Talk:Israel/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

The Two Kingdoms

Why is Israel considered "Israel" when the Hebrew there are clearly the descendants of the Judah Kingdom? Should the nation be Judah since the Hebrew of the Kingdom of Israel were lost?--Secret Agent Man 21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, it was considered too. Several names were considered. For various reasons it was decided on Israel possibly also as a more universal term to fit non Jews as well or a more popular name. The tribes in existence also include Binyamin and Levi, so technically it's also accurate, moreover considering the differnet tribes from Africa, India and so on that are considered Dan, Menashe and others. One day the hope is all these lost sons (and daughters...) will be found and come back to their homeland. That's my view on the subject... ;) Amoruso 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What BS. We are Am Yisrael, the people of Israel. We live in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. Are you seriously telling me the Zionist leaders were considering other names for their state? That would be even more absurd than anything I could ever have imagined. 'Israel' is the only name that would ever make sense to anyone.

My friend, this is not BS. This appeared in books concerning the declaration and it's in hebrew wikipedia article from which I took it. It's not controversial. We are am Israel in Eretz Israel but naming the country Zion or Jehuda makes sense too. Amoruso 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And Secret Agent Man... Please just write 'Jews', not 'Hebrews'. This is the same thing. People call the Jews of the Bible 'Hebrews' in order to make an artifical difference between the Jews of the Bible and the Jews of today. Usually with the aim of saying 'Yes, the hebrews lived there... but there are no more Hebrews, and Jews are not Hebrews.' A very subtile method of antisemitism hidden in a form of antizionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was also talk of forming the West Bank into a State of Judea after the six day war as a way of Israel unloading itself of it's Heradi population. The State of Israel to be the Zionist State. The State of Judea to be a Jewish Religious state. The idea was scrappped mostly because the Heradi political parties refuesed the offer. The politics of the place are bizarre to say the least. 88.154.158.42 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This I'm not aware of and it's unlikely it was serious. Sometimes people talk about the Judea country for those not agreeing to the policy of evacuating territories, but it never came to a discussion in parliament or government AFAIK or a serious forum, as of yet that is. Amoruso 23:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a discussion in the cabinet. How serious it was, I don't know. Whatever the case, you are correct, the discussion didn't go far. I'll try to dig out the book I saw it in. Shia1 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Israel's Central Beauro for Statistics estimates Israel's Population at 7,057,600 as of July 31, 2006. This gives a pop. density of about 319/km^2 88.152.185.140 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC) EGT Sep 12 2006

If a section is created on this subject I suggest you also add a link here: Immigration#Immigration by countries and territories.--Saintlink 08:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict

The article mentions that the cease-fire was broken by both sides. I was not aware of any breaches of the cease-fire made by Lebanon. Unless you can cite such a statement with actual evidence or news reports I think it should be deleted.

There were and are violations of the cease fire-by the Hezbollah, which continues to receive arms shipments through the land borders with Syria. In addition, The UN resolution and international law clearly states that there can only be one armed force in Lebanon, the Lebanese army, and so, as long as the Hezbollah refuses to lay down their arms and turn in their rocket stockpiles (which they proudly announced to have been largely undamaged by the Israeli attacks) to Lebanese authorities, they are violating the cease fire.

"[UN Cease Fire resolution 1701] Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon; "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/4785963.stm http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=48524&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2 http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=86315&d=10&m=9&y=2006

The fact that Hezbollah has not yet complied with Resolution 1701 does not mean that Hezbollah has breached the cease-fire. Even if you think the two actions are the same, I find it quite hypocritical to say that Hezbollah is breaching the cease-fire when Israel executed commando missions in Lebanon and continually violated Lebanese air space (not to mention occupied Lebanese territory), and yet no one could say that Israel had breached the cease-fire. Need I also remind you that Israel didn't comply with Resolution 425 until 22 years later?

One other point is that you really can't prove that Syria has supplied Hezbollah with arms after the cease-fire came into effect. In fact, until very recently Lebanon has been under blockade, one meant to prevent arms from reaching Hezbollah. If arms were still being smuggled in, then what's the point of letting the country suffer the damaging effects of a futile blockade (after all, we have all seen how much Israel has been concerned with Lebanon's well-being as they so often stated). My point is, the claim that Hezbollah has been receiving arms from Syria after the cease-fire is unsupported, and therefore you can't just say that Hezbollah breached the cease-fire. Israel on the other hand openly admitted to every breach it had made. LestatdeLioncourt 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy's right. Israel should stop being so darn honest. It isn't working out very well for them. --bladebot 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

honest my A. If you just listen to what israel says, and then look at whats going on, youve got some controversy. Heres something for your sarcasm. israel should tell the truth more, then well see how the world likes them. Mac33c 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

regardless of who's being honest or not, there were violations of the ceasefire on both sides. there were small skirmishes days after the agreement. blame who you want, but it takes 2 to tango. Parsecboy 23:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It takes 2 to tango, but it only takes 1 for israel to attack lebanon. The problem is there isn't actually solid proof that Lebanon breached the ceasefire, while Israel, on the other hand, was caught doing it. When you're caught, it makes sense to admit it. Hobowu 10:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

adding lots of pics

if you disagree with any, revert :) . Amoruso 13:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert which Oiboy77 has twice done: here reverted by me and here reverted by Ynhockey. Oiboy's edits, which include deleting the entire 'Sports' section and 11 pictures, are plain vandalism. I request an administrator to look into this. Deleting 11 pictures and a whole section of text without any consensus and without any motivation, and doing it again when it is reverted, is plain vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oiboy77 is a vandal with multiple bans on his record for exactly this kind of behaviour. When pressed on it he will claim a massive Zionist conspiracy, then vandalize again and get blocked again. Just keep reverting him. Schrodingers Mongoose 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I request the first administrator who sees this to step in and block him again, preferably for a (much) longer time. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography, climate and Mount Hermon

The recent edit by Amoruso adding "like Mount Hermon" may not make any statement that is literally in correct, but it tends to imply, to most readers, that Mount Hermon is in Israel and therefore I resisted it. Unfortunately I cannot continue to do this without provoking edit wars and violation WP:3RR so I guess that, at least for now, it will have to stay. Viewfinder 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The disputed status of the Golan heights is mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraphs, so in context I don't think it particularly bolsters the Israeli claim. Perhps rather than simply removing it, you could supply an alternative example, within the pre-1967 borders? David Underdown 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything would be preferable, as would nothing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is related to a hot discussion, see Talk:Mount Hermon; for now, I will not pre-empt this by editing Israel. Viewfinder 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder, I really do think that wikipedia policy doesn't deal with WP:POV political edits. Golan is in Israel because Israel is there - whether it's illegal or not is not relevant for statin the fact. I showed you the western sahara example and others - it's the facts on the ground that are relevant, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia by regular users who want to know where everything is and who have enough article and section liberties to make the difference between U.N positions and geographical facts, and so on. Amoruso 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The National Geographic map is very much in the minority among international maps. Every international map that I have, including the respected Times Atlas, shows the Golan Heights to be outside Israel, and on such a contentious issue, its authors would have considered this issue very carefully. You cannot occupy and unilaterally annex territory and then expect the international community and other authorities to endorse your claim that that terrirory is in your country. Viewfinder 16:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the international community and Wikipedia is doing exactly that with regards to the occupation and unilaterl annexation of Tibet by China. Why should it be any different here? Isarig 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Well said, I for example would love to see the entries on the 21 Arab countries say that they all have democratically elected governments and opposition backbenchers that can shout at the leader of the nation "fascist" without getting jailed and/or hanged (as the Arab backbencher MP's in Israel do routinely to their good health), but an encyclopedia is a collection of facts and not an orgy of hallucinated narratives, so I have to put up with the current entries even if I don't like them. The objective reality is that mount hermon is partially in Israel and partially in Syria. Even if I think that a dictatorship is an illegal entity, and so all Syrian, Iranian and Libyan borders are null and void, I dont go to these entries and put that in, do I? perhaps there should be a parallel "imagipedia.org" site for what we want to be true, that might relieve some of the pressure on this poor entry.

I would like to see a truthful article on Israel say you can say We Oppose the ZIonist State without men in black riot gear breaking into your synagogue during high holiday services anually and beating the elderly and anyone else who can't outrun them, or that a person can be a contientious objector without being permanently denied employment, or that a person of a minority ethnic group can become a citizen. 88.153.87.107 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do not see what Israel's political system has to do with the countries in which Mount Hermon is placed. Maps published by sources regarded as verifiable show that Israel's internationally recognised borders enclose no part of Mount Hermon, as shown on the map shown on Golan Heights. If country A occupies territory within country B, that territory remains in country B until international law, as interpreted by international institutions and shown on international maps, not country A's POV "scholars", decrees otherwise, despite the presence of country A. The fact that Israel occupies part of the mountain and imposed its own national POV by unilateral annexation does not alter that, nor is it altered by the fact that this article is watched by a team of nationalist POV editors who make its information impossible to correct. Viewfinder 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this opinion like I've said before. international law can be used by both sides and one can't say that territory is not recognised by international law, but only by the U.N for example in non binding resolutions. Btw, Your last sentence is incivil and I ask you not to resort to such statements but stick to the point. Facts are what Wikipedia should try to attend to and the territory is in the hands of Israel therefore it should be considered in Israel as a matter of fact. The map assertion is wrong. For example, the National Geographic maps show the Golan to be in Israel. [1] [2] (thank-you Shilonite for info). Perhaps maps should be changed to wikipedia for better accuracy without showing the armistice line simply. Amoruso 12:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not for me to answer the above question comparing the China/Tibet situation, other than to point out that all international maps that I am aware of show Tibet to be within the borders of China. Also the existing maps, from the CIA - hardly an anti-Israeli source - are by far the most representative of worldwide mapping and should not be changed. Viewfinder 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certianly not true. Have a look at this [3] - showing Tibet outside the borders of China, with different shading that's very similar to the way the Golan is shown on many maps. Isarig 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not for you to tell me what maps I was aware of at the time when I wrote the above. By the way the colors on the above linked map imply that Tibet is within China, were it otherwise, Tibet would have been shown in completely different color(s) only. The Golan maps show Golan in the same color as Syria, with Israel in different colors. Viewfinder 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that you were lying, only to show that the statement "all international maps ... show Tibet to be within the borders of China." Is not true. You were not aware of the maps that do not show this, and I have remedied that. As to the color of the shading, you are reading way too much into it. The CNN map shows that Tibet is not of the same status as the rest of CHina. There are many maps that use the same shading for teh Golan, or indicate it in the same color as Israel. In addition to the map Amoruso has shown you, you can look at these : [4][5][6]Isarig 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. Your 1st link shows West Bank also within Israel, which I do not think Israel officially claims. The second shows Israel's boundaries including the West Bank but not the Golan Heights. The third includes the Sinai from which Israel withdrew long ago. Viewfinder 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely my point: even though Israel does not claim the WB, and even though the internatioanl community certianly does not recognize such a claim, th eWB is shown in th eexcat same color as Israel - which proves my point that you are reading too much into the colors. Teh 2nd link shows the Golan hieghts shaded in the excat same way as the Tibet region is shaded - with diagonal lines - while the background color is the same as Israel's (or Syria). Isarig 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In Sept. 2005 there were news articles reporting that "Israel declared its frontier with the Gaza Strip an international border". the only one I can find now is [7]. Has this declaration been rescinded? The article doesn't mention this border. Fourtildas 04:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Universal Sufferage

It can't be said Israel has universal sufferage since only Jews can become citizens. What would it take for a family of Thai workers to be able to vote after three generations in Israel? They can't. The kids would have Ger Toshav status, which gets translated resident foreignor, but really meens non-Jewish second class citizen with no power to vote. 88.154.158.42 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is false for several reasons:

1. Universal Suffrage only refers to the country's citizens, not outsiders.

2. Every country has the right to choose who it lets immigrate into its territory. A country doesn't have to let anyone come and receive citizenship.

3. Non-Jews can easily become Israeli citizens by marrying an Israeli citizen.

4. These is no legal status called "Ger Toshav". There's are statuses called "Toshav Er'i" (Temporary Resident), "Toshav Keva" (Permanent Resident - like a green card), and "Ezrach" (Citizen).

5. Also, Israel has a large Arab population, with full voting rights.

6. Why should Thai workers receive citizenship? Israel does NOT encourage immigration; the workers came to work, under the explicit terms of leaving when their work permit expires. If they choose to remain illegaly, should they be rewarded for that?

7. According to the new regulations, a legal foreign worker's child, born in Israel, who has been in Israel for at least a few years, may recieve legal status. If, when they turn 18, they join the army (like most Israelis must do), they receive full citizenship. okedem 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

YOur right. It is Ger Er'i status. But your answers are misleading in part. 1) It is not possible for a non-jew to marry a Jew in Israel. They must fly to Crete or somewhere. 2) No other country offers citizenship on ethnic grounds alone. 3) Those Arabs are descendants of Arabs who stayed in the area taken during the 1948 war, but the Arabs in the West Bank have no option to be citizens. 4) A son of a Thai worker who has never seen any other country with both parents who have never seen any other country - what else should he be? He literally has citizenship in no other country. 5) in answer to seven, that is not universal sufferege, that is sufferege for all Jews and any multi-generational non-Jew of non-Arab background who do Army service. Universal meens everyone. Perhaps the phrasing on suffrage should be changed to something like, "Israel has universal suffrage for all citizens, with citizenship being offered to all Jews and any non-Arab foreignor who was born in Israel and completed Army service." Universal is not accurate. Shia1 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Perhaps you wish the definition of universal suffrage to change, but you'll have a hard battle. Universal suffrage means all adult citizens can vote; the phrase implies nothing about the ease or difficulty of becoming a citizen. Few places (and, to my knowledge, no nations) allow non-citizens to vote. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Elections in the United Kingdom plenty of non-citizens allowed to vote... David Underdown 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely sure that Jpgordon is inferring so, but military service is for the most part, not required in Israel for citizenship or voting rights, except perhaps in extremely rare circumstances for foreign non-Jewish immigrants (and those are few, Israel isn't Canada) who wish to naturalize, as proof of their genuine intent, which I don't think would be such a bad test if adopted by European and American countries as well. Thousands of Israeli Jews are excused from service due to being ultra orthodox, but they can still vote; all Israeli Arabs (20% of the population, nearly a million citizens) can vote though few do military service. The proof is that the Arab public's elected parliament members spend half their time shouting "fascist" and "murderer" at the prime minister and the minister of defence while in session (conveniently ignoring their fates were they to attempt such things in the parliament of any country of their Muslim betheren who they staunchly support), thus you can't imagine them participating in the "Zionist Oppressor" military service. What is true however, that those who do not serve in the army do suffer some prejudices, as army service is considered to be an important part of the normative Israeli identity. It is legal for some jobs to require military service, e.g. security guards, and lacking military service will count against getting security clearances for sensitive positions. In an attempt to counter balance this somewhat, there is a substitute "National Service" of 2 years spent in voluntary activities in one's local community which is intended for those exempted from military service. currently this is mainly taken advantage of by (army exempted) Orthodox Jewish women. In December 2004, the Ivri Committee on National Service recommended to the Government that Israeli-Arabs be afforded an opportunity to volunteer to this service as an alternative to military service. Counterboint

Again, there is no "Ger Er'i" status, the word "Ger" does not belong here! It's "Toshav Er'i".

1) Israel doesn't have civilian marriage, so there's no alternative to some kind of religious marriage (even if you're an atheist), except to get married somewhere else (Cyprus is the usual choice). Then the marriage is recognized by Israel.

2) Israel is a Jewish country, founded to give Jews a safe place to live, so naturally it gives citizenship to Jews. Again, every country is free to choose whatever criteria it wishes for immigration, be them ethnic, based of skill or wealth, or otherwise.

3) Why should the arabs in the west bank become Israeli citizens? Do you think the west bank is an integral part of Israel?

4) The children of foreign workers are indeed a problem. I strongly feel that a child born in Israel, or who immigrated at a very young age, grew up in Israel, speaks hebrew, and knows no other place, should be given citizenship. This is a relatively new problem, and talking about the third generation is absurd - there's barely a first one. The discussion of the topic is very active, and it seems the outcome will be close to my views.

5) According to your (and it's only your) definition, no country has universal suffrage. Can I vote in the Danish general elections? No. So they don't have universal suffrage? okedem 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny there are such strict immigration laws in Israel when Jews in the United States by-and-large are the strongest proponents of diversity and illegal immigration. Then again, the majority of Jews in the United States view themselves as Jews first (and by extensions Israelis) and Americans later. Volksgeist 07:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Volkgeist, I see you are back in the ranting and raving business.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Again with the rants? okedem 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Why should the arabs in the west bank become Israeli citizens" because it was originally there country and no one had the right to take it from them like this, so they should be allowed the same rights as any jewish israeli. "Israel is a Jewish country, founded to give Jews a safe place to live, so naturally it gives citizenship to Jews." escuse me for my ignorance, but i will never understand why the jews recieved palestine, (not that my opinion matters) but i think they should have given them a chunk of land from germany, doesnt that seem fair? Mac33c 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs living in Palestine never had a country. The territory was under the control of various empires, and the last time it was a free entity was with the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The Jews bought many lands in Israel, and settled there. They did this legally. The Jews did not expel anyone to build their new cities and villages. After the Arabs refused to accept the 1947 partition plan (which called for 2 states - a Jewish one and an Arab one, in Palestine), they attacked the Jews.

Did you know that many Jews were driven from their homes? The Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the Gaza strip, Gush Etzion near Jerusalem, the Jews living in the old city of Jerusalem. These people bought land there, lived there legitimately, and were expelled by the Arabs in 1948.

Jews have had a continous presence in Israel since biblical times. It is their homeland, and thus was chosen. okedem 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac--are you aware that Jews have a quite significant history in the middle east? I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't know what your background is or where you live. Some people don't know about this. Jews consider the land Israel is on as their homeland and Jews go back further in the area than Arabs do. Jews have tried to get back to Jerusalem since their exile. I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a right to be there---of course they do---but this doesn't negate the Jewish right. It is undeniable that the Germans did really bad things to the Jews and if the Holocaust were the reason the only Jews wanted to go to Israel then it would maybe make sense to give them part of Germany instead. However, Jews are not FROM germany--they ended up there as a result of exile. And Holocaust or no Holocaust, Jews would want to live in the land of Israel to get back to their roots. Elizmr 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am completely aware of jewish history, i know they have been there longer than arabs. My POV is that allot of people want things, but that does not mean you should recieve it. just because the jews would want to live there, it doesnt give them much of a right to kick out the palestinians. Many palestinians consider it their homeland, and they sure as heck arent getting it. Palestinians have been trying to get back into it since their exile as well. Jews have every right to live there as a palestinian, as you stated, but by the looks of it, thats not what is happening. It doesnt matter where you are from. You dont see native americans taking back america and making americans live like crap, or muslims taking spain and kicking out spaniards or anything of that manner. Mac33c 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure if you were aware of the jewish history because of your germany comment. As far as I know, the Jews didn't just "want" Israel and therefore get it, they gave up a lot and fought and died for it. And I'm not agreeing that the Jews kicked Muslims out of Israel, but are you aware that large pops of Jews have been kicked out of every Arab country (going back to the time of the Prophet Muhammed, actually)? And the blame for how Palestinians are living in the territories is not Israel's alone; the Palestinian and Arab leaderships have certainly played a big role in making the Palestinians "live like crap" to achieve their political ends. It is a horrible and complex situation and any attempt to see it in black and white won't ring true. Elizmr 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the thing. Leaving out whether Jews really tried to kick out any palestinians out - which is not true in itself - right now the situation is exactly reverse. You dont see native americans taking back america and making americans live like crap, or muslims taking spain and kicking out spaniards (though I suspect you WILL see that in the future) and you shouldn't see Arabs taking "back" Israel and kicking out Jews. What's happening is that Arab states and Muslim states like Iran and the fanatic arab organizations like HAMAS and Hizballah want to kick out the JEWS from the place. You're not looking at the reality. It's the state of israel with its population of 5 million Jews that Arabs want to kick out. Amoruso 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"though I suspect you WILL see that in the future" that is not acceptable first of all. second, stop listening to western media and open your eyes. Arabs know that they cannot kick out all of the jews from israel. that is not their goal any longer. their goal is to create peace with them while at the same time helping the lebanese and the palestinians. yes there are still some that would like to see the jews removed, and while ill disagree with that, you still cannot look at JUST the arabs trying to kick out the jews. why is it that i am always attacked like this. think of what the jews did to the arabs that made want them out. you only look at the side you want to be with. you cant fully know your arguments when you dont know the argument of the other. so lets the arabs kick all of the jews out. what do you think will happen? the jews will fight back and create organizations such as hizballah(which does not want the complete destruction and removal of israel by the way) or HAMAS. i know why the jews wanted jerusalem because that is (as elizmr said) were their roots are, and i knew someone was going to say that when i wrote that first comment. so look at both sides not just one. the only way is peace between the jews and the arabs and nothing else. On both sides there are those who want peace and those who want war and there is no argument to that. Mac33c 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it is rediculous to say there is universal sufferage in Israel when roughly 50% of the people under the control of the government do not have a right to chose who has control over them. That's far from universal. Barely half the population can vote. The fact that barely half the population are citizens is another issue which points to ethnocentrism, but universal sufferage is misleading, some sort of additional statement acknowledging the fact that a high percentage of the people living nder the control of the Israeli government cannot chose who controls them needs to be added. Shia1 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed Mac33c 00:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i think the defition refers to citizens or people under the rule of the country. arabs in yesha do not want to be part of Israel to begin with and are under control of a differnet rule - the palestinian authority which they vote for. That is why it's not relevant at all and there's no obligation for Israel to let them vote obviously, not will it be expected from them, nor does it make any sense whatsoever. Mac33c, Jews did not kick out Arabs, to begin with. Jews accepted the 1947 partition plan and then were attacked by 7 differnet arab states. This is something you seem to have forgotten. Jews just wanted a state of their own on their historic land which they guarded and kept for thousands of years even though the place went under occupation of dozens of differnet empires. Let's examine this notion of peace from the arab/moslem side - the idea of "the right of return" means bringing 4 million palestinians to israel proper - do you think Israel will still exist after this ? This view is supported by essentially all Arabs. Continue - the leader of Iran says he wants to wipe off Israel off the map and that Israel should move to Alaska - indeed that sounds like peace. 80% of the palestinians voted for HAMAS, an organization that has the destruction of Israel and the killing of all zionists in its charter and that has no motivation to discuss peace with Israel. Arab states do not inherehently accept the "zionist presence" in the middle east. This is why the Palestinian conflict was created to begin with, it's one of the means to kick out Jews from here. Peace is only achieved through detterence and safe borders - this is why Jordan and Egypt want their governments to be stable enough so they signed peace with Israel. If Israel will be strong enough, there will be peace - as in - no hostilities. Acceptance is not something you'll find in this part of the world. Amoruso 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Define Zionists...you will fine that not all jews are seen as zionists. im just going to say it outright. that is load of crap. stop listening to Fox news. KNOW your opponents arguments better before you argue. Ive read plenty of books and that argue similar things to this, and im not going to sit here and explain to you the history of the middle east when israel came into power. they have both done some things that neither side should be proud of. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, they are all have leashes around there necks. I knoq exactly what happend in the 6 days war. i know plenty of things that happend afterwards, which you seem to have forgotten. Israel has committed atrocities to the arabs and vice-versa. stop looking at this so freaking one sided. you have no REAL knowledge of what is going on so i advise you to stop typing blindly. Mac33c 01:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionists are those wanting a Jewish state in Palestina. I agree that Arabs will let jews live under an arabian country as dhimmni, that is true. I don't listen to FOX news, I have first hand experience. If you knew exactly what happened, you wouldn't talk the way you did and you'd realise Israel is not to blame. Amoruso 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Universal sufferage should be defined as everyone under the rule of the country having the right to vote. Under the rule of the country. I'm not sure if you've visited the West bank lately, but there is no real Palestinian authority there. It's Israel that decided who moves where and how far. For goodness sakes, they kidnap parliament and cabinet members from the Palestinian Authority. Those people have been under Israeli control for half a century almost, and they cannot chose who controls them. That is not universal sufferage. YOur comment on Denmark shows a great truth. YOu cannot vote in Dainish elections, but if you lived in Greenland for the last 50 years and were native, you could. There's no Dainsih tank outside your house, and it wasn't outside you grandfathers house. That's the difference. Secondly, on another topic you just brought up, Jews did kick out Arabs. YOu can go up into the Kisalon area and see the villages they used to tell people were from Bar Khokhba's time but the court ordered them to tell the truth - They're old Arab villages. Also, Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan spoke of kicking arabs out. It wasn't a secret before. People used to brag about it before the world started thinking it was a bad thing. Also, "just wanted a state on their historical homeland," is a bit of a whitewash. Having had no signifigant presence in an area for 2000 years, and no sovereignty there for several hundred more than that, it is unprecedented for people to return there and found a country on top of another people. By the "historical homeland" arguement, you could more easily say the Pakistanis have a right to a State in European Russia since they are descendants of Moguls, who are descendants of Monguls, who originally came from that are of the world. That all happened half as long ago. These arguements only make sense to Zionists. To anyone else they sound goofy, and sinister. Kick backs to Nationalist ideas that fell out vogue after WW2. THese things are neither here nor there, and don't belong in the article, I'm just saying you should know how your ideas sound to people who don't share them. They sound like Musalini. - The Palestinian problem wasn't created because Arabs wouldn't accept ZIonist presence, it was started when people from Europe arrived with political ambitions and demanded the natives accept their authority. Accepting the partition plan isn't a sign of peacefulness, but of conquest. Arriving from Europe and being given half of a land is a great deal. Anyone would accept that. Having half your land given away to people from Europe is a different matter. Who would accept that? 88.153.87.107 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in disucssing politics with you usigned member. This is not a discssion board. Arabs weren't kicked out, they fled at the request of the Arab states. "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders." (Katz, 1973, pp. 72) The American journalist Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, claimed that the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight was:

    "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab 
    invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." 

(New Star In The Near East, New York, 1950).

There was never a "Palestinian Arab" nation. To the Arab people as a whole, no such entity as Palestine existed. To those of them who lived in its neighbourhood, its lands were a suitable object for plunder and destruction. Those few who lived within its bounds may have had an affinity for their village (and made war on the next village), for their clan (which fought for the right of local tax-gathering), or even for their town. They were not conscious of any relationship to a land, and even the townsmen would have heard of its existence as a land, if they heard of it at all, only from such Jews as they might meet. (Palestine is mentioned only once in the Koran, as the "Holy Land"- holy, that is, to Jews and Christians.) (katz)

As to the suffarage, Israel is under no obligation to let arabs in yesha vote, since they can vote for their own argument. Obviously Israel had to enter after they voted for a terrorist suicidal bombing government... but if they followed up on prior agreements, they'll have a full autonomy by now probably a state too. You live with the wrong choices you make. anyway, they can still vote for palestinian government - Israel simply arresteed terrorists - don't vote for terrorists next time. Also they might be released soon. Amoruso 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

SO you are saying the Palestinians have a right to vote for anyone they want so long as they want to vote for people Israel doesn't mind? In any case those people are not free to govern the Palestinians, rather the Israelis will, unless the people the Palestinians pick decide to run their new country the way Israel wants. I also like how everyone you quote as NPOV just so happens to have a Jewish last name. Here's a quote you didn't put in the article. David Ben-Gurion, the first and third Israeli prime minister and arguably the most influential figure in the creation of Israel, held that “We must expel Arabs and take their places … We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population ... The wisdom of Israel is now the wisdom of war, nothing else.” 88.153.87.107 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to argue with people who know nothing but lies. so to the unsigned member, let them live their life of lies because they will never know the truth unless they want to seek it. nothing you say on Wikipedia is going to make anyone change their mind(i tried it with complete failure). all it will do is have people who already agreed with you agree with you and those who dont oppose you. Mac33c 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you say that since lying has been the chief propaganda of palestinians and it surely has spreaded very widely even to usigned members and to you. I'm very sorry Israel was attacked by 7 countries and the 400,000 palestinians decided to flee (900,000 Jews fleed Arab states at the same time) and I'm very sorry that Palestinians voted for a government that wants to kill all Jews and promotes suicide bombing and Israel had to do something about it. But don't let the facts confuse you. Amoruso 03:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lies like, "A land without a people for a people without a land?" Anyways, you are making wild assumptions like there are no Palestinian Jews. I am an AMerican Jew, my wife is an AMerican Jew, we live in Jerusalem, and my daughter is a Palestinian Jew. Nobody tried to kill any of us when we went to get her Palestinian birth certificate. But apart from that, can you explain what your racist slurs have to do with "universal sufferage" not being an accurate term in a country where half those under its control cannot vote for who controls them? Why are you so oppossed to simply puting an addition to the sentance that explains all citizens have the right to vote, but 40-50% of the people under Israeli control cannot become citizens. That's an accurate statement, and seems to be balanced. A sentance can even follow that says most of that 40%-50% are expected to become citizens of Palestine when that country is created. 88.153.87.107 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"A land without a people for a people without a land" is very accurate although Israel was of course always the land of the jews simply without soverignity. As to the rest of your comments, I've had enough of you. You're unsigned and now you're also using personal attacks. Call someone else racist etc. and tell someone else your fantasies. Israel has "universal sufferage" whether you like it or not. Deal with it and ta ta. Amoruso 04:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli arabs vote in Israeli elections and the Palestinian Arabs vote in PA elections, don't they? Should PAr's be voting in both Israeli and PA elections? Seems kind of weird. Elizmr 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not directed to anyone but get educated before you speak. look im not even going to argue with you, cuz like i said, it is impossible to have a decent conversation with someone who is so full of it. Learn the truth, then come talk to me. Mac33c 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For someone who has been consistently beligerent and aggressive about some rather ill-considered viewpoints, you certainly seem to think you have a monopoly on the truth. Here is the truth, factually: Israeli Arabs can vote in Israeli elections, just like all Israeli adults. Beyond that, do you have anything resembling a point, or any value to add to this article? Schrodingers Mongoose 21:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Universal sufferage, logically, is for all citizens that are prepared to bear not only its rights but also its duties, i.e. possibly dying for their country. The overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs refuse this primary duty; whether this justifies the many prejudices against them or not is irrelevant to the facts concerning "universal sufferage". Most objective evidence is in support of it being "universal" in Israel because it does includes several non-Jewish minorities: Christian Arabs, Druze and Muslim Beduin soliders (several thousands, not a small percentage out of their population in Israel). The Druze are required to serve and the others volunteer. There is a Druze battalion in the infantry, a druze navigator in the Airforce and several Druze Bedouin senior officers, with the highest rank attained by a non-Jew being brigadier-general. I realize this may pour some water on your gleeful Apartheid orgy, but I don't understand why I can coexist my distaste of fascist regimes like Iran with an objective method of analyzing them without lustful slogans (and believe me I have many), but yet you can't do the same for Israel. An Encyclopedia is not your own stage for slogans.

What you said has nothing to do with universal sufferage - all Israeli Arabs can, and do, vote in the elections, regardless of whether of not they served in the army. That's why there are muslim arab parties in the Knesset. okedem 21:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, for some reason I thought universal sufferage refers to military service and not voting rights. It is regrettable, though, that the Israel entry does not mention the fact that some non-Jewish minorities do serve in the army, which is not for Jews only, and that Arab citizens not serving in it (again, for the most part because a few do volunteer), is because of their identification with organizations and countries which Israel is at war with; this makes them both unwanting to serve and unwanted to serve.

basically, it's mentioned. "Most Israelis (males and females) are drafted into the military at age 18. Exceptions are Israeli Arabs, those who cannot serve because of injury or disability, women who declare themselves married, or those who are religiously observant. Compulsory service is three years for men, and two years for women. Circassians and Bedouin also actively enlist in the IDF. Since 1956, Druze men have been conscripted in the same way as Jewish men, at the request of the Druze community. Men studying full-time in religious institutions can get a deferment from conscription. Most Haredi Jews extend these deferments until they are too old to be conscripted, a practice that has fueled much controversy in Israel." The reason for the non drafting of the Arab citizens should be expanded. Amoruso 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --יהושועEric 02:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses Against Jews

This section is unbelievably biased. There's no mention of any human rights abuses against Jews. What about the Tehran youth? The radiaition experiments on Morroccan children? What about Ammona? (video) HOw about the raid on Toldos Aaron in 1981, the raid on Meah SHarim in 1983, the French Hill Massacre, the 2005 Passover Raid against Satmer (there's video), the beatings of Jews protesting graves being uprooted where they used tazers on the protestors faces while they sat.(also video) The article is so biased it belongs in a Hassborah site not in an encyclopedia. 88.154.158.42 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide information about these claims, from reliable sources, it can be added to the article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and is never complete or perfect. okedem 19:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There should indeed be more about these things. The problem is with sources. I know what happens. I myself have participated in NK demonstrations and don't vote in the elections out of principle, FYI. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

US aid to Israel

i think this should be included in the article, strictly facts...and let others think for themselves on their POV. remember just facts no POV, so none of "Israel needs this" or "its not as much if you compare it to other countries" or even "this is to much to be giving a single country." but you guys already know this, heres some info, and you may be able to find better. http://www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm 1 problem with this, the articles at the bottom are pretty much POV, but i advise you read them because many of them are interesting. Mac33c 22:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's mentioned in the Economy section of this article, and spelled out quite precisely in Israel-United States relations. That should suffice, I'd think. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ooo ok thanks Mac33c 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I Don't understand this sentence

"Although this stele which referred to a people (the determinative for 'country' was absent) is dated to approximately 1211 BCE, [3] Jewish tradition holds that the Land of Israel has been a Jewish Holy Land and Promised land for 3,000 years".

According to my calculation 1211 2006=3217 which is close to 3000 years, so why is the word "although" used?

And also, according to Jewish tradition God promised Abraham the Land of Israel at around 1800 BCE which is closer to 4,000 years ago.

Migration

Article currently says: "... Israel offered — in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel the full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions, but many refused." This should probably be moved to the section above ("Establishment of the State").

This is ingenuous - "full and equal citizenship" does not mean equal rights to land use and water resources in Israel. We are misleading the reader if we do not say this. Fourtildas 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively (although I prefer moving it to "Establishment of the State"), if we do want to mention this declaration in the "War of Independence and migration" section, two pertinent facts should be pointed out. 1. the declaration was made before the exodus, so it was not like Israel expelled as many as they could and then offered equal rights to the rest. 2. But, this part of the declaration would not have been high on the refugees' minds, as to some extent it had been disproved. The general thrust of Palestinian exodus is that many Arabs were forced out and consequently many more left out of fear.

You can argue about why they left, but there is no doubt about what is preventing them from returning - armed force and the threat of violence. Does anyone dispute this? Fourtildas 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Following on from that; although Palestinian exodus says that "several frontier villages" were evacuated by the ALA, it doesn't confirm any other cases of specific orders - just (at most, and disputed) that the migration was encouraged by some other Arabs. So it seems that if "many historians" suggest that the Palestinians "fled because of orders from Arab generals", then those historians are wrong and including that sentence is misleading. I suggest that a suitable summary of Palestinian exodus to replace it with would be "evidence shows that they fled for a variety of reasons, from experience or fear of Haganah violence to - in some cases - evacuation by the ALA. The bulk of the exodus happened during the war, particularly from December 1947 to November 1948, and against a backdrop of mixed messages from both the surrounding Arab states and the local Jewish populations."

195.248.125.91 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

People normally flee war zones. I agree with Fourtildas that the more relevant issue here is that they weren't allowed to return to their homes. Dianelos 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but Israel is under no obligation to allow them to do so. More Jews fleed the Arab states and settled in Israel, and the mutual migration should have been finalised just like happened with similar conflicts. Anyway, many accounts show that the Palestinians were encouraged to stay by the Jews and encouraged to leave by the Arab states. It's not surprising considering the parties involved. Amoruso 08:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Television

"American and European popular television shows are commonly presented."

There's something wrong with this sentence, particularly the placement of "popular." I think, given that it occurs after a statement about the languages spoken in Israel, it should read "in their original language with subtitles," but this is just a guess. Anyone wish to confirm? Blondlieut 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I have no idea. (I don't watch television because of religious reasons.) In Holland it is like that, and I believe that it is a great tool for improving a whole nation's language skills - this is why so many Dutchmen speak English. Compare the Dutch to the French regarding their English language skills, and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, maybe Amoruso or okedem can clarify. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Unlike several european countries (i.e. Germany or France), movies (in TV and cinema) and TV programs in Israel are never dubbed, except when they're intended for small children, who cannot yet read. The programs are just aired with subtitles. I'm not sure why it is, maybe because it's too expensive to dub everything for such a small market, but I'm glad that's the way it is... okedem 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes the quality very bad. It just sounds so horribly fake. Always. It always sounds extremely fake. The voices and the images just don't go together; the voices and the looks of the people don't combine. I think it's not so much a choice because of financial reasons. More probably because of 1) sound quality and 2) a conscious choice by the government regulatory organs of having your people learn English. Every country should switch to subtitles. But well, who am I. And this is off-topic. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Jerusalem

Mongoose: I'm Not sure why you removed the "(disputed)" tag, because it clearly is accuirate and relevant. The 'discussion' is tedious/confused/ever changing. The only thing that never changes is that it is 'disputed'.

Could you please put it back? Thanks --Johnbibby 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing disputed here. The capital of a country is the city of which the country calls it its capital, and where usually (with exception of for example The Netherlands) the government is located. Israel considers Jerusalem to be its capital and the government is located there. Thus, it is Israel's capital. Quit the whining and start making constructive edits. FYI, I don't care whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital or not. See this, and also this, by this person. This is my view. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine if your view is that there is no dispute ... However, evidence indicates the opposite.

Footnote (1) spells this out in detail. The only point at issue is whether this dispute should at the top of the article (which is as far as most people will get).

My view was that the simple addition of "(disputed)" would be sufficient at the top. Otherwise, the footnote spells it out. (And there is also the separate article "Positions on Jerusalem", which is continually changing - thus reflecting teh fact that there is a dipute (or not, as the case may be!) --Johnbibby 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Learn how to use Wiki formatting by not putting your signature like that. It is confusing. Next, you are simply vandalizing here. There is no dispute that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No such dispute exists. It is similar to disputing whether London is the capital of the UK or that Moscow is the capital of Russia. The mere thought is ridiculous. I can say whatever I want, but as long as the White House, the Capitol, Pentagon etc are located in Washington and the Kremlin in Moscow, Washington and Moscow are the capitals of respectively the USA and Russia. Nothing changes that. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This topic has been discussed to death, and there's no point in returning to it unless some new arguements can be brought forth. The discussions can be found in the archives of this page. okedem 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out when I reverted this, there is no need to put "disputed" beside the name. The footnote suffices to make note of international concerns regarding Jerusalem's status, while leaving it clear that Jerusalem is, in fact, the capital of Israel, no matter who may dispute it. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights section

When not only international organizations but also the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Knesset, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and the interior minister of Israel in 2005, all recognize in no uncertain language that there is serious discrimination against Arab Israeli citizens then it's as NPOV as it can get. Incidentally, "the discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel constitutes one of the most severe infringements of equality in the State of Israel" is not my own wording but is directly copied from the references cited - so it can't be construed as my own POV. Please don't remove again this eminently relevant and well-referenced info.

I am also including an item about claims of human rights violations in the Israeli-occupied territories. This too is clearly relevant in this section of the article. Dianelos 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

By stating "Isareli-occupied territories" you are clearly stating anti-Israel biases. The appropriate term is "Disputed Territories." Also, you might look into the political leanings of sources, and not copy text directly as that is illegal. --יהושועEric 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria - the West Bank, is indeed "Israeli-occupied territory" - it is occupied by the Israeli military, under military law. The high authority is the West Bank is the military commander, not a civilian authority. The tern "disputed territory" is perhaps appropriate for east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, as they are under civilian juristiction, and not military rule. But the West Bank is not officialy really in dispute - Israel doesn't, and never has claimed ownership of that territory. okedem 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all Judea and Samaria is under militay law - the settlements aren't. And Israel doesn't "occupy" the palestinian areas from the oslo accords. And the final status of the area hasn't been determined - therefore it's disputed. Israel did annouce it intends to annex some of the area. Amoruso 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The settlements are under military law - the settlers themselves aren't, usually. Anyway, the whole area of Israel is "disputed". It's not a useful word here. Regardless of vague statements concerning future final agreements, Israel has not annexed areas in the West Bank, and thus is fully remains under military law - occupied. Palestinian controlled areas aren't "Israeli-occupied territory", and I don't think the section talks about those places (like Jericho). It's about what Israel does in the areas it does control militarily. okedem 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole area of Israel is disputed ? Well so is the whole area of the United States. This is the most useful NPOV term actually. "occupied" hints something not legitimate. The fact that Israel has not annexed territories is because of a various of its own interests. It doesn't mean the area is not lawfully belonging to Israel, and so it isn't occupation. It's true that occupation in itself can have a variety of meanings. But it is for exactly this reason why this term can't be used. Amoruso 02:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole area of Israel is disputed by many parties - should we write it? The word "disputed" has no specific meaning, it's useless. Everything can be said to be disputed, and that's why it's a bad idea to use it - it doesn't actually add any information, and is very ambiguous. The word "Occupied" is accurate, and means military control of an area - and that's the exact situation with the West Bank. Israeli law doesn't hold there, and the military commander is the sovereign.

"It doesn't mean the area is not lawfully belonging to Israel" - Actually, it does. The West Bank is legally (and I'm talking Israeli law here) NOT a part of Israel, and known, according to the government, as "HASHTACHIM HAMUCHZAKIM" - "the held territories". Whatever Israel's aspirations may be, it doesn't change the fact of the military occupation. okedem 09:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this section despite your request. I apologize, but the section as you presented it was blatantly POV (perhaps not yours, but certainly not neutral). The current version recognizes the problems within Israel in this regard without implicity condemning the actions or intentions of any of the parties involved. It also provides context that the old section lacked, making it appear that Israel's relations with its Arab citizens are far worse than they are when one considers the treatment of minorities in even the most progressive countries.Schrodingers Mongoose 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A serious discussion on the subject should mention the claim of many that the Arab citizens are acutally favoured in the society. Per person, each citizen receives more from his local council in the Arab cities, non observance of building-law violations in the arab towns (where Jews can't close balconies in their houses), non military service which allows the enrollment in the university 3 years before Jews, the affirmative action taken in public service jobs, the larger social security being used and so on. Amoruso 11:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) the most common name should be used in the encyclopedia. "Occupied territories" is what all relevant international organizations use (the UNSC, the ICJ, the Red Cross, the EU council, the US department of state you name it - I can produce references if you wish), the international press (for example in the Time magazine site if you search "occupied territories" and Israel you get 857 hits, if you search "disputed territories" and Israel you get 80), the Israeli press (for example if you google "occupied territories" in Haaretz you get 983 hits, if you google "disputed territories" you get 41), up to and including the Supreme Court of Israel. So, respectfully, not to use "occupied territories" in Wikipedia would be wrong and indeed would display bias.

Schrodingers Mongoose, maybe you are under the impression that POVs is the opposite of neutrality. They aren't; see Wikipedia:POV. So major POVs *should* be in the article as long as they are well-referenced. In this case though, when not only international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the affected people themselves but also the referenced prize-winning Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Knesset and the Jewish Agency for Israel in their project for a constitution, and the Israeli interior minister all agree that Arab citizens of Israel do suffer discrimination, then it's hardly a POV and as close to a fact as it can get, don't you think? In any case if the consensus is that we should express this like "According to X, Y, and Z there is discrimination" I don't mind. - Incidentally you just reverted this explaining "Cited source did not support statement". But the cited source says: "On September 7, then interior minister Ophir Pines-Paz termed the country's policy toward its Arab citizens 'institutional discrimination'" Maybe you didn't read it? In any case, until you explain yourself I am putting this bit back in.

Amoruso, if you can source the claim "by many" that Arab citizens of Israel are being favored over the Jewish citizens then feel free to include this point in the article, and leave it to the reader decide about their seriousness. My opinion is that these arguments are not serious. Dianelos 19:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been to the West Bank (recently), stood in the Golan, and walked through East Jerusalem, I have seen no military law over what is being done in the rest of the state. The entire nation is one blanketed in metal detectors and soldiers. The undesputed Gaza Strip is under military law, and they cannot even decide which army as Hamas and Fatah are killing each other regularly. Israel officially annexed the Golan Heights and all of the city of Jerusalem captured in the 1967 war. As far as "instituational descrimination," the Israeli Defense Forces are charged with keeping the entire Israeli population safe. Since the State of Israel was declared in 1948, (with the support of the UN), terrorism came from the Arab populations. While it makes me sad to say, descrimination is necessary for safety. There is no illegal occupation over territories siezed in a war, legally. Your trusted United Nations did not live up to their end with UNIFIL. If Lebanon and the PA don't have to follow human rights laws. Israel does the best they can to keep Israelis safe and not harm the Palestinian population, of which the elected party's will not even acknowledge Israel exists. --יהושועEric 07:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an Israeli, The fact is that the West Bank is under military law, and Israel (including East Jerusalem and the Golan, as they have been annexed) isn't. What you think you have or haven't seen is irrelevant.

"The entire nation is one blanketed in metal detectors and soldiers" - Soldiers? Where? You may have seen many soldiers, but not on duty, as they have no authority within Israel proper. You probably just saw soldiers going to or returning from their bases. And what do metal detectors have to do with this? They're used by malls and other businesses against terrorists.

The Gaza Strip is under Palestinian control, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion.

"There is no illegal occupation over territories siezed in a war, legally." - I didn't see anyone mention "illegal occupation", just the fact that it is a military occupation. okedem 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms are used interchangably by many opponents of Israel. East Jerusalem and the Golan are treated similarly to other regions in the country. Gaza, as it was left for the PA, is not relevant. However, living in a state where I go for months at a time without seeing armed soldiers, the semester in Israel shed quite a bit of light on an unknown truth, Israelis are constantly fighting to be there. I lived in the Old City for a period of time, and constantly saw patrols. Living on Har Hatsofim, I regularly saw the boarder patrol vehicles pass by. Passing through a metal detector on the way into a mall, coffee shop, restaurant, or school is a necessary way of life, and can easily been seen as living under a military rule.

As far as illegal occupation, I apologize for my lack of clarity. I hear the term illegal occupation far more than the word occupation on its own. --יהושועEric 09:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Golan and East Jerusalem are treated the same as the rest of the country, being under Israeli civilian law. The Old City is under heavy guard, due to its explosive nature.

Well, I can't see metal detectors as having anything to do with military rule. Metal detectors are used in many places around the world - they're just more prevalent in Israel, due to the terrorist threat.

The fact that opponents of Israel use the term "occupation" doesn't make it false. It does correctly describe the legal situation in the West Bank. okedem 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

no it doesn't. And btw, the old city is not under heavy guard at all. In fact, it's one of the less visually guarded places in Jerusalem, if compared with the central bus station in Jerusalem and so on. Amoruso 10:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Underground groups

The Lehi "even attempted to work with the Nazis to secure European Jewry's emigration to Israel"? Since these contacts tooks place in 1940/41, presumably this should read "European Jewry's emigration to Palestine" --Rrburke 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, either Palestine, or Eretz Israel, but definately not Israel. okedem 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Music

"The National/folk songs are very canonical and often deal with Zionist hopes and dreams and glorify the life of idealistic Jewish youth who intend on building a home and defending their homeland."

So reads the article. I'm confused by the use of the slash here, the capitalized "National," the almost poetic "hopes and dreams," followed in short order by the repetition of home and homeland. But what confuses me most of all is "very canonical," but the placement of the word "very" in front of canonical (something is either canonical, or it's not), and the use of the word canonical in this context. A canon is a series of books that have been declared sacred by some authority-- sometimes used methaphorically to describe the "classics" of, say, Western literature. To say that folks songs are "canonical" does make any sense; it's as if one were to say "Western literature is [very] canonical," which doesn't make any sense. Parts of the Western literature might be considered canonical, but as a description of the whole, it's not helpful to say "Western literature's canonical works are akin the rest it." That' how I interpret the phrase-- it's circular, and thus it says nothing in its current form. What did the writer here actually wish to say, because I sure cannot tell?Blondlieut 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased to: "The canonical folk songs often deal with Zionist hopes and dreams and glorify the life of idealistic Jewish youth who intend on building a home and defending their homeland. These are usually known as שירי ארץ ישראל ("songs of the land of Israel").".

I removed "National" - it doesn't seem to mean anything, and it's not used in Hebrew to describe these songs. I added their name in Hebrew.

changed to "canonical folk songs" - that seems to make more sense, don't you think?

"hopes and dreams" seems quite nice, I don't see a reason to change it.

"home" and "homeland" are dissimilar - "home" is for the individual himself, while homeland is a joint venture, the whole country. okedem 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I write to complain about the non-controversial stuff on this page, as a secular/Christian North American, because I note that no one else does.  :) Thank you, Okedem, for your changes.

I take it that there is a such a body of work as "canonicial folk songs." Rather than the sentence being "The canonical folk songs," I would suggest "Israel's canonical folk songs," or simply "The country's canonical folks songs ... "

At the risk of sound stupid, are there folk songs which are non-canonical?

I'm going to change "very versatile" here to "diverse," by the by. Blondlieut 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are non-canonical folk songs - the songs that were just forgotten, as opposed to those we keep hearing on the radio. Some songs make it into history, and some don't. The "canonical" part, I guess, means mainly the older songs. No one writes songs about Zionist bravery or the courage under fire anymore...

Feel free to change it to "Israel's..." or "The country's...", as you see fit. okedem 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

indigenous = dab

Indigenous is now a dab page. If an admin or someone can fix the link, that would be great. Xtifr _tälk 02:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)