law enforcement). Rickyrab 21:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

(Everybody,write your legislators and suggest Cork be decleared capital of Ireland...unless you're Irish,who cares what they think!)

L.E./12.144.5.2

Yeah, and let's declare New York the capital of the United States! Who cares about Washington. Rickyrab 21:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'''HEY! NOT ALL OF JERUSALEM WAS SEIZED IN 1948!!''' Rickyrab 21:37, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * International law is superior, as appeals to international courts, the Geneva Convention, etc makes clear. If Israeli law contradicts international law then international law takes precedence, as it does over Irish law, British law, etc etc. It is irrelevant as to whether native law is backed by "a pretty strong organization of law enforcement". Irish criminal law made homosexual conduct a criminal offence and was backed by the Irish law courts, judiciary and the police. But the law was (rightly, IMHO) torn down by an international judgment. Britain's Sellafield Nuclear reactor is based in UK law but is facing a challenge in international law. If international law rules against Sellafield, then it will be 'bye bye Sellafield'. Éire's constitutional law in Articles 2 and 3 claimed de jure jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. It may have been in the Irish constitution, but international law said unambiguously that Northern Ireland was not part of Éire (since 1949 the Republic of Ireland) but of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. International acceptance of that fact in practice was shown in the accreditation of ambassadors to the Court of St. James, ie, to the King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (The Republic of Ireland has since changed Articles 2 and 3 to accept British rule in Northern Ireland while espousing the aspiration of Irish unity.

Well, if a country has enough military force, than, for all intents and purposes, it is the law. Laws are only words on pieces of paper until folks cooperate to obey and enforce them. Rickyrab 22:02, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The diplomatic community has out of respect for Israel not gone to seek an international judgment over the status of Jerusalem (just as it never formally had the Irish Articles 2 and 3 subjected to international ruling), but has made it clear in its actions that all the best legal advice available to it is that Jerusalem is not and cannot currently be accepted as a de jure capital (the same approach as seen in the accreditation of ambassadors to the Court of St. James). In effect Jerusalem is viewed as a de facto capital, with the only capital that ever was formally declared a capital, Tel Aviv, continuing to hold that de jure status. As part of a broader settlement, Jerusalem will no doubt be given de jure acceptance but it has not got it now. FearÉIREANN 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl: Western-European diplomatic circles' POV on Jerusalem's status is just that - a POV on the facts. The international community (whatever that is) can "not like" the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. They can even call it "illegal". That will not change the facts - Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and Tel Aviv is not. Claims like those you heard from European diplomatic sources should be mentioned in the article - but only after clearly stating the actual facts.
 * On a side note, perhaps you can enlighten me a bit on this "International law" issue. What under international law makes the Republic of Ireland's control over Dublin "legal"? When the Celts invaded Ireland in the fourth century BCE, was that done in accordance with international law? (At the time, BTW, Jerusalem was already for several centuries the well-established capital of Judah - to which Israel can honestly claim be a successor). When the Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, thus terminating its status as capital of the Jewish state - was that in accordance with international law? My personal view on this is that "international law" is nothing but a tool in the hands of International powers used to serve their own political interests. -- uriber 21:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The Anglo-Irish Treaty and the results of the boundary commission on Irish borders were registered with the League of Nations in the 1920s. Those boundaries remain legally registered with the United Nations. Dublin is within those boundaries and so internationally qualified to be the capital. Don't be so childish with your arguments. Just because you have a POV doesn't mean your POV is NPOV. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel was also registered with the UN. It clearly marked the western parts of Jerusalem within Israel's boundaries. All of this is, as I said below, beside the point. International law is just another POV. uriber 22:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Jerusalem was initially registered as an international city, not a territorial city. In international law that registration was not changed by its subsequent incorporation. You can have whatever opinion you want about international law. That is your POV. Law however is law, however much you may have a chip on your shoulder about it. FearÉIREANN 22:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * In any legal system I know, more recent events (legislation, treaties, etc.) take precedence over older ones. Hence it does not matter what was initially registered - but what was eventually registered. Is International law different - does older registration have precedence over the newer one?
 * Also - If the 1947 UN Partition Plan is the legally binding document - certainly Tel-Aviv-Yafo (which is the city's current name) can not be the capital - since Yafo (Jaffa) was supposed to be part of the Arab state according to that plan!
 * I did not say that law is not law, or that international law is not law. (why would I say such a ridiculous thing?) I only said that as a law, it has a certain POV about the facts.
 * My Main point: According to my dictionary (the American Heritage Dictionary), a "capital" is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation". Jerusalem is the official seat of the Israeli government, hence it is the capital by definition. This state of affairs might be illegal according to certain interpretation of certain laws - however it is still true.
 * -- uriber 22:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

(Everybody,write your legislators and suggest Cork be decleared capital of Ireland...unless you're Irish,who cares what they think!)

L.E./12.144.5.2

Yeah, and let's declare New York the capital of the United States! Who cares about Washington. Rickyrab 21:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You obviously no very little about the topic. Ireland could of course declare Cork its capital, the US could declare New York its capital, but Ireland could not declare Newry in County Down its capital and the US could not declare Toronto its capital. In international law Jerusalem is a city that was illegally seized in stages by Israel. You and I may disagree with that viewpoint but it is the international viewpoint. As far as the diplomatic community is concerned, Jerusalem is to Israel what Newry is to Ireland, a place that does not the right to be designated as its capital. I am simply pointing out the rules, not saying whether I agree with them or not. FearÉIREANN 21:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, then let's give the USA a spectacular capital.... Niagara Falls, the Horseshoe sidw (which, as everyone knows, is on the "wrong" side of the border) Rickyrab 21:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If such a location breaches internationally recognised boundaries, then the international community would say 'sorry but you can't pick there' and refuse to base their diplomatic representation there, as has been the case with Jerusalem. Diplomatic protocol is quite complex however much George Bush may wish it (and as Saddam Hussein learnt to his cost), no country can do as it wants. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) And even if jtdirl considers this "co-ordinated diplomatic snub" as acceptable,I find it horribly biased to act as if it is common enough to escape comment that it is almost unheard of to assert that a city in another country is that country's capital against that country's wishes.

Let me make another attempt at clarifying my point: Wikipedia is not (or at least, I think should not be) a legal document. Wikipedia should primarily focus on stating The Facts (de facto, if you prefer Latin). Points-of-view regarding these facts (whether they are political, legal - under any legal system - or other) can be presented - by they have to be clearly separated from the facts, and the only deserve a secondary place in the articles. uriber 22:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The fact is that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital. The fact is that internationally that designation is not accepted in law by all but a handful of states. That is the reality. For Wikipedia to state categorically that Jerusalem is the capital, or Tel Aviv is the capital would be POV. Stating that 'x says this, y disagrees' is elementary NPOV.


 * I'll repeat what I said above in response to Jtdirl: The fact is not that Israel has designated Jerusalem as its capital (this might be a fact - but it's not the central fact here). The central fact is that Jerusalem is "A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation." - hence it is a capital (of Israel) - by simple dictionary definition. -- uriber 23:02, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll also repeat here an example I gave before elsewhere: If the Moon article would have said "some people say the Moon is made of green cheese, others say it is made of rock" - would that be an NPOV article? Would it be a good article? To me, getting the facts correctly is way more important than being NPOV. Unfortunately, Wikipedia too often takes the easy ('x says this, y disagrees') path out - making it a much less valuable resource than it could have been. uriber 23:07, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Question? Which states deny that Jerusalem is the captital?  I know there are many states which do not base their embassies there, but which states have specifically said "we do not recognize Jerusalem as your capital"?

Well, maybe the existence of a law is also a fact. Rickyrab 22:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here: I think the dispute more properly belongs in Jerusalem, where it currently is, or in some other article on the status of Israel's capital. The fact that designating Jerusalem as a capital may or may not violate international law is largely unrelated to Tel Aviv, which is only involved in the matter somewhat tangentially (that is, the dispute is primarily over the status of Jerusalem, not over the status of Tel Aviv). I'd support making this section say something along the lines of ''For a period of 8 months (May through December 1948) until the seizure of Jerusalem it also served as the de facto capital of Israel. Though Israel subsequently designated Jerusalem to be its capital, this has not been recognized by much of the international community, so most embassies are still based in Tel Aviv. (See Capital of Israel for details.)'' --Delirium 03:20, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Overall, sounds pretty much what I was proposing in the first place. One thing though. As a lot of states, (IMHO ludicrously, but they do) regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, you cannot do an article on Tel Aviv without mentioning that some still view it as the de jure Israeli capital. (As a kid I was always puzzled why the likes of the BBC, ITN, RTÉ etc used to have correspondents reporting "from the Israeli capital, Tel Aviv", given that I thought that Jerusalem was the Israeli capital. It was only years later that I found out that most international states regard the Knesset's designation of Jerusalem as Israel's capital as contrary to international law and so invalid.) If some people regard city 'x' as a country's capital, even if you think it nutty, you have to state the fact in an article on city 'x', and given the claim's importance, it is something that has to be said in the first few lines. After all, Tel Aviv is not just any ordinary city, like Marseilles, Hamburg, Manchester, Cork, Little Rock, etc it is a city that has an international status because of the claim that it is the Israeli capital and the resultant fact that many embassies are based there, many media bureaux are based there, ambassadors live there, visiting foreign ministers often stay there, etc. As the issue resolves around Jerusalem, with Tel Aviv in the eyes of the diplomatic world being seen as Israeli capital by default, all this article needs is two or three lines stating (a) it was once the de facto capital of Israel, (b) because of issues regarding the status of Jerusalem, many internationally continue to regard it as in effect the default capital of Israel, (c) Israel however rejects that international opinion and regards Jerusalem as the legitimate and only capital.


 * Could you bring one or more pieces of evidence of state(s) actually existing as of 2005 (i.e. excluding the USSR and satellites) in which said state(s) claim that Tel Aviv is indeed the city they view as capital? Actually some embassies are in the suburbs, so it would be ludicrous that France recognizes Tel Aviv whilst Italy recognizes Ramat Gan. My edit is an n-th revert, which feels bad, but the older version seems not POV, just factually false. elpincha 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is simply that two users refused to accept anything that didn't state that Jerusalem is the Israeli capital. We had already solved this dispute on the Israel page by avoiding saying Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, saying simply in NPOV language that Jerusalem is Israel's "designated capital". That leaves it totally up to the reader (and wiki has a worldwide readership, not merely a US and Israel based one) to decide whether or not they accept that designation's validity or invalidity. What the problem two users have applying the same solution to this article (ie, many in the diplomatic community think x. Israel says y') in neutral language is beyond me. It seems that they are simply trying to push their agenda though POV edits that they perversely think are NPOV. FearÉIREANN 06:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let's face it, rumors of Tel Aviv's being Israel's capital are greatly exaggerated. :) Rickyrab 08:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ad hoc capital
The fact that most countries choose to maintain their embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv does not make it the ad hoc capital of Israel. This would be a serious imposition on Israel's sovereignty. Those countries who place their offices are essentially saying "not Jerusalem," but are in no position to dictate where the capital should be otherwise. In practical terms, all it means is that ambassadors, etc., have to shlepp up to Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials. Nothing happens in Tel Aviv except internal meetings. --Leifern 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. As far as they are concerned, Tel Aviv was capital. According to that theory Israel contrary to international law seized Jerusalem. According to that theory if Israel did not validly in international law control Jerusalem then the move of capital was null and void, as no state can name as capital a city it does not own in law, meaning that Tel Aviv by default is still the capital. That is the argument of many international states. And that is why they base their embassies there and not in any other location outside Jerusalem in Israel. I was forever puzzled as to why, for example, the BBC would speak about "our correspondent in the Israeli capital, Tel Aviv" while the US media spoke of "the Israeli capital Jerusalem". It was an Israeli ambassador who explained the legal complexities to me.

Many states make it clear that they go to meetings "from the capital, Tel Aviv" to the "city of Jerusalem".


 * Please provide references to this here claim. Thanks in advance and sorry for disrupting the paragraph. elpincha 20:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Meetings can take place anywhere and does not carry any significance. Indeed many members of the international community has been very strict in making it clear that visits to Jerusalem are not seen in any was as de facto recognition of the city's status. On occasion where tactless Israeli officials or politicians have sought to suggest that a forthcoming meeting is a de facto recognition, the EU and members of it, as well as Australia, New Zealand, South American countries and others have instantly cancelled the meetings. Your claims, Leifern, as a complete misunderstanding of the situation. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above paragraph is 100% correct, yet it does not imply that by not recognizing A they do recognize B. Just for the record. elpincha 20:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I crazy or what? Since when a sovereign state doesn't have the right to name their own capital? Western Jerusalem was always in Israel's hands. What is more, the international status of East Jerusalem is "annexed" (see yesterday's news about the controversy on Israel not letting Arabs in East Jerusalem vote) so there is a double standard regarding its status. The important thing is that the fact that most countries (including the US) choose not to make a political statement by placing their embassies in Tel-Aviv doesn't endorse any position regarding Jerusalem. Let us remember that when the embassies where established (prior to 1967) Jerusalem was in the middle of a bitter war and it was very unsafe to place them there. I wouldn't be surprised if that fact didn't play a part in the choice for a city. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

See UN_Security_Council_Resolution_478. '' The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

(a) All Member States to accept this decision;

(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;

` 7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.

Adopted at the 2245th meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America).'' --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tel Aviv at night + the new Tel Aviv picture which was added
I'm sorry to say but this picture isn't of Tel Aviv. The Azrieli Centre towers can be seen in the far background, while the Moshe Aviv Tower is prominent on the right. From this I can ascertain that the picture was taken from a position east of the Moshe Aviv tower; the camera was facing the southwest. Anyone who consults a map will immediately understand that the buildings in the foreground are in Bnei-Brak or Ramat-Gan. Tel-Aviv itself lies in the far background and is barely noticeable in the picture (for example: the Moshe Aviv tower is located in Ramat-Gan while the Azrieli Centre is in Tel-Aviv; a bit to the left of the Azrieli Centre towers there is barely noticeable the pink coloured Shalom tower which lies in Tel-Aviv). RCSB 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

+

The new picture which was added recently of "Tel Aviv" at daytime was showing the buildings of Ramat Gan instead... this picture isn't of Tel Aviv at all.

Ramat Aviv v. Sheikh Munis
Re: location of University main campus: It can be argued that only the engineering-social work side (i.e. across the bridge) is Sheikh Munis proper, whilst all of the campus is within Ramat Aviv. Unless one wants to point out something about Sheikh Munis and/or the "Green House", or about the moral/political issues arising out of the new name obscuring the old one, "Ramat Aviv" sounds closer to consensus. elpincha 21:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire campus is located in a municipal sub-district which also includes Sheikh Munis and does not include ANY part of Ramat Aviv. Still you could claim that parts of the campus are not part of Sheikh Munis. Therefor I deleted the phrase rather than correcting it. gidonb 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is not a "capital" by any standard
While it is true that many countries have their embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv, it has nothing to do with the status of Tel Aviv, but rather their view of the status of Jerusalem. Since Tel Aviv is the largest city in Israel and within easy driving distances of the offices of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their representation is there as a matter of convenience. It makes no sense to say that Israel's capital was Tel Aviv prior to 1948, because Israel didn't exist prior to 1948. There is no question that the State of Israel always has considered Jerusalem its capital. It is directly fraudulent to imply otherwise. --Leifern 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that other states DO consider it the capital. The text doesn't say that IT IS, it merely states that some countries THINK it is. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All but two Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. So unless you can document that Egypt and Jordan have expressly said that they consider Tel Aviv to be the legitimate capital, we should not accept any insinuation that Tel Aviv has any such status. --Leifern 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's wrong, and I think that I might as well ask YOU to prove that they think Tel-Aviv is not the capital. I hate that it is, but the most NPOV way is merely stating the fact that some countries do think that way. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You and Jtdirl are making an assertion you refuse to substantiate with anything resembling a reference. By that standard I can insert any strange "fact" in any article and insist that it stand until someone proves me wrong. --Leifern 00:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't read arabic, but from what I've been able to translate from our own Arabic Wikipedia إسرائيل using This Place it says "Tel Aviv, Jerusalem". That's ONE link, I'll do my homework and look for more. I would love for Jerusalem to be the undisputed capital of Israel, but unfortunately it is not. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's another one . I consider my point proven. Now let me turn the tables. Please prove that NO state recognizes Tel-Aviv as capital of Israel. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At the risk of making a WP:POINT, let me provide yet another quote.
 * "The PLO position on Jerusalem is also supported by the United Nations. Following the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel, which embarked on a policy of Judaisation aimed at changing the demographic character of the city. All these measures were condemned by the United Nations. In resolution after resolution, the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations have declared all measures taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem null and void. Security Council Resolutions 252 of 1968 and 271 of 1971 attest to that position. Nor did the United Nations accept the Israeli Basic Law on Jerusalem of 1980 by which Israel reaffirmed its annexation of East Jerusalem and declared it to be its capital. In Security Council Resolution 476 of 1980, the Security Council rejected the Israeli Basic Law and, in the same year, Resolution 478 called on states that have diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to move them out of the city. This is a doubly important resolution because the Security Council included West Jerusalem, occupied in 1948, within its domain of action. There were no foreign diplomatic missions accredited to Israel in East Jerusalem. The non-Arab consulates general in East Jerusalem which were there before the war of 1967 continued in their work after the war with a changed mandate, dealing with the Palestinian population with an autonomous status vis-a-vis their respective embassies and ambassadors in Tel Aviv, the capital of Israel. Hence, Resolution 478 (1980) questions even the Israeli position in and on West Jerusalem."
 * I found this on here, which also had this. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Please work out your disputes. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a dispute. This is a matter of some editors making allegations they refuse to substantiate with a single reference. Notwithstanding the disclaimer, you protected a version that at best contains unsubstantiated allegations; at worst direct falsehoods. Besides, this "dispute" had gone on for less than a half hour before you protected the page. Very questionable call. --Leifern 01:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't kill the messenger, I requested an admin to protect the page, whatever its version. Protection doesn't endorse the current version, it merely stops the edit war in its tracks. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see - you waited until it was reverted to your version, then immediately requested a protection. Meanwhile, neither of you has bothered to provide me with a single reference as to which countries have made Tel Aviv the capital of Israel. --Leifern 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And pages are ALWAYS protected within seconds.... please, don't be ridiculous. If you had clicked the "revert" button a second after I did then it would've been your version. Sebastian Kessel Talk 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I request that Sebastian Kessel's behavior in this affair on my talk page will be investigated. I believe that the protection is a good idea. gidonb 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm unprotecting again. I am so sick of people telling me how many biases I have when I have 0. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Please work out your disputes and when ready to resume editing place a request in WP:RFPP &asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet one more attempt to focus on the issue being disputed
There are three facts that are not a matter of opinion: Israel's position on Jerusalem as capital, most countries not recognizing the above position, and the fact that most embassies are located in or around Tel Aviv. I also know that Soviet textbooks referred to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel, but the USSR is no longer with us. What is not a fact (until proved) is that there are countries that maintain that Tel Aviv is the legitimate capital of Israel. As an example, Canada's official position as of 1996 was: And this is a current official Canadian document. I chose Canada on purpose, because it has not-so-recently refused to even write "Jerusalem, Israel" as a person's birthplace on an official document.
 * The UN General Assembly recalling its' earlier (1994) decision in which it determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which had altered or purported to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular the so-called "Basic Law" on Jerusalem and the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, were null and void and must be rescinded forthwith". and recalling the earlier decision of the UN Security Council not to recognize Israel's 1980 law proclaiming Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel (nor the establishment by any nation of diplomatic missions at Jerusalem).

If a country does not recognize the Israeli act that proclaimed Jerusalem as capital, and clings to the statu quo ante (and please don't add an s to statu!!), then the capital would be Tel Aviv because it served as such before the act. I know of no country which explicitly says that on a formal document. If any of you can back this up (some guy wrote to me about sixty-four countries, but produced no evidence), well, bring the citations and we'll stop buggin' ya. Fair enough?

Other than that, Tel Aviv is such a dynamic place that even two weeks of protection would render a few things obsolete... elpincha 07:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between maintaining that Jerusalem should not be Israel's capital, and that Tel Aviv should be Israel's capital. I am not disputing that many if not most states refuse to accept Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital; what I do dispute is the inference that they therefore insist that Tel Aviv is the capital. If Israel were to capitulate to international pressure and accept that Jerusalem is not its capital, Israel would be in its sovereign right to establish a capital anywhere else within the 1949 armistice lines, e.g. Haifa, Rishon LeZion, Beersheba, or wherever else. Let me be very clear here: Tel Aviv was never Israel's capital. During those months in 1948 when the Jews in Jerusalem were under siege and threat of starvation, the Israeli government based its operations in Tel Aviv; but that did not make Tel Aviv its capital any more than London was Norway's capital during World War II. --Leifern 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Leifern, you're wrong again. Check here. Maybe you'll believe that at one time it was the capital. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Again?" I haven't been wrong once in this debate. I am not debating the fact that Tel Aviv housed Israel's government until about 1950, when it became possible to move to Jerusalem. But that doesn't make Tel Aviv Israel's declared capital at any point. And it certainly doesn't support the assertion that some states consider Tel Aviv the capital. --Leifern 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what you said "Let me be very clear here: Tel Aviv was never Israel's capital. ". I answered THAT assertion directly. I am sure you consider (as I do) Britannica a reputable and independent source. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will accept something along the lines of "Tel Aviv functioned as Israel's capital until it became possible to move government functions to Jerusalem." But Israel never said Tel Aviv was Israel's capital. --Leifern 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can live with that wording. But what about the fact that some states believe TA to be Israel's capital? Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sebastian, no seas un gil de goma. Please provide a verifiable source for that "fact" other than that two-bit Arabic cyclopaedia. As was pointed out, this is the only issue remaining in contention. elpincha 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected, footnotes, etc.
This is getting absurd. Jossi protects the page, then edits it, and in the meantime, none of the editors who keep making the assertion that "some" countries want to make Israel's capital, are either unable or unwilling to find a single reference to substantiate that point. I think it is perfectly OK to mention the fact that most countries maintain embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv because of the disputed status of Israel; but this is not the place to get into the status of Jerusalem. In short: either document this notion that some countries (which?) consider Tel Aviv the capital, or else we'll take out that whole point. --Leifern 12:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Dutch Government for example considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel and has its embassy in Ramat Gan. gidonb 12:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Leifern, I gave you THREE references above. One two, which also had and three. Plus Arabic Wikipedia here, إسرائيل that you can translate using This Place. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, Ahram and Passia are both Palestinian sources and in any case say that Tel Aviv should be Israel's capital, not that any sovereign state claims that it is. If you're an admin, you know that there is a no-self reference rule in Wikipedia, so the Arabic reference doesn't count. As a matter of fact, the references you provide support my point: there are plenty of states who do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; there are still none that say Tel Aviv should be its capital instead. --Leifern 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually Ahram is an Egyptian one and it refers to the GOVERNMENT'S decision on modifying the books to say that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital on children's books. It doesn't get any more clear than that. Here are excerpts from the article (bolding is mine)
 * "The current edition came under fire for stating in its first volume that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel and its largest city. According to Sarhan, the revised edition states that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, and that the Israeli attempt to declare Jerusalem as its capital has not been accepted by most world countries."
 * "The encyclopedia, which came out last year, was a joint undertaking by the Ministry of Culture, the World Book International editorial staff and the Cairo Cultural Group. Under the auspices of Mrs Suzanne Mubarak, the encyclopedia was published as part of the Reading for All programme."
 * "He described the erroneous facts included in the encyclopedia as 'contradicting the official position of Egypt and the Arab World on the issue of Jerusalem.' According to Hammad, by means of such an encyclopedia, 'we offer Israel a very important and official document which serves its false allegations about Jerusalem.'"
 * In Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(Resetting inserts). I guess the logic is a bit complex here. I am not disputing the fact that most countries do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. What I am disputing is that most, some, or even any countries have made it an official policy to make Tel Aviv Israel's capital instead. I also accept the fact that in Egypt, the distinction between government policy and the press is very ehmm, porous, but I still haven't seen it stated as official policy by any sovereign government that "Tel Aviv is Israel's capital." My guess is that the publishers of the encyclopedia didn't want to write nothing about Israel's capital, and so said "Tel Aviv."

And there's a good reason for that. Countries that accept Israel's sovereignty must by necessity also accept Israel's sovereign right to establish a capital wherever Israel's government wants. Countries clearly have a problem with Israel's establishing their capital in Jerusalem for reasons that are beyond the scope of this article, but they have no basis to say "well, then it should be in Tel Aviv" or "it should be in Haifa" or "it should be in Ashdod." And countries that don't accept Israel's sovereignty wouldn't accept an Israeli capital at all.

You have only being able to pull out highly circumstantial evidence that the Egyptian government possibly considers Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital. This would lead us to simply omit any discussion of Tel Aviv in that context, unless we want to write something silly like "an encyclopedia published under the auspices of the Egyptian ministry of culture states that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital." --Leifern 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs. There is no conclusive evidence in your eyes since most countries oppose Jerusalem as capital and that's what they publish. Even the UN refuses to name Jerusalem. For me, an encyclopedia with official support by the Minstry of Culture and the President's wife is as close to an official statement as the internet will get you. Besides, the fact that I don't speak arabic makes it even harder to find sources. Not all countries (especially in the middle east) publish their official statements on the Internet and in English. You can continue arguing the opposite point, but (and I hope you don't get offended by this) I think that at this point you're in denial. I will keep searching, but saying that "Some states regard Tel Aviv as the legitimate capital of Israel" (I could do without the word "legitimate") is very much NPOV and reflective of the current world affairs. As unfortunate as that is. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
Let me see if I can summarize what is and isn't disputed here:

I don't think any of us dispute the following:
 * Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital
 * Most countries do not accept Israel's right to make Jerusalem its capital, though some do
 * Many if not most countries maintain their embassies and consular offices to Israel in and around Tel Aviv
 * Israel's governmental offices and functions were maintained in Tel Aviv for some time between 1948 and around 1950

The open questions therefore are:
 * Do countries who do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital?
 * If so, on what basis?
 * Is it a valid inference that because embassies and consular offices are maintained in Tel Aviv, then they consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital?

My answers to these questions are:


 * Most countries that accept Israel's sovereignty only go so far as to say that they do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Since these countries accept Israel's sovereignty, they accept that they have no right to tell Israel where to place its capital beyond saying that it can't be in Jerusalem.
 * The placement of embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv is not intended to establish a de facto status on Tel Aviv - it is simply a matter of convenience (Tel Aviv is Israel's largest city, central in the country, and within easy driving distance to Jerusalem).
 * This is strengthened by the fact that countries go to great lengths to point out that any offical visit to Jerusalem does not imply a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital; if there is any consistency in their position, neither should activities in Tel Aviv imply a recognition of that city as anything but a location.

Part of my purpose is to avoid bringing the debate about Jerusalem into the article about Tel Aviv.

--Leifern 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As funny as it may seem to the casual reader, we agree in almost everything here. I only disagree in the issue that SOME countries DO consider TA to be Israel's capital. That's it. I don't want to bring Jerusalem here either. As you see, I haven't mentioned it at all. I think Israel has the right to choose its capital, and if Israel says "Jerusalem" then people should just shut up and accept it. Having said that, I can't deny the fact that some people do not agree with me and there are still countries that send their missions to TA because they believe it to be Israel's capital. Egypt is one of them but I believe the Arab League as a whole will stand by that position. Other countries have other reasons, I am not disputing them. You're three answers don't encompass the Arab World. I believe a fourth answer is due (I would say it's the second, since I would place it under the first)


 * Some countries not only do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital but they sustain that Tel Aviv is.

Or something to that effect. The word "some" being key here. Not "most", not "all", not "several", "some". Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see from previous discussions that you and I agree on the political issue; I'm just not convinced that we are on solid ground in saying that because they don't accept Jerusalem, they assert Tel Aviv. If we can indulge in a thought experiment, imagine that Israel gave up on Jerusalem as a capital and had to decide where to put its capital instead. Let's say they decided to follow the Australian model by setting the capital not in the largest city but somewhere else; let's say Tiberias for the sake of argument. I can't imagine that a single country would say "wait, we think the capital should be in Tel Aviv." Out another way: I believe that those countries that accept Israel's sovereignty (and that includes only Jordan and Egypt within the Arab League) have as an official policy: not Jerusalem, but anywhere else within the 1949 armistice lines. --Leifern 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I still agree with you, even in the thought experiment. But in the current situation, when they have to state A capital for Israel (for example, publishing a map or an encyclopedia) they state "Tel Aviv" instead of saying "No Capital" or "" (like the UN does).
 * Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree to write something along the lines of "most countries maintain their embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv due to the disputed status of Jerusalem," and "Tel Aviv functioned as Israel's capital from 1948 until about 1950," though I think these are unrelated facts. I certainly don't want to hide the controversy over Jerusalem; but a) I don't think it belongs in this article; and b) I don't think the controversy over Jerusalem should automatically lead anyone to believe that Tel Aviv is a de facto or de jure capital of Israel. If countries don't accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, then the location of Israel's capital is - for them - an unresolved issue. --Leifern 13:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

semi-protected
Given that there is an obvious movemnt forward, page is now semi-protected so editors can resume editing without having to deal with vandalism. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t • @ 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There was no vandalism on this page, there were only false allegations of vandalism by an admin who was himself involved in the POV discussion I tried to handle. Given that fact, I am happy that other admins took over control of the process, protected it and now semi-protected it. gidonb 20:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I will unprotect. Semi protection is only for vandalism and not for disputes. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am going to let the discussion run for a while. After this period I will again delete every pro- and anti-Jerusalem as capital of Israel statement that keeps on popping up on this page (as always clearly explaining my edits in the summary), also by this POV-pushing admin who goes around and makes false accusations. I delete these not because I take part in the POV discussion but because this article is about Tel Aviv and not about Jerusalem. The discussion about Jerusalem should be held (and is held) elsewehere. This is also a warning for people from both sides of the POV - including this one admin - who may be waisting their time on the wrong article. gidonb 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous
People with agendae are writing wrong stuff here. As of 30/Dec/2005, two things are "in need of citation". The second one is Israel's position. Now, Jerusalem has been the seat of the Knesset since 1949, as well as the office of the President and the office of the Prime Minister. For Israel's current official position, see here. Now, Israel is not "rejecting claims" because there are no such claims. The correct wording is "Israel's position is (etc)".

Sorry people, please just leave the agendae aside and start caring for the truth. elpincha 12:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying here. --Leifern 13:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I do agree with what you've been doing here, and I find Sebastian's and Jtdirl's positions/actions objectionable, as they insist on stating a "fact" -- that they cannot provide a single citiation to back up (because, as you and me know, the assertion is factually false :-). There is no place for "thought experiments" or "paths of reasoning" here. elpincha 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl's reversion
Jtdirl, without other comment than characterizing this version as POV, simply reverted to the previous version. The version he reverted deleted all references to Jerusalem save for mentioning the dispute, noted that most countries maintain embassies and consular offices in Tel Aviv, and that Tel Aviv functioned as Israel's capital during the war; all of which are factual. What he seems to want to insist on is a version that assumes a widespread foreign policy nobody has able to find a single source for, save a sentence in an Egyptian encyclopedia. It is time for this editor, also an admin, to try to play a constructive rather than obstructionist role on this article. --Leifern 19:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All that's left on the capital issue
Is one assertion that needs a citation, which is this (more or less paraphrased): "Some states consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital." I agree with gidonb's view that the status of Jerusalem has no place in this article, and I hope it can stay that way. I've been accused of denying facts, but all I want is some level of substantiation that some states in fact consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital. And the "it's not Jerusalem, so it must be Tel Aviv" argument simply doesn't hold water.

If this is to be an encyclopedia-quality article, such an assertion has to substantiated. There is a difference between "it is not Jerusalem" and "it is Tel Aviv." It would be an unprecedented event in international affairs if one sovereign state tried to dictate to another sovereign state where its capital should be. It is not unprecedented that the international community dictates to states where they can't have their capital (Berlin before the unification of Germany is an example), but nobody told West Germany that they had to put their capital in Bonn. --Leifern 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Embassies location and moves to TA
Other than Tel Aviv, I know only of Ramat Gan (eg Italy, Argentina). Even Herzlia would qualify as a "suburb" of Tel Aviv, which is a more focused term than "coastal area" (this last term could encompass Ashkelon or Nahariya as well).

As for embassies moving to the Tel Aviv area in the 1970s: IIRC (could be wrong here) there was no such move. Please be kind and provide a citation for Netherlands... I do recall that two Latin American embassies moved to Jerusalem at some point in time.elpincha 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I provided the quote of the Dutch foreign minister who decided to move, under pressure from Arab countries. It is at my talk page. Please understand that the Netherlands' economy is highly dependent on oil, as refining and trading oil is a major source of income. The oil embargo in the 1973 hit the Dutch economy very bad and it had absolutely no choice. gidonb 23:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. The Dutch embassy, and twelve other (Latin American) embassies, moved from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv in 1980 following UN Security Council Resolution 478, which in turn came after the passage of the "Basic Law, Jerusalem 1980 act" by the Knesset in 1980. The official reaction of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to that transfer is here. Gidon's comment on the reasons for the Dutch decision may be correct, but is not NPOV&mdash;one could argue simply that the Security Council resolutions are considered binding.


 * OK then. What about the "suburbs" v. "coastal" issue? elpincha 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am fine with suburbs. They are never further than Herzliya . Likewise, Jerusalem embassies are sometimes in Mevaseret Zion (if it was not annexed by now). I reverted you at your own suggestion :-D gidonb 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also please notice that I did provide proof that the move was done under pressure. Van der Klauw, then the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, said: The Arab countries threatened to break the relations with the Netherlands if our embassy would remain in Jerusalem (the reference is on my talk page). However, I do not suggest this should be included in the article. On the contrary, I would remove it if someone else placed it. All this has nothing to do with Tel Aviv and all articles on Israel are flood with pro-this and anti-that opinions. How about providing information in this encyclopedia (question is to everyone)? That would be nice for a change... gidonb 02:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Burden of proof
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only issue remaining as of now is who bears the burden of proof on the disputed "capital issue". May I ask respectfully: should no citation be provided, when do we get to finally remove the statement? elpincha 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is Leifern's baby. My concern was with the endless discussions on the status of Jerusalem in the article on Tel Aviv. gidonb 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am actually looking for references that could support the notion that "some states consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital" and haven't found any yet. I have contacted the Israeli MFA to see if they are aware of any. The phrase will soon have to be removed for lack of referenceability. --Leifern 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sister city with Gaza?
Is Tel-Aviv really a sister city with Gaza, as mentioned in the article? I find that hard to believe. -- Mwalcoff 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the early days of the Oslo process, then-mayor Roni Milo and his Gazan counterpart did actually sign the documents to that effect. I do not know of formal revoking of the covenant, although it is plausible that the Gazans did exactly that (of course, citations needed both ways). elpincha 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well actually I heard several months ago that mayor Huldai stated that he intends to revoke that covenant (after the Gaza stips has been officially declared hostile entity by Israel). I don't know if he eventually did revoke the covenant as I cannot find any reference to that. NegativeIQ (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Gaza is a sister city of Tel Aviv, only the status of sister city is temporarly 'frozen': http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952850.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.59.78 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC
"Some countries regard Tel Aviv as the capital" is the RFC issue.

The UK is one of those countries, as are most other countries in the world. In particular, a UN resolution called for embassies to be moved there as such, and only about 4 or 5 countries officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital, most officially recognise Tel Aviv.

Indeed, check out maps, the Phillips series for example. Uk produced maps almost universally put Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a common confusion. UN Security Council Resolution 478 calls for countries to withdraw their embassies from Jerusalem because of the Israeli basic law on Jerusalem. It never mentions Tel Aviv. After the resolution was approved (14-0-1), many countries moved their embassies to Tel Aviv. Others moved their embassies to other places or remained in Jerusalem. These moves are not necessarily indicative of what those countries think is Israel's capital. For illustration: all countries in the world accept that Amsterdam is the Dutch capital yet most have their embassies in The Hague. The Israeli case is of course somewhat more complicated.  gidonb 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before - find one source that explicitly states that one country officially considers Tel Aviv to the capital of Israel, we can discuss. So far nobody has. --Leifern 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include the word "countries"? It seems to me that something along the lines of "Tel Aviv is considered by some to be the capital" might work. WikiMarshall 07:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can say "Tel Aviv is mistakenly considered by some to be the capital". Again, nobody has the right to decide for a sovereign country where to place its capital. As far as I know even those countries who don't recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, do not actually consider it to be Tel Aviv, but rather state that they do not recognize a certain city to be the capital. If you can find any reference that says otherwise then please post it here. And if some people think that Tel Aviv is the capital then they're simply wrong, hence what I said earlier. NegativeIQ (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tel Aviv/Abib - Abeba
I think it's interesting that Aviv and Abeba (as in Addis Ababa) are cognate, but I'm not sure if or where (under meaning, or a new trivia section?) it should be located. Yom 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

terror
Who does the terrorists attack related to the History of Tel Aviv? Most of the major cities in Israel suffer from terrorists attcaks... --Haham hanuka 16:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you answered yourself. The attacks that did happen in a city are part of its history. I personally do not like this to be the centerpiece of the history sections, hence my trimming today... Feel free to add more historical events! gidonb 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations pages
Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Why not change the infobox to one like Haifa so a picture can be added together with the emblem? Amoruso 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Yafo?
A couple days about Deanb removed the "Yafo" part of the city name and changed a couple pictures around without leaving any edit summary or comment on the talk page. Has the city been renamed or should the page be reverted?--Lairor 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the name in black should be Tel Aviv-Yafo, as this is the long name. Tel Aviv should remain the name of the article as this is the short name. It would not have been so bad, however, had he removed the Yafo/Jaffa/Yafa part consistently. gidonb 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet again Deanb removed “Yafo” from Tel Aviv’s official name, this time in the Hebrew transliteration. Yafo is part of Tel Aviv's name in Hebrew as well as in Arabic and English, and it should not be descanted. I’m reversing his change. Isn’t there anything that can be done with this Deanb?!
 * Db1944 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

“High” humidity
The article states that “[h]umidity tends to be high all year round,” but relative to where in the world? Someone coming from a tropical climate zone would not really be sure how to interpret this, considering that humidity also tends to be “high” where he lives.

Photos
Well, i've added some photos to the article, including a couple of panos, but it should be visually arranged better -- for someone with a bit more html talent than me Beivushtang 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Religions
Apparently, (after reading this article maybe it is a lie..) Tel Aviv is a rare success story where muslims and jews live happily together on a large scale in a religiously diverse city. Does this not deserve a section? 96% of Tel Avivians are Jewish Reaper7 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitol Controversey
There are few things I'd less like to get involved in then the capitol controversy, but damn shouldn't the controversy at least be mentioned somewhere in the article? Reading the Jerusalem article today, mentioned that Jerusalem was the capitol of Israel. I had always heard Tel Aviv was the capitol so went to this article to see if it had been changed or otherwise explain why I thought that, but there is no mention what-so-ever about it. Only reading the discussion area can I figure out what is up. "Wikipedia is ment to publish the truth, and not what most of the world thinks." -- Totally agree, isn't the fact that most of the world considers Tel Aviv to be the capitol a fact that seems incredibly relevant to this article and the lack of mention of any controversy at all, directly contrary to this sentiment? Aepryus 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read Jerusalem?--Doron 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I saw Jerusalem listed as the capitol of Israel on the front page, I immediately looked up the Tel Aviv article without even clicking on the Jerusalem article in order to try and figure out why I thought the capitol of Israel was Tel Aviv. I agree the subject is handled fine within the Jerusalem article.  I feel some mention of the controversey should be made in the Tel Aviv article, however, in checking Britannica, they also make no mention of it in their Tel Aviv article.  I just feel that a person shouldn't have to click over to the discussion page to get relevent information or have questions answered about a particular subject and I have run into that phenomena on a few articles recently.  I can see few justifiable reasons to omit one or two sentences that provide relevent information on a subject. Aepryus 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know why you thought Tel Aviv was the capital. It simply isn't, and neither is any other city in Israel (except for Jerusalem, of course). While the status of Jerusalem as capital or Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem may be a matter of dispute, I'm not aware of any reason to think Tel Aviv is the capital, so I really don't see any reason why there should be anything written about it here. The intro states that it is widely viewed as the economic capital, and the history section states that it was briefly the capital in 1948 and that embassies are located there. I don't think we need anything else.--Doron 12:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In thinking about where I would have possibly gotten this information, the best I can come up with is a Current Affairs class I took in high school; I'm guessing we were tested on various world capitals. I have seen information stating Tel Aviv was the capital from 48-50.  Is this true?  If so, should that at least be mentioned? Aepryus 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is (Tel Aviv).--Doron 19:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My Apologies. I'm a moron; or more appropriately -- I can't spell. (Had been doing searches on capitol) At any rate, thanks for the hand holding.  Aepryus 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tel Aviv GA
I dont think we are far off GA status with this article. I think we just need some more references and then a better layout for images + some extra text in some areas. Lets work to build it to this level. --Flymeoutofhere 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are missing a lot of references. I tried to rephrase things in a more encyclopaedic tone, but some of these assertions could just as well have been borne of an editors imagination as have any connection to reality.  Tewfik Talk 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Picture is not correct
this is the founding of Holon and not Tel Aviv. unsigned by User:RunX


 * i beg to differ, i have a history of tel aviv booklet with that image. Jaakobou 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"bustilng" and Tal R
Is it 'bustilng' or "bustling"?

Also, since when does Tal R live in Tel Aviv? According to danish media he lives in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Sugarxbones 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Districts"
What's the intention behind the new section titled "Districts"? Tel Aviv is part of the Tel Aviv District.--Doron 12:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be Neighborhoods, not Districts. If there's no objection, I'll change it.--Doron 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
I've added the following paragraph: Footnotes: Now there seems to be an edit war going on about this. Pappe is a serious historian and the facts he presents are actually well-known, but uncomfortable truths for the Israeli establishment. To describe these as “extremist” (Jayjg) and “POV” (Tewfik) or “extreme POV” (Noon) is just a cover for censorship. --213.47.56.244 13:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On 13 Mai 1948, Jaffa was captured by the Haganah and the Irgun. 1,500 volunteers defended the city, but succumbed to the 5,000 attacking Jewish troops. After the fall of the city, many Palestinan women and girls were raped by Haganah soldiers, and the whole Palestinian population—50,000 people—was expelled. Palestinian property in Jaffa was looted and hundreds of houses were destroyed after the city was captured, to obliterate the Arab character of the city.


 * Ilan Pappe is not regarded as a serious historian, and some of the "facts" he presents have been found to be based on "non-research" (sic). See the article on him. The least you can say is that his allegations are disputed.


 * OTOH, it should be expected that a person that supports both Hamas and separation of church and state (as he has stated, see the article) would have problems getting his/her work considered serious (see Law of noncontradiction). elpincha (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image
Any ideas on where to put this image, which is almost exactly an aerial photograph of Tel Aviv and nowhere else? Perhaps we could switch it with the infobox image, or otherwise place it prominently?  Tewfik Talk 05:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I love the image. Yes, I think it should go in the infobox, it is more centralised on Tel Aviv than the other one which is more the Gush Dan, and parts of Tel Aviv.--Flymeoutofhere 08:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC Review
I have placed the review on hold as these need fixing: Let me know when these are done. Epbr123 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) The "Tel Aviv is seen in the forefront" image in the Topography and climate section should be removed as it appears it's being used without the owner's permission.
 * 1) The article is under-referenced. Each statement that is likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
 * I think this has been done?--Flymeoutofhere 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a convertion template, eg. 5 mi.
 * Done--Flymeoutofhere 08:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) External links only belong in the External links section.
 * Done--Flymeoutofhere 08:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dates in the footnotes need wikilinking.
 * Done--Flymeoutofhere 08:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not recommended to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
 * OK - removed image sizes--Flymeoutofhere 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "(13 Israeli championships, 11 Israeli cups, one Toto cup and once Asia champion)" - for consistency, when in a list, numbers should either all be spelled out or all be numerals.
 * Sorted--Flymeoutofhere 08:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Who created the "Tel Aviv is seen in the forefront" image?
 * Sorry-I dont understand?--Flymeoutofhere 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done--Flymeoutofhere 10:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

These also need citations:
 * "In 1908 the Ahuzat Bayit (אחוזת בית) homebuilders association bought land north of Jaffa. Building commenced in 1909, and the association admitted members of two suburbs established nearby. In 1910, the common name of Tel Aviv was adopted. At its founding, Tel Aviv was intended only to be a bedroom community of Jaffa. The founders envisaged a European-style garden suburb with wide streets and boulevards." - any statement involving dates is likely to be challenged (except for dates sourced in the linked articles and well-known dates, such as the start of WWI).
 * Done


 * "During an offensive on Jaffa that started in April 1948, many of its Arab residents fled through the harbor. When Jaffa was taken on May 14, only about 4,100 out of its 70,000 Arab residents remained."
 * Done


 * "The Tel Aviv-Jaffa municipality has a jurisdiction of 50,553 dunams"
 * Removed - unable to find citation in english


 * "Tel Aviv now boasts the largest collection of such buildings anywhere in the world"
 * Done


 * "the Palmach Museum near Tel Aviv University offers a unique multimedia experience" - this is unencyclopedic and appears to be copied from somewhere.
 * Cleared up


 * "Tel Aviv hosts the largest Gay Pride Parade in Israel (the only country to do so in the Middle East), drawing upwards of 100,000 people."
 * done


 * "Tel Aviv is known for its openness as well as its thriving night life."
 * Done

done
 * "Tel-Aviv has been known in Israel as the city that never sleeps."
 * "Tel Aviv's two universities, Tel Aviv University, and Bar-Ilan University (with its campus in neighbouring Ramat Gan) are not only highly-regarded within Israel, but are seen likewise by much of the international community."
 * hard to citate - so changed wording


 * "These two universities give a combined student population of Tel Aviv reaching well over 50,000,"
 * done


 * "Maccabi's Judo club athlete Yael Arad won a silver medal in the 1992 Olympic Games."
 * done


 * "Hapoel Tel Aviv Sports Club was founded in 1923, and over the years has included over eleven sports"
 * done


 * "the beaches of Tel Aviv provide arguably the most vibrant Matkot scene in the world."
 * done


 * "The Tel Aviv Rowing Club, which was established as early as 1935 on the banks of the Yarkon River, is the biggest rowing club in Israel."
 * done


 * "people travel from around the world to this city not only because of the plethora of cultural sites which Israel can offer, but also because of its legendary nightlife, atmosphere, and architecture."
 * done - think this works


 * "Furthermore, the first phase of the Tel Aviv Subway is planned to be completed by 2012, which is expected to improve public transportation in the city dramatically."
 * done

Also note that "peacock terms" such as "famous", "well-known" and "highly regarded" should be avoided. Some dates in the footnotes still need wikilinking.Epbr123 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done - I think --Flymeoutofhere 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far, but I'm afraid I've just noticed that all the notable residents will need citations as well (except for the ones where the source is provided in their own article). Epbr123 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done--Flymeoutofhere 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All refs need th publisher, author and publishing date. Epbr123 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added where applicable--Flymeoutofhere 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pass! Thank you for your hard work. Epbr123 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable residents
Though not the author of this section, I'm not sure El C was right to remove the entire section. Most (if not all) important cities have their Notable residents section, with, sometimes, far less important or interesting people. Why do you qualify this one as insane. Where's the problem exactly? Would it show too much that Tel Aviv is not Jerusalem? I wonder what the first line posted up there («Note should be made of the prominence of trance music in Tel-Aviv's culture») and all this implies means for you… — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 10:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Potentially useful link
http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/geo/publikacije/dela/files/Dela_21/019%20kipnis.pdf --Shamir1 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC) http://www.economist.com/cities/findStory.cfm?city_id=TLV&folder=Facts-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.telavivcity.com/eng --- Constantly updating website about events and places in Tel Aviv, with different guides and articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.10.181 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Video of market
- mind if I include it? if I dont hear in 3 days, I'll include at the bottom. Isewell 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a look at this video and don't think it's appropriate here: It is not professional enough - the lighting is bad, it's confusing, and most of it focuses on someone doing something that is indecipherable, while engaging in meaningless small talk in Hebrew.

--Gilabrand 06:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I understand your concerns, I just thought it gave a flavour of life in Tel Aviv. If anyone else has an opinion and can break the tie, please speak up.Isewell 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all thanks for taking the time to think about Wiki and crop and convert your travel video and upload it. However I have to somewhat agree with Gilabrand here, although I doubt that even 1 second of something of professional grade would be uploaded.  In addition to the issues mentioned, another is the length - at just over a minute I'm sure you'll agree that that's hardly enough to convey what looks like a vibrant atmosphere of the Tel Aviv market exudes.  However I don't know what the limits are for file sizes and lengths for videos.  It thus might be more appropriate to add it to the Commons gallery page on Tel Aviv instead of here, this way it can be more distinguished than just by having it in the category.  -- Broken Sphere Msg me 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wiki Commons limits to 5M video (although it seems to take more?) so videos over a minute or two are not really possible. I'll add it to the Tel Aviv Commons page.  Thanks for the comments all. Isewell (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)