Wikipedia

Talk:Israel/Archive 20

< Talk:Israel
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Bored college student in topic "Minorities at Risk"
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Something missing in the whole idea about this ongoing talk

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why wasting our time about this .You can develope other pages so that everyone benefits.I think finally it is all "power" that decides about nations and their existance.Not logic or history or ... .Countries have been changed in size and shape throughout history,not by a group of people talking about it in the wikipedia!!! But by those who had the power and permission to decide about their own nation.What is your idea about this? let me know.85.185.167.5 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)SMN

The Establishment of the State of Israel - revisited

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I am sorry for asking this question again, but it got bumped into the archives before anyone could respond: Why did the UN General Assembly have the authority to approve a partition plan without Arab approval? Shouldn't this information be included? SGW 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is because the territory in question belonged to the UN after it was handed over by the British Empire, which previously owned the territory. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The UN cannot own land. It was under UN administration, but thats totally different. And, yes, it was illegal under most international law treaties in place at the beginning of the Cold War.
Britain conquered the area from the Ottomans in the first world war, and controlled it under a mandate from the league of nations, with the explicit purpose of creating a national home for Jews. After WW2 the UN was established instead of the league of nations. okedem 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I see what you are saying. But just to clarify, did the native Arab people have any choice in the matter? The article makes it sound like they did not. Perhaps this should be specified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGW (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry! I forgot to sign.SGW 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're asking whether the Arabs were asked - "Hi, is it okay to establish a home for Jews here?", then - no, not really. Several plans were suggested, but the Arabs rejected them all (with worsening consequences for them).
I find it important to make it clear - There were quite a few Jews in Palestine, and the Arabs' "native" status is in dispute. Many Arabs came to Palestine in the last few centuries, just like Jews came. I'd also like to stress that the region was always under the control of some empire or the other, never a sovereign state, for some 2000 years (except for the relatively short-lived Kingdom of Jerusalem). The last time there was a free state of natives there was at the time of the Jewish Kingdoms (and at the time of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans). Just like Palestine's Arabs lived under Ottoman rule and British rule, many now live as Israeli citizens. okedem 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a bit more to it than there being quite a few Jews in the Palestine Mandate...the the areas designated for the Jewish state in 1948 were populated by a Jewish majority. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Going back to the initial few posts in this thread, I do not think it is correct to say that the area "belonged" to the UN, nor that the UN had actual authority to decide where the lines would be drawn. The partition plan was a proposal that was only accepted by one side (Israel), and in any event the borders of Israel were not determined by the partition plan. They were determined (at least temporarily, because they were really just armistice lines) by the outcome of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Also, if one is asking about "Arab approval" of the creation of Israel, one might also ask, did the Arabs in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem ask for Jordan to take over those areas and annex them? And the answer to that would be, of course, no. For that matter, one might also ask if the creation of Jordan and Iraq as kingdoms ruled by a family from what is now Saudi Arabia, or the conglomeration of different ethnic/religious areas into the single nation of Iraq (something that is still having consequences today), or the separation of Syria and Lebanon, had approval from the local populations. The answer to those would be "no" as well. Self-determination has not always been as highly valued as it is today. 6SJ7 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing that confuses me about this article is the lack of explanation for reason the estimated 700,000 refugees left Israel if in fact "‘Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel" were offered "full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions". This migration seems to be quite unprecedented in modern times and cannot be explained adequately with the argument that "they thought the Arabs armies would destroy Israel". If that were the case why would the Palestinians not stay and wait for their liberation like most perceived occupied people do. I think that claims relating to Arabs being fearful of massacres similar to that of Deir Yassim must be addressed. Also many Palestinians Christian and Muslim, Arab and European have put forth the claim that, Israelis (settler or military) forced them out of their homes at this time without compensation. These claims must be addressed in a factual manner and not simply ignored. Since neither claim is mentioned in this article, it has bias that will remain unresolved until such questions are addressed. Bored college student 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know what you learn in your college, but it is not history. The migration of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing because of was is not exactly "unprecedented". Just in the last 3 years over 2 million people fled Iraq. During the last Israel-Lebanon war, half a million Lebaneses fled the South of the country. Etc... This issue is in my eyes a complete non-issue. Each war creates refugees, sometimes they go back, sometimes no. Regarding the question of compensation for he refugees, I think Israel said that they will open the issue when the Arab countries will agree to pay compensations to the million Jews that fled from their countries, mainly to Israel. Benjil 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bored college student. I question the neutrality of this article as it seems quite biased against Arabs/Palestinians. Fugliesunited 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify: the article seems to have pro-Jewish bias, not necessarily anti-Arab bias. The article emphasizes the perpetual inhabitation of the land by Jewish peoples through the ages while not mentioning the same for Arab and non-Jewish people. Population figures throughout history would be helpful, specifically United Nations estimates from early 20th century. Also, the flight of Palestinian refugees from Isreal during the 1948 war is clearly biased with statements suggesting these migrations were willful or prompted and orchestrated by Arab leaders. We need some balance here. These suggestions are certainly far from neutral. There are many more problems with this article. I will try to comment further when time permits.Fugliesunited 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Benjil I would appreciate it if you would avoid patronizing remarks, and personal attacks and simply answer my questions. Yes war does create refugees, but not usually on the mass scale demonstrated in this case. Where as 700,000 might seem a small figure today we are dealing with 1948 numbers of a small country, currently Israel’s population is only 6-7 million. Furthermore, in both the refugee situations you site there was no significant ethno-demographic changes in the regions Lebanon's south remained largely shi'a as did Iraq. This is not the case for Israel where entire cities such as Jaffa, Ramlah, and Lydda/Lod had complete demographic shifts from vast Arab majorities to vast Jewish ones. I would just like a more balanced POV.Bored college student 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that all these educated/unbiased people have never heard of the Arab Higher Committee, who sent out the message that "Arabs should move their wives and children to a place of safety until the fighting is over", after which they would "share the wealth of the Jews"? IOW, they were not expelled; they left of their own accord on a gamble that did not pay off, and those who enticed them to leave have ever since refused to take care of the problem they helped create (I can't log in yet - Wikipedia hasn't sent me a new password, and they keep telling me the one I'm using is wrong)141.156.150.185 09:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Susan

I would just like to make it clear that the British empire never as such had Palestine as a type of colonial nation. it was given to Britain under after the first world war to establish peace, by the League of nations. The truth is that we British did have intrests in the area and we were not there soully for the purpose of keeping the peace, but that is why the League of nations put us there. Our control of Palestine was NOT for creating a state for the jews, this was only accepted by the U.N. around 1948 after numerous campaigns pre-war and after war by leaders such as Adolf Hitler (who of course did not care for Jewish welfare but wished the Jews to leave his country). Up until that point of around 1948 most of the Jews ariving in palestine were illegal immigrants, wishing for a safer home, which were only given permission to live in palestine because they were fast beginning to outnumber the arabs in some areas. After their legality was accepted zionist groups illegally (according to the U.N.) forced palestinians out of certain areas and eventually overtook part of Jerusalem (which is still considered illegal to this day). Im not saying the Jews didnt have a right to have a sanctuary, but the fact of the matter is that there was originally no outside campaigning for a state of Israel which would replace most of the Palestinians, although after the holocaust many nations felt it was unfair to prevent Jewish immigration to places such as Palestine where they could form large, protected, communities. Eventually the U.N. had to accept Israel as an independent nation, after we British left, because it was impractical to do anything otherwise, but there are still territories such as parts of Jerusalem which are illegally occupied. -S.M

You don't know what you're talking about. Establishing a country for the Jews was the stated goal of the mandate, and it was approved for that very purpose. Go read British Mandate of Palestine, and in the full text note the intro and article 4. okedem 09:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

User "RBWhite" has vandalized this page by changing the Israeli flag to the Nazi one. I've changed it back. Since I'm new here- what's the procedure on banning this guy? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages--Roy Frenkiel 11:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed it back. [1] Anyways, I've given him a warning on his talk page. The next time, it will be a stronger warning, and if he vandalizes again, someone reports him to WP:AIV, where administrators will block him. You might also want to read WP:VANDALISM. Good luck! · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of vandalism, will an admin please enact semi-protection for this page? It's under constant attack, mostly by anons and new users. okedem 13:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody wrote "Fuck Israel" and this needs to be fixed

I'm not an admin, but I don't think it's bad enough for protection. You can try WP:RfP though. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

I was just wondering if there is a section devoted to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, much like the United States is occupying Native American land. And also if there is a section devoted to how present-day Israel is a pseudo-country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.101.71 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it's right up there with the articles on how France is and always shall be the property of the Roman Empire. You would be well advised to leave extremist points of view away from Wikipedia.Schrodingers Mongoose 02:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that an extremist point of view? It's a valid point of view. Israel was established IN the land of Palestine. There's even a UN Resolution declaring Zionism as a form of racism, look it up if you don't believe me. I just want to get the facts straight so it doesn't seem like Israel is a country like the U.K., Germany, or Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.101.71 (talk • contribs)

First of all, please "sign" your talk page posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your message. Second of all, I was going to try to write some sort of response, but I think you fall under the definition of "troll" i.e. you are just trying to get people angry, and we're not supposed to respond to those. I do have a question for you though, if you live in the U.S., have you given your land back to the Native Americans yet? (And if you live elsewhere, as Schrodingers Mongoose suggests, similar questions could be asked. The U.K. and Italy were part of the Roman Empire as well, and before that they belong to other peoples. Germany was conquered multiple times as well. For that matter, long before the word "Palestine" was invented, there was a Kingdom of Israel, so how far do you want to go back? Wait, I'm responding...) 6SJ7 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, that resolution was rescinded years ago. okedem 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that anon's posts above are pretty "troll-ish" I suggest using less inflammatory language when making such editing suggestions. That said, I do agree that a section on the occupied territories would be very appropriate. How could such a section not be highly relevant to the topic of Israel? Also to answer Okedem's question about whether the U.S. has given land back to the Native Americans yet ... well actually yes the U.S. government has, albeit in an woefully inadequate fashion. There have been many court cases over the years with varying rewards and reparations to the Native American tribes for land taken from them. Can the same be said for the Palestinian land? Granted that is something left for a final peace settlement, but I don't see the Israeli government pursuing this reparation issue with much vigor. Also, the comparison between Israel and France, Italy, UK, Germany, and even the U.S. is not really fair. There is a huge difference in time. The Israeli occupation of the territories occurred within the last generation. The occupations you reference in Europe and the U.S., though equally unjust in my opinion, happened much further back in history. There are no people living today that directly experienced those occupations as opposed to the Palestinian territories which still contain many survivors.Fugliesunited 05:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
6SJ7 asked the question about the US, not I. This isn't the place to discuss the vigor with which Israel's government does this of that. I don't want to turn this into a general political argument. If you think you can write a section about the territories, and make it very NPOV, presenting only the bare facts (and making it short!), I won't object. I suggest you write it here first, where we can discuss it, and reach some agreement, before adding it to the article itself. okedem 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The great majority of UN resolutions on Israel have been very highly biased by the lobbying and pressure of certain states. That does not automatically make those resolutions based on false facts, but it doesn't legitimize them, either. The UN is created by humans, so it has human-like failings. The silence and inaction of the UN about the genocide in Darfur is a shining example of such failings. 91.153.144.149 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Remeber Israel is a tiny state, look at the size of the Arab world, I an glad to see the wikipedia using unbiased common sense.

--

EXCUSE me, how dare you even say such a thing "but I think you fall under the definition of "troll" i.e. you are just trying to get people angry".

According to the UN resolution, Israel was told to leave Palestinian land that they have occupied illegally, that is not a fib or a lie, it is a FACT. Secondly, name calling is so not appropriate, with power comes respect, something you haven't seemed to grasp as yet. Thirdly, I am absolutely in favour on a section which talks about the Occupation of Palestine, please do not deny it, i have bundles of sources and even news clips from various top new channels such as BBC, SKY NEWS about the resolution that Israel have denied to follow and repeatedly breach. Why is that other countries such as Iran, have been criticised for not following a UN resolution on its nuclear program, when Israel is ILLEGALLY occupying Palestine land and is also disregarding a UN resolution (is it, double-standards). I don't really feel biblical promises made to the Jews carry any weight in society today and therefore believe Israel has no reason for creating Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The Israelis have migrated in thousands to Palestinian land.


I also feel that you saying "you are just trying to get people angry" is totally beyond idiotic, have you heard of something called Freedom of Speech, i am quite sure no one is really going to get angry from reading non-bias information on the topic. Yes, you may argue that if it contain bias information, it is wrong, but the truth should not be hindered! If the truth offends people or makes them angry i don't care, the truth is the truth and can be sour but everyone has a right to know. Without the truth how can you honestly get a fair opinion on anything! This whole article has listed several facts about Israel in a good light, which are all true, however it lacks NPOV, and seems it is written by someone with an agenda, Please remember with the GOOD comes the BAD!!!


Coming to the point of the UN being bias! It may very well be bias but is there any mention of this, NO. If you start saying the UN is bias you are NOT giving the reader a NPOV, so the best thing to do is to point the facts, detach all your personal opinions, and people make their own minds up.


Israel have also had official complaints made against them about the treatment of Palestinian people, some of which can be called "War Crimes". Don't worry, i will write up the article very soon and provide very reliable sources which include elite professors in there respected fields along with top journalists from across the globe. I will hopefully expose the hidden truth, with adequate proof as i do not agree with of this one sided propaganda. ~~ STING

  • Look buddy, other people have said it but you don't seem to understand what's being said. Wikipedia is not a place for polemics and rants. What you've done above is turn this Article Talk Page into a discussion board. That's not what this is for. This article, thanks to the work of a number of dedicated editors, does conform to NPOV. Nearly every other sentence in the article is referenced, so I fail to see how you can claim that it's invalid. If you want to post here, leave the extremist complaints behind as those opinions get in the way of balance. Clearly there are a number of sides to any one issue, and having that input, from moderate people, has helped make this article successful. Also, putting 50 dashes at the end of your comment is just plain annoying. Sign with four tildes (ie. ~~~~). -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Is it not a discussion board? If i remember correctly i clicked on the "Discussion" tab to come to this page, and apart from "discussing" what am i doing wrong. I think this is the most fitting,page to make my comments (not complaints) to help improve this wiki for the benefit of the reader. I also do not have any "extremist complaints", there rational points, which do not include any "rants" of any sort. "Buddy" could you please read what i write carefully, i have not said one thing out of place. One other thing, i did not say this article had no NPOV, all the facts people have written are correct and i am not contesting them at all. But what i do want to see is a topic on the occupation of palestine, under a controveries heading and it here were i feel there is a one sided account given, as i said with the good comes the bad, which this article is not saying. Its funny how you call what i have written "extremist complaints", implying i must be an "extremist", very cowardly behaviour if i must say, you dont even know me. ~~STING


No. Before turning it into a discussion board, you can look at the very top, there's a template. It says:
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.

Do not use this page as a discussion forum. See talk page guidelines.

Hope that helps. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
i am not an anti-Semite, i am a human being who believe that the truth is not being told. but go ahead and label me a terrorist and an anti-Semite, because that is your ultimate weapon. Everyone who speaks the truth about Israel is a terrorist and an anti-Semite in the eyes of the Israel and sadly the world because of the mass propaganda. its all nazi-Germany all over again. Freedom of speech has lost, people fear of being called a terrorist and an anti-semite.

look at the sites!---STING 86.154.85.58 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Although STING is correct in his rant, it is still just a rant. Keep it on topic.


  • Everything is on topic, ive given video evidence, bbc new reports, pictures and videos. If you want me to post more i will. There should be a controversies section.STING86.154.85.58 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of Israel

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, I just wanted to note, that for some reason, the map of Israel presented in the main article doesn't note that the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are being occupied by Israel. I replaced it with a map that notes these facts. Jondr12 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The map you replaced it with is a 7Kb png file. If you click on it it doesn't get any bigger. I suggest making and svg file and have it shaded so that Israel proper, and the occupied territories are noted. Chikanamakalaka 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The map you're discussing is just meant to show Israel's location in the world. There is no need for shading of any disputed territory, and to avoid controversy it is best to just leave Israel's recognized territory in black. There's also no need for the file to be expandable to a large size given its limited purpose. There is a much larger map of the country with the disputed territories shaded in, located later in the article. Schrodingers Mongoose 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


It would seem to me that noting that there are disputed areas of a country within a map would fall within NPOV guidelines whereas not noting them could be viewed as POV. jankyalias 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would second that notion. This entire article glosses over essential facts regarding Israel's establishment, the distinctions in law and administrative practice regarding the land area and populations under its control, as well as completely ignoring the perspectives of its non-Jewish citizens who form over 20% of the population. For example, for the sake of "simplicity" or "neutrality", there is no mention that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1967 is still viewed as illegal under international law. Or that the annexations of the Golan and East Jerusalem are not recognized by the international community as legitimate. Everything that might cast Israel in a less than rosy light, is left out. The map should stay. and a whole lot of over things need to be added to balance the Zionist POV dominating this article. Tiamut 12:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I support a map which would show the disputed/occupied territories, in some different color. The current map is problematic, since it doesn't show Israel controls them, and it doesn't even show that Israel is in control of the Golan Heights - it just shows them as a part of Syria, contradicting the reality or Israeli control since 1967.
Tiamut - if you'll write a section about the territories, written in an NPOV manner, I would support it. okedem 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. The full-sized map of Israel half way down the page clearly shows the disputed territories and outlines their status. Why would we get fired upover a tiny map that exists solely to show where Israel is located? The mini-map does manage to indicate that the west bank is not part of Israel proper, which is really all that is reasonable at its size. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Minorities at Risk"

Latest comment: 17 years ago64 comments14 people in discussion

Joffeloff has requested a review of the reliability of "Minorities at Risk", source 32 on the page.

I've read the source, and agree with his remark. It contains numerous mistakes and half-truths:

  • "as a 1985 law has required that to participate in elections Arab parties must accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state" - The law forbids parties with a political platform opposed to Israel's nature as a "Democratic, Jewish state" from participating in the elections. Jewish - as that is the very reason for Israel's existence, and Democratic, as a democracy has the right to defend itself (lest it fall like some others - note the Weimar Republic). That law was actually used only once (as far as I can remember) - to prevent the ultra right-wing, Jewish extremist party Kach from participating.
  • "Arabs are barred from the military" - Crap. Unlike most Jews, most Arabs are exempt from conscription, but can still join if they want to - not that I can see why they'd want to. Many Jews find ways to evade conscription, and don't suffer any ill consequences. The small benefits given by the state are nothing compared to the fact that Arabs can work (or study) during the 2/3 years most Jews spend in the military (not getting paid). Some Arabs do serve in the military - like the Beduin.
  • "yet by established JNF policy, these lands can not be alienated to non-Jews." - The source fails to claim that the JNF was established as a private organization, collecting donations from world Jewry to purchase land for the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel/Palestine. Thus, most of its lands are privately-owned, not public lands (I say most, because some lands were given to it by the state). Anyway, the source is also outdated, as the issue has been largely resolved.
  • "...cultural organizations which openly promote Arab culture are prohibited" - That is just not true. I don't know how else to say this, but it's just false. Untrue, fallacious, erroneous.
  • "...for security reasons, in 2001 and 2002, the Government did not allow male Muslim citizens under 30 to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia)" - The source fails to mention that Saudi Arabia is formally an enemy state (of Israel).
  • "Arab Israelis married to Palestinians have long experienced difficulties in obtaining permits to get their spouses into Israel... prohibit residency permits to Palestinian spouses, therefore restricting the family life of Arab Israeli citizens" - Although rare, there are Jews married to Palestinians, and they experience the same difficulties. As Israel is currently at an armed conflict with the Palestinians, it's only reasonable it wouldn't allow Palestinians to receive permits to live in Israel.

This so-called source is extremely biased, and, in my view, should not be used. okedem 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the quote and the source, as there were no objections here. okedem 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I totally object to you removing that source. Please restore the quote so I don't have to. Tiamut 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As per your request, I've restored the text. Please address the points I've listed above. okedem 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point #1 the report says: "... Arabs are restricted from ... political organizing (POLIC496-03 = 1, as a 1985 law has required that to participate in elections Arab parties must accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state)." This is true. No party can participate in elections running on a platform of Israel as a secular state for all its citizens. The law has been used more than once to harass Arab politicians whose views challenge Zionism. Most recently in 2002 when MK Bishara was disqualified from running in the elections by the CEC, though the Supreme Court overruled the decision. In order to avoid further disqualifications, Bishara's party Tajammu has included reference to the Partition Plan resolution that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Other political movements that refuse to make such concessions and insist on a truly secular state cannot run in elections. This is constitutes a restriction on political rights.
A reasonable one, see the term Defensive democracy (You'll forgive me if I reply right after every one of the points, right? Seems more readable, maybe). okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point # 2 the actual text of the report says: "Tangible benefits in housing, employment, taxes, and education are provided by the government upon completion of military service, yet Arabs are barred from the military." It also says, "Although there is no official policy of discrimination, Arabs are restricted from military service (POLIC696-03 = 2)..." "Barred" and "restricted" are accurate terms - not any Arab can join the military, while for most Jews, it is compulsory and encouraged. That's a restriction or an obstruction or a hindrance. Look up the meanings of "barred" and "restricted" and you will see that they do not necessarily entail a total blockage. So while strong terminology, it is not inaccurate.
Well, the dictionary I consulted claims it means a complete restriction, but forget it. The army is nothing more than an obligation most Jews fulfill. Arabs should be glad they don't have to do it. It's no walk in the park. The so-called "tangible benefits" are pathetic, and don't compare to the fact that people who serve in the military, beside the risk of bodily harm, give 3 years (or 2 years for women), with almost no compensation. All the while others can work or study. This more than negates the few benefits of military service, but the source fails to mention that - here lies its bias. (By the way, I'd like to know of these "Tangible benefits in housing, employment, taxes, and education..." - nobody told me anything about it... I pay like anyone else. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point #3 the JNF is a quasi-private organization. It's complex relationship with the state remains a large bone of contention for the Arab community. It holds ownership over 12% of the land in Israel. Some 3% is owned by private Arab owners. The remainder is divided between the Israel Lands Administration (ILA) and the Regional Rural Councils. Half of the ILA body is made up of JNF members, so they influence enormous control over how Israel's land resources distributed. The report states that: "Additionally, the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organ of the voluntary, nongovernmental World Zionist Organization, owns a high percentage of Israeli land, and yet by established JNF policy, these lands can not be alienated to non-Jews." This is all true. How is this not true?
It should mention that these lands are *privately owned*, and so their owner can do whatever they wish with them. The ILA is not mentioned in the source. Also, it's a shame the source is outdated on this subject. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point #4 I agree that there is no all-out prohibition on operations of organizations that openly Arab culture, though I know of many people who have been invited to visit the Shabak for being involved in youth cultural groups that exhibit a proud sense of Arab identity and culture, without a similar love for the Israeli aspects of their identity. perhaps they meant to icnlude the word "some" somewhere in there?
I don't know what they meant to write, but what they did write is a bold lie. Even if the Shabak harasses some people (and I know they do), that's no prohibition, and certainly not compatible with what MAR wrote. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point #5 i don't think the report has to mention that Saudi Arabia is an "enemy state". Most people know that. I also don't think that jusitifies denying people the right to carry out religious pilgrimages. Even Iran, for example, allows Iranian Jews to visit Israel.
I don't think "most people know that". It's not like Syria, with which Israel fought several wars. Saudi-Arabia is an enemy state since 1948, and that completely justified preventing any travel to it, even if it's for pilgrimages. There's nothing special here. That's part of what "enemy state" means - no free travel. And the source doesn't even claim Israel always prevents such travel (though it does have a right to), but only for some people, for two years. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
point #6 i agree that the report might have mentioned the Jews that suffer from the new laws preventing people from bringing Palestinian spouses into Israel. They represent, however, a very very small number of people affected by the law. You opinion on whether it is justified or not is frankly irrevelant. The report judges the restriction against the requirements of international law and justice. The security needs of any state should never ne used to compromise the individual rights of freedoms of its citizens, including those most basic, like who we love and where we live. Perhaps that's idealistic to you, but it's pretty damn basic to me. Tiamut 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning only Arabs is also a manifestation of the source's bias, since it makes the reader think it's a law for Arabs only. The report doesn't seem to mention any "international law". Regardless of idealism, security is an important concern for every state, and states in open war with one another don't usually allow enemy citizens to resides within their territory. This is pretty basic stuff - you don't allow the enemy to come live in your country. Making it seem like it's some sort of Israeli idea is even more bias - this is what warring parties do, whether we like it or not. okedem 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over the source, as well as the discussion above, I strongly agree it should be removed. Its bias is clear. Schrodingers Mongoose 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There are many sources quoted throughout this article that have a strong pro-Zionist, pro-Israel bias. This is one of the very few sources that challenges that deliberately filtered consensus. I refuse to stand by and let a straw-man argument result in this source being expurgated from the article, simply because it does not match the strong Zionist POV evident throughout the article. WP:NPOV is not about exclusing sources that have a POV, it's about providing balance. This is one of the few sources that balances out the "rah-rah Israel" information here. Please respect that there are a diversity of views on Israel that should be represented here. Tiamut 09:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, this source is not only biased, it lies! You can't balance one side with another's lies. This disqualifies it from being a source, and I would say the same for any "pro-Israel" source. okedem 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Falashas we are Jews too you know, 46% of Israelis dion't want us as neighbours, there must be some mention.

Bored college student 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)== Liberal Democracy (consolidated discussion) ==

(The following was previously under the "Minorities At Risk" discussion)

Okedem. We have been through this kind of thing before. To me, the Freedom House source is disreputable and inaccurate. It fails to mention that Turkey is in the Middle East and that Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy. It represents a given viewpoint that is contentious, but it made the grade for this article. You approved its inclusion despite the many concerns raised by myself and others. The MAR source may pose similar problems from your POV, but that does not mean it should be excluded as a source here. The requirements of balance under WP:NPOV mandate that it be included here. If you insist on having it removed, I will find other sources that support the same position; i.e. that Israel is an "ethnic democracy"; however, I am quite sure that you will try to find some reason to disqualify that article from inclusion since it will contradict the POV that Zionism and Israel are blameless paragons of Jewish democracy and a beacon unto all nations - a view this article clearly attempts to convey by excluding any information or analysis that belies that image. Tiamut 10:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you want a fight or a discussion?
Does Freedom House lie? Does it say things which are false? Because MAR does, and even you seem to recognize that. It also goes out of its way to make Israel look bad, which always amazes me - Israel really does enough bad things one can report, without having to make stuff up.
The Middle East has a foggy definition, and Turkey anyway isn't a liberal democracy. Lebanon certainly isn't one - when the position you can fill depends on your sectional identity, that's no real democracy. If you'll remember, I was actually against the whole "the only liberal democracy" thing in the lead.
I don't see what "straw-man" has to do with this. The source is not credible, as it lets its bias influence its findings, and it contains patently false information. If you can find a respectable source to replace it, please do. okedem 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be replaced, but if you're going to insist on disqualifying it as a source, here are others:

Arab-Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha once acknowledged that “Israel is considered a western democracy by the Jewish elite, including the Zionist left, as well as by mainstream Israeli social scientists and western scholars…”, but he took issue with that description, instead describing Israel as an “ethnic democracy”. He writes: “Israel is a diminished ethnic democracy and not a liberal democracy because the state recognizes ethnic groups, and not just individuals. It is neither a liberal nor a multicultural democracy because it makes the Jews a core ethnic nation and the Arabs non-core outsiders. It imposes separation between Arabs and Jews through the law of religious marriages, making intermarriages infrequent and illegitimate (but recognizable by law). Israel lacks a national identity of its own that is shared by all of its citizens, and instead of treating all citizens equally, it privileges the Jews. The state is explicitly partial, serving as the homeland of all Jews in the world, not impartially catering to all its citizens regardless of ethnic origin.” [2] His work has since become mainstream in western academia and the view that Israel is an "ethnic democracy" is shared by academics like Ezra Kopelowitz, [3], Yoav Peled [4], Assad Ghanem [5], journalists like Jonathan Cook [6] and Ori Nir [7], and NGOs like MAR. Tiamut 13:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is just the POV of Samy Smooha, who is a far-left activist. And I never heard of any of the other people you mention. You want to know what my grand-father thinks also ? Who cares. We are speaking of facts, not the opinion of some people. The facts you provide are wrong as established before. Benjil 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but it looks like you need to go back and read policy here. WP:NPOV is not about excluding sources whose POVs you disagree with. It's about providing the totality of views and letting the reader decide for themself. I don't understand why you are so threatened by facilitating access to the wide variety of opinions on the status of Israel's democracy. It is a matter of contention and not black and white, right and wrong as you try to pretend above. It is a fact that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. It is a fact that it has non-Jewish citizens, some 20% of the population, that are not considered to be part of the Jewish people. Don't you think this has some implications for democracy? Don't states that define themselves is exclusionary terms vis a vis segments of their population have a tendency to discriminate against those outside the fold? Can't you admit that the description "liberal democracy" fails to fully account for this reality? Or at least, can't you admit that others are entitled to think so and have their views represented here? Tiamut 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. This isn't a place for "views", but for facts. The source is question presents few facts, a lot of views, and very little substantiation. More importantly, it is outright dishonest in places and clearly has a POV that borders on extremist. So again, no, I don't believe everyone's views should be represented here, any more than I believe the views of someone who says the earth is flat should be seriously represented on the page about the Earth. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the same could be said of describing Israel as a "as the only Liberal Democracy" in the region. This is not a fact, but also POV. So in order to attain NPOV, the article must be balanced presenting all substantial points-of-view. This article does not do that. I personally think it would be best to remove the contentious items altogether than the difficult task of balancing the views. Why not simply remove the reference to "Liberal Democracy" and avoid the debate about what kind of democracy Israel has. Fugliesunited 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Liberal Democracy" is a well-defined term. There is only one country in the Middle East that follows its principles. This isn't POV. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, this is an issue ruled upon by expert RS like Freedom House, which demands a counter-claim of equal weight to merit an appearance here. TewfikTalk 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest that "Liberal Democarcy" is not a well-defined term. I am saying that calling Israel a "Liberal Democracy" is POV. Whether "Israel is the only country in the Middle East that follows its principles," this is open to debate and certainly not a settled matter. As such, using the term is contentious and needs to be balanced, or simply left out altogether. I prefer the latter (including removing the MAR). Will the article be so diminished by simply stating "Israel is a democracy" without qualifying which flavor of democracy is practiced? I think most people here could agree with that simple statement. Fugliesunited 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, despite many people having shared your view, there is a small core of extremist editors here that will not accept such a formulation. We have had this entire debate. The MAR info was offered as a counter-balance to the Freedom House opinion that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Many took issue with that formulation and another POV was brought in to balance it out. Now they are trying to remove it and despite all the other sources I have offered to replace the MAR quote, none has been incorporated. I fully agree with your position and would like to re-open that debate as well. Tiamut 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree that simply stating "Israel is a democracy" is a neutral statement? If so, we should remove the "ethnic" or "liberal" democracy labels. Fugliesunited 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair. In addition to the various problems with MAR listed above, it only makes reference to "ethnic democracy" as an aside, and not to the exclusion of Israel being a "liberal democracy". It seems okay to include it as a differing opinion in the "Government" section, but it is not a source of equal quality to the Freedom House country report, and shouldn't be a reason for removing their conclusion. TewfikTalk 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is unfair, the statement "Israel is a democracy" or the removal of the "ethnic" and "liberal" democracy language? Can you please tell me where to find Freedom House's conclusion that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy"? I read their report and could only find their ranking of Israel as "Free" (Israel 2006: Political Rights - Score 1, Civil Liberties - Score 2). I could not find any mention of "Liberal Democracy" in that report. Could you please confirm the attribution and tell me where I can verify it? Fugliesunited 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Without getting involved in what is clearly an argument that is not going to be resolved without mediation, a quick look at User:Fugliesunited's Contributions would lead one to believe that we have a sock/meat puppet on our hands. Feel free to prove me wrong and I'd be happy to apologize, but the evidence seems to be fairly clear... -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain to me what you mean by sock/meat puppet? I can't prove you wrong until I know what you are accusing me of. Fugliesunited 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Freedom House does call Israel an "electoral democracy," an honor it denies to, for instance, Lebanon. I don't see that we should account this as being equivalent to "liberal democracy." john k 06:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see now what you are accusing me of (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). Funny. Why is it so clear to you that I am somebody's multiple Wikipedia account? I would be happy to prove you wrong, but that's like asking me to prove that I am not Santa Claus. Maybe since you are the one throwing these accusations, you should provide the evidence that you so clearly see. So unless you can do that, I do think you should apologize. Also, if seeking mediation is the only way to introduce neutrality here, then I welcome it. I was hoping that I could appeal to people's sense of neutrality instead, but apparently not without these baseless personal attacks. Fugliesunited 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhhhh, maybe you missed it, but I did provide evidence. Your contribution list is very suspicious. Your first contribution was on the 15th, right when this discussion was starting, and since then you have only contributed to Israel related articles. I'm only saying, it's quite suspicious set of coincidences. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is silly and I'm sorry I even responded to this personal attack. Chabuk, you are free to think what you wish, but please stop distracting from the discussion here and let us focus on the true issues. If you have problems with me, feel free to report me to the WP authorities or leave something on my talk page.

Now to get back to the issue, it appears that the "Minorities At Risk" section has been completely removed from the article since I was here last. That is fine with me, but the references to "Liberal Democracy" need to be cleaned up also. I see people have already started doing. Hopefully we'll be able to strip out all contentious POV (both pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian) and get this article to be more neutral than it currently is. Fugliesunited 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


(The following was previously under the "Contentious statement" discussion)


I wasn't fond of the inclusion of the phrase "liberal democracy" -- a nebulous and self-serving descriptor -- before this edit, but labelling Israel the "only democracy" in the "Middle East" is absurd and unacceptable. Alyoshenka 06:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why ? Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, I can't really understand what is wrong with saying it. Benjil 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian territories are democratic to varying degrees of effectiveness and efficiency. This is not to mention that there is no academic consensus on the phrase "democracy" or what constitutes one; "democracies" come in many forms. It is untrue and tendentious at best to label Israel the "only democracy" in the "Middle East." Alyoshenka 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you don't clearly understand what "democracy" means. There are different forms of democracies, but regimes where there is only one party (Egypt), where the power is divided according to a religious and ethnic key (Lebanon), where the power is in the hand of the king (Jordan) - are not democracies, by definition. Regarding the Palestinian territories, they have relatively free elections, but they lack all the other criteria, like an independent judiciary, a free press, etc... and anyway they are in such a state of anarchy that even speaking of political regime is irrelevant. Benjil 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are appealing to a "definition" which does not exist. Democracies do not require "independent judiciaries" or a "free press" -- they do not even need to follow the traditional nation-state model. Egypt is nominally and, in part, practically a multi-party state; the Lebanese political system is irrelevant to its developed democratic features and Jordan, like the United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy. Many more states and Middle Eastern authorities concert with the features of democracy as described by Wikipedia.
You should start by reading your own sources: "The definition of democracy is simple, the rule of the people". That is not the case in *any* of the countries you cited. Bogus elections and candy-eye constitutions are not enough. Benjil 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Before this discussion becomes embroiled in semantics, I would like to emphasise that the inclusion of this statement is unacceptable and will be removed until a source is provided. Alyoshenka 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but what "source" ? Israel is a democracy ? There is not another democracy around ? So that's easy. Benjil 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the idea that Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast is taught in Camp Kutz, or at least it was whrn I was there at the NFTY Leadership Academy. Not that it's notable at all, just an interesting aside. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the only mid-eastern country, besides Israel, that can lay claim to the title "Democracy", might be Lebanon. Egypt in a dictatorship, where the sole ruler is planning to transfer power to his son. Jordan is a monarchy, and completely unlike the UK. They don't pretend to be a democracy. The king holds the power. The PA is not a democracy, because it's not a country, only a somewhat autonomous region (barely). Lebanon comes closer, though it's community based government is hardly compatible with the meaning of Democracy.

Saying Egypt or Jordan are democracies is as ridicules as believing the DDR was a democracy, because its name said so. However, since this is a nebulous issue, I don't want the "only democracy" thing in the lead, also because some consider Turkey to be in the middle east, and it is a democracy. I support the previous title, "the only liberal democracy", as it truly differentiates between Israel and its neighbors. okedem 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey and Lebanon (especially the former) are enough to rule out the "only democracy" phrasing. As for "liberal democracy", many would object to "liberal", as Israel has no proper constitution, only partial protection of civil rights, and almost no protection of minority rights. I think that for the lead, "parliamentary democracy" is informative enough, and yet perfectly factual.--Doron 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use the absurd constitution argument. A constitution is not a prerequisite for a liberal democracy - for instance, the UK don't have one. I also don't really see the point in the "minority rights" claim. Can you elaborate on why this is different from civil rights?
What civil rights aren't protected? I think Israeli law is quite good at this. okedem 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of the controversy, even within Israel, if not I'll provide references. The United Kingdom article's lead describes it as a constitutional monarchy. What's wrong with "Parliamentary democracy"? Why not choose a widely-accepted description?--Doron 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. (we had a long discussion about the lead a while ago, where some folks really wanted the "only" statement. I don't really mind either way.) okedem 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


(The following was previously under the "Is it acceptable to use bogus sources in this article?" discussion)


Please have a look at this edit. I deleted the sequence about Israel being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. My reason for doing so is that the given source does not support the claim, and thus is a bogus. However, it has been reverted two times. As I have a hard time imagining anyone defending use of bogus sources I urge all to keep an eye on this. I am aware that the given viewpoint is widely held, and would not oppose it being included in the article, but then we need to find a verifiable source. Bertilvidet 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


(Please continue discussion about "Liberal Democracy" here.)


The main article now describes Israel's democracy as a "Parliamentary Democracy". I agree with this designation. I believe this is a neutral way of describing Israel's governmental structure and avoid the problems with POV and neutrality. I feel that qualifying the democracy as "Liberal" or "Ethnic" or "the only Democracy" will only detract from the NPOV of this article. Fugliesunited 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I will make this as quick, short, and simple as I can. "1) To me, the Freedom House source is disreputable and inaccurate." And my ask, who are you to consider them disreputable? Because they do not agree with what you believe? They do extensive, and i mean EXTENSIVE, I repeat: EXTENSIVE research annually, every year and publish a report measuring democracy and freedom every year. 2) There is no such thing as an "ethnic democracy". No such thing. Yes okay, you read about it. It means nothing. It is an unsubstanciated coined term that belongs in a poem. What about Azmi Bishara's acknowledgement of democracy? "Give us back Palestine and take your democracy with you..." They both essentially mean nothing, and by nothing I mean nothing at all whatsoever. You are adding a lot of opinion about Zionism, Israel, other things which is just plainly irrelevant and frankly WP:OR. Next, you say that they discredit Turkey as a democracy or say that Turkey is in the Middle East and Freedom House doesnt consider it as such. Lets look at this closely: 1) Turkey is considered in Western Europe as per FH probably due to its membership to the Western European and Others Group in the United Nations. Let's pretend that FH did include Turkey in the Middle East. If that were so, Israel would STILL be considered the only liberal democracy since Turkey is only an electoral democracy. Please (I said this a hundrend times already) read the difference. Now let's say Lebanon is in the picture. The fact that Lebanon has a parliament does not necessarily make them a) a parliamentary democracy, b) an electoral democracy, or c) a liberal democracy. According to Freedom House, which is what Wikipedia uses and is beyond reliable, Israel is the only liberal democracy. In order to make that a dispute, one would have to bring on another source that measures up to Freedom House, because as of now, a couple of articles written by a couple of journalists means nothing. It is Freedom House who accurately assesses what is freedom and what is democracy. --Shamir1 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Also, Tiamut, review WP:Notability. I remind you to leave out personal opinion, WP:Original research as well as unreliable sources (including articles by journalists who are expressing their own opinion). If you are interested in what hinders Lebanon of its status as a true democracy, you can review its country report. What I strongly encourage you to do is to read Freedom House's overview, which gives a very decent explanation of what it all is and is not. It explains terminology and how/what is measured. --Shamir1 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear - the Freedom House source never claims that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy." The Freedom House report only ranks "freedom" and scores Israel as 1 & 2 (out of 7) for political freedom and civil liberties respectively. Nowhere in the report does Freedom house use the term "Liberal Democracy." Those are the facts. Some people here are interpreting the report to mean that Israel is a "Liberal Democracy," but this is a conclusion not explicitly supported by the source. In addition, the description "Liberal Democracy" is obviously contentious in light of the many objections that have been raised.

So to the point: Is "Parliamentary Democracy" a sufficiently neutral description or not? Please answer this question. Remember, we are trying to achieve neutrality here. We should avoid terminology and language that is contentious or raises questions about POV. Fugliesunited 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not done enough research. Please read here and here. They say that Israel is the only 'Free' country, which means per their methodology a liberal democracy. A country rated as free denotes that it is a liberal democracy. Not only is Israel the only the only free country in the represented region, but no other country is even an electoral democracy. That is pointed out explicitly. They write that Israel is the *only* one to be "Free", and as well as the *only* electoral democracy. According to them this is what 'Free' means: "In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies." And yes, neutrality. Because one user does not like it does not make it untrue that Freedom House has surveyed the world. And even if the "ethnic democracy" shananigans was actually taken seriously, there is nothing to say that an "ethnic democracy" cannot be a liberal democracy, one does not necessarily cancel the other out. Please be real. --Shamir1 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all I have no problem with the claim that Israel, excluding the West Bank and Gaza, is a liberal democracy by most standards. However, I am not sure whether or not it is the only liberal democracy and was wondering if someone could clarify a few questions I have relating to liberal democracy. First are liberal democracies exclusively Free countries on the Freedom house web site or are there some countries that are listed as partly free that meet the liberal democracy criteria. The reason I ask is because Lebanon, according to freedom house has a parlementary government that ever since the end of the Syrian occupation has managed resonably fair elections. Aside from foreign interloping, keeping Lebanon from free status is corruption, gerrymandering and disproportionate representation. All of which, exist, albeit on a smaller scale, in the United States, as was made obvious with the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Texas redistriction controversy and the fact that dispite African Americans make up roughly 12.9% of the population according to the US census they hold only 1% of seats in the Senate and 9% of US congressial seats. Is there a threshold at which these problems make a country not a liberal democracy? The reason I think this is relavent is because many have claimed that Israel is the only Liberal electoral democracy in the Middle East and I'm not sure whether that is true or not. I do not want to argue one way or the other I would just like some clarification on this point. ThanksBored college student 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can answer your questions.

  • FH's term "Free" is their word for liberal democracy as they explain on their terminology page. Only free countries are liberal democracies and only liberal democracies are free.
  • Lebanon does have a parliament although there are factors that strain it from being fully democratic. Off the top of my head I recall reading about voting and other matters in Lebanon.
  • A liberal democracy is a type of electoral democracy. All free and some partly free nations are considered electoral democracies. Turkey is the only electoral democratic Muslim nation.
  • Corruption is noted. As for the race issue, there is a lower percentage than there should be proportionally, but that does not have to do with our voting system or the democratic structure of the U.S. FH did however applaud Israeli PM Ariel Sharon for making it a rule to that each party have an Arab cabinet member (something like that), but that did not affect the rating. Free countries must meet a certain criteria described on Freedom House's Freedom in the World website. --Shamir1 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


If this issue should ever come about again, take this into account. One may assume that those who would most aggressively criticize Israel as a democracy would be the Palestinian Arabs. A Ramallah based think tank found that Palestinians consistently rate Israel's democracy more positively than any other given nation, rating it even higher than the United States and France.[8] --Shamir1 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification I appreciate it. One tiny thing though Turkey is the only Middle Eastern Muslim nation to have an electoral democracy but Indonesia, Mali and Senegal are non-Middle Eastern Muslim nations that meet that criteria but this is just me being OCD. Again I really do appreciate your explanation. Thanks Bored college student 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion I noticed people claiming that lebanon is not a 'true' democracy because it is ruled partially by quota of memebers of different ethnic groups. The point I have to say on this is that this is the case in most democracies (or what like to be termed as) such as my country, the U.K., there is a system of choosing those from ethnic groups (somewhat disregarding qualifications in a few cases) so as to fufill government quotas for asians or blacks to be employed in certain jobs (increasingly this is case with employment into the political system). This does not mean we are not a democracy, mearly that we are choosing to favour those who were in the past unfavoured. It is somewhat unfair, but on the other hand acts as a type of power compensation. This is much more prominent in Lebanon where the ethnic groups are each strictly represented by numbers, but the same idea could be used to be carried here, the fact that each group is proportionally represented means that each minority (and the people in it) really do have a democracy, in quite a fair form. The problem with this is, is that when the groups disagree things rarely happen and power of the government is often limited, however in a true democracy this is a way should be the case (although it is not what Lebanon needs). The government must be very carefull not to unbalance one group and let a war form, and as the groups often disagree the power of individual people over what happens is often limited, but this is a sense is a better example of democracy, where everyone is fairly represented, than Israel which may not be deemed a democracy because practically 20% of the population (as well as some disliked jewish groups) are not represented. What I trully intend to say is that a democracy is a country where people can elect their leader, and be fairly rperesented in a parlimentary system, lebanon fufills these perammeters, Israel does not, therfore it is not right for someone to write like Israel is a bastion of democratic hope in a dark undemocratic middle east.-R.A .

This isn't the place, but I'll reply anyway. You are very misinformed, it seems.
Firstly, about Lebanon - we're not talking about some affirmative action in government jobs. We're talking about representation in the Parliament - the very thing that defines a democracy. In Lebanon the parliament does not truly represent the people. Each ethnic group gets a certain percentage of the seats in the parliament, and that percentage is very different from their actual percentage of the population (for example - Christians get 50% of the seats - but they're only 40% of the population; Shi'a Muslims are 35% of the population - yet they only get 21% of the seats. See Politics of Lebanon) . Additionally, the position a person can fill in the top (President, PM, deputy PM and Speaker of the house) is determined by his ethnic membership - A Christian, for example, can never be prime minister. These characteristics are far from the principles of democracy. Happily, the UK is nothing like that, neither is any other western democracy.
And about Israel - All Israeli citizens have the right to vote. Israeli Arabs vote too, and there are 4 Arab parties in the Israeli parliament, as well as several Arab MPs from other, mainly Jewish parties. There's even an Arab minister in the current govenment, Raleb Majadele. Sure, integration is slow, but to claim Arabs aren't represented? That's just baseless, and misleading. okedem 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for posting in the wrong area, im kind of new to actually posting comments and I clicked on the wrong edit. Anyway Okedem what you wrote about my comment being misleading is correct, I should have specified what I meant, I was quite vague. I know the representation in lebanon is not perfectly proportional or perfectly fair (I was just generalising, which I admit is not a good thing to do when commenting on circumstances like these), and I criticised the weakness of the government myself. However, although the representation of the minorities is not always great it would be a lie to say that Lebanon was not a liberal democracy in the sense that is argued in favour of Israel here. I'm not arguing for democracy, in many cases it is weak, and often does not work (e.g. Iraq) it cannot be imposed, a country must want to have democracy, this is the problem with Lebanon, many of the groups in it wish only for their leadership to come out on top. Ultimately, however, all the groups in Lebanon ARE represented in one way or another (possibly not completly preportional, but none are ignored) and its not like the christians can afford to take no notice of groups such as Hezbollah, lest another civil war occur. The government has to keep a delicate balancing with all of the groups, and this ultimately involves listening to what they are saying. Sure the government feels the country's policy should be ruled by statisic percentages of every faction, but ultimately it is a democracy because everyone in the country IS fairly represented and can vote, it is a coalition, it may not be a good democracy but this does not mean it is not liberal. You gave me examples of arab parties in Israel and one arab government minister (trophy employee?). This does nto mean that the arab people are fairly represented, any arab party that adresses the fact that there was once a country full of now displaced people underneath Israel is immediately labeled extremist before they open their mouths. As long as the arabs toe the line they are allowed some representation in an area of land that was originally theirs. Im not saying Israel is illegitimate or ligitimate, I'm saying its here and that issuues should not be hidden but confronted. The fact is only arab parties that accept Israelm and Israeli doctrine are allowed to represent their people, which effectively take away the little power they were expected to have. Basically the democracy in Israel consists of Israeli parties, and arab parties which cannot negotiate anything meaningful for themselves, its a democracy for the arabs as long as they dont disagree with the government, which means it isnt a democracy, for them at least. My point is that Lebanon is a liberal democracy but its kind of in tatters, it dosent make it any less of a democracy, everyone can vote for the parties that represent them, all which have considerable clout, in Israel the arab parties are basically neutered. And anyway, at the end of the day does being a democracy make it a civilised and good country? No? then why is its democracy and other elements stemming from it mentioned in this article as if it makes Israel the best country in the middle east.-R.A

Lebanon - I'm sorry, but when the number of seats in Parliament is determined not by the results of the election, but is pre-determined according to ethnic groups - that's not a democracy. The whole point of democracy is a majority rule, while protecting minorities. Since the numbers don't represent the actual reality, you don't have majority rule. Just having some representation isn't a democracy.
Israel - The demand from Arab parties is that they agree to Israel being a Jewish and Democratic country. This is called "Defensive Democracy", where a country has to "limit" democratic freedom to protect its very essence. Israel sole reason for existing is to be a home for the Jewish people, so that's obvious; and obviously a democracy can't let un-democratic parties operate.
"there was once a country full of now displaced people underneath Israel" - What country was that, tell me? The last time there was an independent country there was the Crusader Kingdom, and before that - the Jewish state, after the rebellion against Rome. No Arab country. Of course Israel can't allow parties which act against its very existence - would any other country allow such activities? Be aware, that actually, the MPs from the Arab parties hold considerably more extreme views than their public, so you really can't say Israel only allows puppets, or whatever. The claim of "in Israel the arab parties are basically neutered" is just completely untrue, and if you knew more about Israel you'd know that. I think if the Arab MPs truly represented their public, there would have been an Arab minister years ago, and participation of Arab parties in the various coalitions. Is Israel perfect? No, but it is a liberal democracy, even if it's a flawed one.
That's enough for me, and this page isn't the place for such discussions. Hope you have a good day. okedem 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a slight problem with the "Palestine was never a Country" Argument I am going to take a leap of faith here and assume by country you mean "Nation-State” With a few exceptions in North America, Western Europe and East Asia there were no Countries/Nation-States 200 years ago most areas of the were Controlled/inhabited either Traditional Empires, Colonial Empires, City states or Stateless Societies. Nation-states are a relatively new Phenomena however they usually reflect the peoples that lived there in times before the organization of such Nation States Israel is an exception to this (I know 2000 years ago Judea existed, as a Roman Provence similar to Palestine as an Ottoman one, but most of the world is not inhabited by the people that lived there 2000 years ago, otherwise we would see a lot more Celts, Grecians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Harrapins, Ainu, Native Americans, Goths, Non-Bantu Equatorial Africans and Aborigines.) With this said possession is 9/10 of the law, Israel is there, and creating other fanciful historical excuses really is not necessary. Heck most American schools and colleges I know of teach that we took Native American land through wars and chicanery. That’s the way the world works, like it or not, and the reason why there are so few peoples from 2000 years ago still around but I digress. How this arugment showed up on a page about liberal democracy is really confusing though. Bored college student 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read a few comments up, you'll see that I was answering a claim, "there was once a country full of now displaced people underneath Israel", which is just plain false, the kind of mis-information some folks are trying to spread to help their cause. I'd like to stick with facts, and so I correct plainfully false statements such as that. okedem 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did read that and what I am trying to say is that the arguments you and he use are using are both incomplete. First while Palestine never was a Nation-state the Palestinians are a nation, because Palestinians are distinct from other peoples in the region, such as the Turks, Lebanese and Syrians. Second it is well documented in the Wikipedia article and from other sources that 700,000 est. Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 war. This is the "country" full of displaced people he is talking about and while it is not a "country" that does not mean there are not displaced people.Bored college student 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there aren't displaced people. I'm not going to argue about who's guilty for their situation, or whether or not they're "a people".
I'm just trying to make sure no one reads this page and comes off believing there was a country called Palestine. The previous comment may have been in good faith, but some pro-Palestinians spread the propaganda as if there was a country here, and the evil Jews came with their big guns and took it away. So I'm making this clear - no country here, since the Jews. okedem 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"So I'm making this clear - no country here, since the Jews." is exactly the reason I said I do not buy the "Palestine was never a country argument”. While technically correct it is misleading. Until 1945 India was never a country either, and until 1860 there was no country of Italy. Just because there was no country does not mean there was nothing there the mythical "land without a people". Palestine existed as much in the same way Italy and India did prior to the establishment of nation states which is to say there were Indians, and Italians but they lived under various Empires and fiefdoms and did not just poof into existence on the establishment of their states. You make it seem like the Jews left after the Roman reprisals of 70 AD the land went dormant and they came back in the 20th century. THAT is misleading the fact of what happened (without getting into details) is there were Palestinians, and a Jewish minority, then there was the 1948 war in which the Israelis were victorious and the Palestinians were displaced. (Not going to argue the reasons on this one) Victorious Israel would not let the Palestinians back and re-settled the former Palestinian owned lands with Jewish immigrants. My main argument here is that yes there was no Country of Palestine, however, there was an a Palestinian entity in the area in various non-nation state forms, such as an imperial province, mandates and governorates, and that simply claiming that there was "no country here, since the Jews" without acknowledging Palestinian habitation may be technically correct, but it is highly misleading and fails to recognize the not nation-state entities that existed prior to the Establishment of Israel in which the Palestinian people resided.Bored college student 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Status of Israel's capital Jerusalem is disputed

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments11 people in discussion

Hi all, why do we not mention in the lead that the status of Israel's capital is actually disputed? [9][10] Thanks. Yas121 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first source is a Canadian court - which has no bearing on reality, and your second source - is nothing but a wikipedia mirror.
Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Go through the archives for all the arguments about it, but it is the capital, de facto and de jure, and a country doesn't need anyone's approval to appoint a capital city.
If you wish, we can remove that tiny remark ("Its capital is Jerusalem"), as that was only added a few days ago, and the capital is already listed, with a proper footnote, in the info-box on the right. okedem 17:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK sure. I agree :-) Yas121 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually, as far as I know, no other country recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Tel Aviv is the internationally recognized capital. Note: I may be wrong and so begin the hunt for sources. Jankyalias 12:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong. Tel Aviv is not recognized as Israel's capital. It is just where most (not all) the embassies dwell. In fact, most countries don't really know what to do on the issue so they leave Israel without a capital. Not that it changes anything to the fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital on the ground. Benjil 13:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what a country's capital is is an issue for other countries to recognize. It is a matter of a) self-declaration; and b) actual location of government. By both those criteria the capital is at Jerusalem. john k 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be important if the country's chosen capital is in part under dispute/occupation. The fact that the rest of the world (with the exception of a few allies) does not recognize a country's capital is worth noting, since it's not that common (and therefore obviously worth noting) when it comes to democracies. (85.228.66.50 12:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Do you think it would be a fair compromise to word it as "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and de facto capital"? Cigrainger 09:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're confusing de facto and de jure. What you mean to say is that is it is the de jure capital, but it is in dispute. But I disagree anyway; Argue all you want, but Jerusalem is where the seat of government is. 68.252.95.127 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


But isn't the fact that most nations have their embassies in Tel Aviv in itself a noteworthy point, worthy of a mention in the article? Epeeist smudge 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so because Tel Aviv is the location of the former capitol and it stands to reason that all the foreign embassies would be located in that city. Jerusalem is the capitol and there's no indication that this will change. -- Jtpaladin 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that the connection between capitol and seat of goverment is quite arbitrary. It's not a given. Point in fact: the capitol of the Netherlands is Amsterdam, while its seat of government is in the Hague. And nobody disputes Amsterdam's status as capitol for this reason, or any other reason for that matter. Vodyanoi 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1948 War of Independence and migration

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

I question the NPOV of this statement:

Some Israeli historians suggest that the Palestinians fled because of orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return.[16]

Besides being rather biased, the source for this doesn't appear to be particularly credible. It cites a NY Post article from 1948 written by "Observer". Reading this apparent primary source clearly shows that the source itself is biased. Also, the article is from the Immanuel Velikovsky website, which in itself should raise some questions about neutrality (IV is not known for his neutral and objective stance). Fugliesunited 07:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with quoting an Israeli hitorian and saying that this is the opinion of an Israeli historian.
However, there is no shortage of evidence that this was the case. Would you find it less objectionable if the source were changed? While the Jewish Community Relations council is not exactly unbiased, it quotes Edward Atiyah, the Secretary of the Arab League Office in London in 1953 as saying:

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks

before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country.”

I m dude2002 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which only proves that the Jewish Community Relations council is not a reliable source. Atiyah continues: "But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin. There were two good reasons why the Jews should follow such a policy. First, the problem of harbouring within the Jewish State a large and disaffected Arab population had always troubled them. They wanted an exclusively Jewish state, and the presence of such a population that could never be assimilated, that would always resent its inferior position under Jewish rule and stretch a hand across so many frontiers to its Arab cousins in the surrounding countries, would not only detract from the Jewishness of Israel, but also constitute a danger to its existence. Secondly, the Israelis wanted to open the doors of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration. Obviously, the fewer Arabs there were in the country the more room there would be for Jewish immigrants. If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them. And this is exactly what happened." --Zerotalk

The implications here seem a bit problematic. Palestinians left the war zone, certainly. I wouldn't be surprised if they generally believed that the Arab armies would be victorious and they would be able to return. But is there any reason to think that they didn't think they would also be able to return in the instance that the Arab armies were defeated? The implication of putting it this way is that, by leaving the scene of an ongoing war, these civilians were somehow active partisans, and thus deserved what they got (dispossession). The claim that they left because Arab generals ordered them to makes this implication even worse. On the whole, I'd say that this article is an overview. It is not an article on the 1948 War, or even one on the history of Israel. The exact motivations of the flight of Arab civilians is not really appropriate to this article, as any brief statement is likely to tend more towards one side or the other. I'd prefer to just mention that Arab civilians fled during the war, without getting into motivations. john k 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Benny Morris's book 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians deals with this question in some depth and debunks the "theory" outlined above that Arabs fled as a result of Arab orders. In Ramla for instance the population was expelled by the Palmach under the command of Yizhak Rabin ابو علي 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the expulsion from Ramla has never been a secret, it was in Rabin's memories, and was strategically justified. This is in fact the only case of expulsion in all the war and it stresses the fact that the other 95% refugees fled. Benjil 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. It was a secret and it was censored from the printed version of Rabins memoirs. The fact that the residents of Ramla were expelled obviously does not mean that all other Paletinians abandoned their homes, their crops and everything else they had willingly. For instance the population of the entire costal region was ethnicly cleansed (except for Jisr az-Zarqa and Furadis who were allowed to stay because the farmers in Zikron Yaakov needed labourers to work their fields). Anyway the sentence quoted above about Arabs leaving because of the order of unkown general is a piece of pure propoganda which has no place in an objective encyclopedia. ابو علي 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to my original issue with this section. I am question its NPOV. I think john k has got it correct: debating the motivations for fleeing the land does not lend to the NPOV of this article. Why are debating the reasons for Arabs fleeing in an article about Israel? Would it not be sufficient to just state the fact that Arabs fled the region? Adding additional commentary about the motives only detracts from the NPOV of this article ... which I believe is sorely lacking. Fugliesunited 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fugliesunited and John K. my original reason for disputing the NPOV of this article was the reason given for the Palestinian flight from Israel. Bored college student 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder if there is any way to say this without implying that arabs fled for good reasons, or vice versa. I think if one tried to write it without the two very different versions of why the exodus occured, it will come out sounding biased even if it doesn't mean to be. But by all means give it a shot.Schrodingers Mongoose 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the 1948 War section to remove statements about Arab and Jewish motivations for fleeing. This is the revised section on the migrations:

Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus, which is referred to by many Palestinian groups and individuals as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة ), meaning "disaster" or "cataclysm". Estimates of the final Palestinian refugee count range from 400,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000.[23] The unresolved conflict between Israel and the Arab world that persists to this day has resulted in a lasting displacement of Palestinians refugees.

In addition, the entire Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip also fled to Israel. Within a year of 1948 war, immigration of Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population. Over the following years approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries. Of these, about 600,000 settled in Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas (see Jewish exodus from Arab lands).

Please discuss if you feel this is not sufficiently neutral. Thanks. Fugliesunited 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion I noticed people claiming that lebanon is not a 'true' democracy because it is ruled partially by quota of memebers of different ethnic groups. The point I have to say on this is that this is the case in most democracies (or what like to be termed as) such as my country, the U.K., there is a system of choosing those from ethnic groups (somewhat disregarding qualifications in a few cases) so as to fufill government quotas for asians or blacks to be employed in certain jobs (increasingly this is case with employment into the political system). This does not mean we are not a democracy, mearly that we are choosing to favour those who were in the past unfavoured. It is somewhat unfair, but on the other hand acts as a type of power compensation. This is much more prominent in Lebanon where the ethnic groups are each strictly represented by numbers, but the same idea could be used to be carried here, the fact that each group is proportionally represented means that each minority (and the people in it) really do have a democracy, in quite a fair form. The problem with this is, is that when the groups disagree things rarely happen and power of the government is often limited, however in a true democracy this is a way should be the case (although it is not what Lebanon needs). The government must be very carefull not to unbalance one group and let a war form, and as the groups often disagree the power of individual people over what happens is often limited, but this is a sense is a better example of democracy, where everyone is fairly represented, than Israel which may not be deemed a democracy because practically 20% of the population (as well as some disliked jewish groups) are not represented. What I trully intend to say is that a democracy is a country where people can elect their leader, and be fairly rperesented in a parlimentary system, lebanon fufills these perammeters, Israel does not, therfore it is not right for someone to write like Israel is a bastion of democratic hope in a dark undemocratic middle east.

This isn't the place, but I'll reply anyway. You are very misinformed, it seems.
Firstly, about Lebanon - we're not talking about some affirmative action in government jobs. We're talking about representation in the Parliament - the very thing that defines a democracy. In Lebanon the parliament does not truly represent the people. Each ethnic group gets a certain percentage of the seats in the parliament, and that percentage is very different from their actual percentage of the population (for example - Christians get 50% of the seats - but they're only 40% of the population; Shi'a Muslims are 35% of the population - yet they only get 21% of the seats. See Politics of Lebanon) . Additionally, the position a person can fill in the top (President, PM, deputy PM and Speaker of the house) is determined by his ethnic membership - A Christian, for example, can never be prime minister. These characteristics are far from the principles of democracy. Happily, the UK is nothing like that, neither is any other western democracy.
And about Israel - All Israeli citizens have the right to vote. Israeli Arabs vote too, and there are 4 Arab parties in the Israeli parliament, as well as several Arab MPs from other, mainly Jewish parties. There's even an Arab minister in the current govenment, Raleb Majadele. Sure, integration is slow, but to claim Arabs aren't represented? That's just baseless, and misleading. okedem 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have failed this article as a GA per lack of references and in-line citations. While there are many sections that do really well at this, there are still quite a lot of places where non-trivial information or statistics is stated without citations. I would have guessed that some of these would have references on the {{main}} pages corresponding to the sections, but I have checked a couple (for example the Music section) and this is not entirely true. Quite a lot of {{fact}} statements sticking out as well. I have not spotted any other problems.--Konstable 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About "jewish" and "arabs"

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry if I am putting this in the wrong place...I don't really know how to use the website. Under the religion section, it says that most people are Jews, and that the second largest religious group is "Arabs." "Arabs" is not a religion, and there are Arab people who are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.

You're right, that section mixes up ethnicity and religion. I'll try to think of a better way to saying that. okedem 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Acting President"

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Acting President is not a title, it is a temporary function. Dalia Itzik did not attain a new title when Katzav took a leave of absence. Now it appears Dalia Itzik is out of the country, so the infobox says Majalli Wahabi is the acting president. Next, Wahabi will sneeze, and someone else will be acting president for a few seconds! Itzik's title is still the speaker of the knesset, and that should be her title in the infobox. Wahabi did not get a new title when Dalia Itzik boarded the airplane, he's still just a deputy speaker. I think the infobox should reflect positions, not temporary functions.--Doron 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. okedem 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Geographic, demographic info should cover same regions

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article gives "the total area under Israeli control, including the military-controlled and Palestinian-governed territory of the West Bank" but not the population. I will put in the corresponding demographic info. Fourtildas 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Area figure in infobox includes the Golan Heights

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The area figure in the infobox includes the Golan Heights, altough they are not recognized as part of Israel by the international community. Even from the Israeli point of view it is not clear they should be included, indeed Israel did not formally annex the Golan Heights. The Golan Law carefully avoided implications regarding annexation or sovereignty, and Begin's comments on the issue at the time indicate that this was intentional. Therefore including the Golan Heights as part of the area of Israel is controversial, to say the least.--Doron 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. okedem 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


What's the story with the map?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Lately, there were a couple of attempts (like this one) to replace the newer map with an older and unintelligible one. I don't understand what is the deal here exactly, but if the newer one contains an error, it needs to be corrected. The old one is so much worse, it's a non-starter. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know the people on this page it has to be the Kosovo ;-).--Stone 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think that it must be corrected, because this newer map outlines Israel a lot better. It's a minor error that could be corrected. The situation is the same with the Iraq map and Syria map... >_> --Krytan 02:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reverting these map changes since they started. No one has given any reasonable explanation why the map should be changed to the less clear, inaccurate png version. If there is an error in the good verion I can't make it out, but the other one doesn't even look like Israel. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


The West Bank / Gaza are disputed - could we have a map which somehow highlights that rather than the current one which makes it appear that Palestine is a sovereign country rather than an area which is still rightly or wrongly an area under Israeli juristiction. Maybe the disputed territories in a different colour with a note below explaining their status?

The previous map was a bit too small to make out anything 172.189.33.31 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A map exactly as you describe is already in the article. The little map at the top is just meant to show Israel's location in the world. Schrodingers Mongoose 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Israel's "name"

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sure everybody knows the history of the Hebrew. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered and its people disappeared over time but the Southern Kingdom of Judah and its people were displaced but remained together til this day. So here's my question. Why is the present-day Jewish state called "Israel" when the people are clearly the descendants of Judah? Wouldn't calling the state Judah be more correct?--Secret Agent Man 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons (that I see right now) - first, it's in the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). Second, note that the United Monarchy, (that existed before the split) was known as the Kingdom of Israel. okedem 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
And Israel is not in reference to a portion of land. Israel is used as the name of the Jewish people. -Working for Him 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Music section - mushroom

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is minor, but I think worthwhile. That picture of "infected mushroom" is very bad and unnecessary. How about removing it? The other picture is enough for the small section. The Behnam 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree. The "infected mushroom" picture seems very out of place in an article about Israel. Fugliesunited 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Israels Capital City

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

''''The capital city of Israel is Tel Aviv.

To suggest that it is Jerusalem is factually incorrect, indicative of zionist extremism, and blatantly racist.

The classification of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city is contrary to world opinion (except of course Israel and America..thanks AIPAC!), and contrary to countless UN resolutions.

It is wholly irresponsible, and unacademic for the administrators of wikpedia, to allow this so called fact to be presented.

So long as you allow zionist extremism and blatant racism to go unchallenged, wikipedia will never be accepted by mainstream academic circles as anything but garbage.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.224.190.3 (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

You obviously don't know what capital city means. By any definition, Jerusalem is the capital city. okedem 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If foreign nations decided that Toronto, not Ottawa, should be considered capital of Canada, would that make it even remotely true? Schrodingers Mongoose 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, he doesnt know what Zionism is. He sounds primitive. --Shamir1 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Foreign nations have not decided that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, there was an Arab attempt to cut the supply route between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Since it was unsafe to put in an embassy in a location under Arab siege, most put them in Jerusalem. After the war, only a few countries located their embassies to Jerusalem. The foreign nations have not said that Tel Aviv is the capital, maintaining an embassy there does not necessarily mean that that is where they believe it should be. --Shamir1 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters much, but just for your information -- Tel Aviv was the seat of government and the de facto capital of Israel until December 1949, when it was moved to Jerusalem [11].--Doron 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Doron, Tel Aviv is the capital city of Israel. Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital by the United Nations or any international country. The source you used for Jerusalem being the capital is written in hebrew, and I would imagine be a biased view. At the moment the article is incorrect and should show the correct capital city, that is Tel Aviv. JJC-IE 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The capital of a country is not determined by outside organizations but by the country itself. Israel identifies its capital as Jerusalem, that's what matters. For that matter, the UN doesn't identify Tel Aviv as the capital, it simply doesn't recognize Jerusalem. Regardless, it doesn't matter what the UN thinks, it matters what Israel thinks since they are sovereign. Furthermore, this discussion has been had on a number of occasions, please see the links at the top of this page for more information. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


If you believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,then by that logic, the US would be able to delcare Baghdad as our capital since we currently occupy it. No nation in the world has ever recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Even the US refuses to fully support the idea of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The city of Jerusalem is nothing more than a militarily occupied foreign city that Israel wants as its capital, regardless of whether or not the city is part of Israel, which according to international law it is not. There is no academic nor international body anywhere (except in Israel) that accepts the Israeli declaration of Jerusalem as their capital.

Obviously, you have no idea of what a capital city is. Go learn what it means, and go study some history while you're at it, since you don't seem to know anything about the history of Jerusalem (calling it "a militarily occupied foreign city" proves that point). okedem 07:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then how would you describe a city and a territory that was taken over by a group of people from Europe who themselves committed acts of terrorism against the original inhabitants as well as against the British forces who were there at the time? If you dont consider taking territory by force at the end of a gun to be a military or terrorist action, the what do you call it? i'd be very interested in knowing how you define that. Also, the use of pogroms to get the inhabitants out or just killing them off when they tried to fight back were also tactics used at the time. How do you categorize that? I really am curious, as it seems, by your reasoning, it would be perfectly valid if Jordan invaded, set-up shop and then declared Jersualem its capital (or any other country for that matter). And just for the record, I am not a Jew, Christian, nor a Muslim, and your suggestion to study history is ridiculous. i hold a post graduate degree from a flagship university in the US. as part of the program, it was required that we study international relations, culture and history extensively, as well as attain some level of fluency in at least one foreign language in order to study sources in languages other than English (I speak 3 fluently and 2 others on a basic level, so i have been able to gather information from a very wide variety of sources). I include this basic bio only because of your personal attack directed at me and not at my views on the topic. Again, i would find it enlightening to read how you define a territory that was taken-over in the manner that Israel and Jersualem were. If it doesnt come under a category of military action, then the other alternative seems to be a territory held by force by a non-national paramilitary organization, or something to that effect. Please, I invite you to enlighten us.

Wikipedia article talk pages are not meant for polemics. If you have a reliable source that states that a country's capital is determined by international recognition, then present it.--Doron 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You may have a degree in history, but that doesn't change the fact that you seem to know very little about the history of Israel, or Jerusalem. Israel has just as much right to Jerusalem as any other. The Jewish leaders accepted the 1947 UN partition plan, calling for a Corpus Separatum in Jerusalem, but when the Arabs rejected the plan and decided to take over Jerusalem, Jewish leaders were forced to take action, or lose the entire city to hostile forces. Again - calling Jerusalem "a militarily occupied foreign city" shows you know nothing of the history of this region.
Anyway, by any definition of capital, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If you can come up with a reliably sourced definition that would contradict that, I'd like to see it. okedem 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Iside this article there have been numerous people (from looking at other articles in this talk page generally pro-jewish Israeli) who ahev said things along the lines of what that Okedem guy said 'obviously you have no idea what a capital city is' but please can one of you actually define what a captital city is? Or is it undefinable because it is what anyone thinks it is? Please can one of you define for me why your so right, and tell me exactly what makes a capital a capital.

Easy. It's a word, and so we can turn to a dictionary, or many dictionaries: [12]. The gist of it: "a city serving as a seat of government" (Merriam-Webster). We can also read the wiki article, Capital. okedem 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"The world's perception"

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section "The world's perception" was removed for the following reasons:

  • No other country article has anything like it
  • 165 out of 192 UN member states did not participate in the survey (not to mention unrecognized states and territories)
  • Muslim countries, and Muslims in Western countries, are a large influence
  • There are other factors involved, and public opinion regarding the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is largely complete, or possibly Israel's alliance with the United States, or many other separate or intertwined conflicts pertaining to Israel
  • Public opinion is everchanging and fluctuates daily, just as wars, conflicts, and other matters will change pertaining to the subject
  • The statistics somewhat conflict with similar stats, such as that of The Economist and others
  • Having such a section is undoubtedly bound to edit wars, overfilling of information, competing sources, etc. It would not stop there.

--Shamir1 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the most important reason - it's just a silly survey, and means nothing. Wikipedia doesn't hold country popularity contests. okedem 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please correct population counts

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Population counts in large cities are totally wrong:

"As of 2006, The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics defines three metropolitan areas: Tel Aviv (population 3,040,400), Haifa (population 996,000) and Beersheba (population 531,600)[6]. The capital, Jerusalem, has a population of 719,900. The Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies defines the metropolitan area Jerusalem (population 2,300,000, including 700,000 Jews and 1,600,000 Arabs)[7]."

The right figures would be

Jerusalim 720,000 Tel-aviv - 378,000 Haifa - 267,000

from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/webgis/website/yishuvim/yishuvim_2005/XLS/bycode.xls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.145.105 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Read again, these figures refer to the metropolitan areas, not to the respective core cities.--Doron 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Israel pre-planned War in Lebanon

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The BBC says:

According to Haaretz, Ehud Olmert said it was decided at least four months before that any kidnap of Israeli troops on its border would trigger war.

On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah militants seized two Israeli soldiers sparking an all-out assault by Israel's military.

Mr Olmert reportedly made the claim to an inquiry last month.

The Winograd Commission is an Israeli government-appointed commission tasked with investigating last summer's conflict with Lebanon and identifying lessons to be learned from it.

It is expected to release its interim report this month.

I am a new user so I can't edit this page, but I think someone should add at the end of the last paragraph in the history of the 2000's something along the lines of "It has recently come to light that the strategy used in this war was planned months in advance." Use [13] as the source.

Cigrainger 09:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1) This is not an article on the Israel-Lebanon conflict. 2) Every country has some security plans. In July 2006, Hezbollah shelled Israeli territory their cross-border raid left Israeli soldiers killed. Sounds like a legitimate casus belli. Those who don't want wars do not start them. I don't see anything special about this supposed revelation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hizballah (the "Party of God", not "Hezbollah") shelled Israeli territory after the Israelis committed human rights atrocities in Gaza (as stated by the UN) such as cutting off energy and water to civilians after an Israeli soldier was taken hostage by the terrorist group Hamas. I'm not saying the shelling was acceptable by any means, but the destruction of Beirut was an unnecessary act of violence on the civilians and nation of Lebanon (which achieved no inroads on destroying Hizballah, only killing over 1000 civilians), and was a continuation of the decades-long history of such. Having plans to decimate much of the capital city of a country with whom you at peace, based on the actions of a militant extremist terrorist group, is a decidedly "special" revelation. Cigrainger 13:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace? Lebanon is in Peace with Israel? You're proving serious ignorance here. Lebanon is an enemy of Israel. It waged war on it in 1948, and that status has never been changed. Beirut was not destroyed, and we can without the hyperbolae. Lebanon allowed Hizbollah to operate within its territory, and allowed them to attack Israel.
Did you know the US used to have plans for war against Canada? All nations have plans for war, against many possible targets, even including allies, at times. Since Lebanon, like Syria, is an enemy of Israel, and since Hizbollah has been attacking Israel to years, even after it withdrew from Lebanon to the international border (the "Blue Line", determined by the UN), having war plans is a trivial thing to do. It has no importance here. okedem 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly, the only way this would be an interesting revelation is if Israel DIDN'T have plans for war with Lebanon (and the many other countries that have attacked Israel repeatedly for 60 years). Schrodingers Mongoose 19:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Israel provoked it.... --MiddleEastern 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course. It is always Israel's fault. When Israel acts first, they are an agressor. When they are attacked, they "provoked" it. You are off to a stellar career as a Wikipedia editor. Isarig 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Underground Groups

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think it is important to note that the Irgun and Lehi were both terrorist organizations as recognized by the British government. Failure to do so is quite hypocritical if we are to recognize groups such as the early PLO as terrorist organizations (which I do). I'm honestly not trying to be biased or hate-mongering -- if we look at what a terrorist organization is, the Irgun and Lehi fall under those terms. Bombing buildings, killing innocents, et al for political gain are certainly acts of political terrorism.

"Who Are the Terrorists?", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Autumn, 1979), pp. 154-160. [14]

Cigrainger 09:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Haganah an underground group - I thought it was an "aboveground" legitimate organization? Doesn't neutrality and balance also require us to mention Arab underground groups? Someone please insert mention of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Fourtildas 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Haganah and other paramilitary groups are mentioned in the context of the British Mandate, and they eventually became the foundation of the Israeli army when it was established. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not related to Israel and they were established decades later, so it's not clear how they are relevant.--Doron 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording of the article (inherent bias)

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is it really appropriate to say that Israel is "considered to be the most advanced in ... overall human development" in the opening of the article? Is "overall human development" defined? I'd say that there are quite a few people around the world who might argue that the country's policies place it squarely last in the region. I think it's fair to say that Israeli law squarely rejects the idea of equality among men and universal human rights (a concept accepted by the UN and member nations since the signing of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights) - something I would say is a cornerstone of "overall human development". I'd be interested to hear an intelligent debate on the wisdom of using this type of language or subjective reasoning in this article. Welrifai 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Wael - 11 March, 2007

Yes, it is defined; see the links. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


"most advanced" - I thought some woman was going to court so she didn't have to sit in the back of the bus. Boy have they kept that piece of news off the front page in the US.159.105.80.63 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, NO woman is "going to court so she doesn't have to sit in the back of the bus". She is suing some men for hitting her a PRIVATE bus where she DELIBERATELY provoked them by sitting in the men's section, rather than the women's. It was a religious bus where all the occupants agree to being segregated so the men don't ogle the women. The ONLY reason the women's section is in the back is because the seats on the bus face forward, NOT because "women are 2nd class citizens". If the seats faced the back, the men would be sitting in the back.141.156.150.185 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Susan

"intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millenium"

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

"Starting around the eleventh century BCE, the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.[16]"

When I check out link [16] it looks like a country calling itself Israel gets established about 1100 BCE, and then survives until about 600 BCE and then gets stomped on, and never reappears until 1948. So in what sense does a Jewish kingdom/state rule over the region for a millenium? I also looked at History of ancient Israel and Judah and it doesn't seem to mention anything.WolfKeeper 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I could certainly buy Jewish people living there for well over a thousand years, but it doesn't look at the moment to me like they were self-ruling. Shouldn't this read "lasted more than 500 years"? Is there a cite anywhere explaining?WolfKeeper 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also a little state called Judaea. It was independent from about 160 BC to 6 AD, and again from 41-44 (although it was a Roman client after 63 BC). In the intermittent period, under the Persians, Ptolemies, and Seleucids, the Jews largely ruled themselves through their high priest, although they didn't have political independence, so I wouldn't describe it as rule. But certainly the Hasmoneans and the Herods were real "rulers" of the region. john k 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. So Judaea isn't rule, and it's not a state because a state has ultimate rule (armies) which presumably Hasmoneans and the Herods had. So in what sense intermittent rule? It seems to me there was only one state from ~1100 BCE to ~~600BCE; just over 500 years, but the text claims 1000 years.WolfKeeper 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it seems you really didn't bother reading the history of the region. According to the bible, first (~1050 BC) there was the United Monarchy, ruled by Saul, David and Solomon. Then (something like 930BC) it split to two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah (their existence is confirmed with archaeological sources). Israel fell to the Assyrians in 722BC, and Judah fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC. Later on, in 140 BC, the Hasmoneanites revolted against the Greeks, and survived for 100 years before becoming a client kingdom of the Romans. Later, in 132 AD, the Bar Kokhba's revolt established an independent state, which lasted only two and a half years. These were all fully independent states. okedem 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable.

Israel did not 'start fending for itself' and never has. It has always relied 100% on UN and US support. The agreement was, just have our tanks, don't buy Soviet or Chinese. The money just never stopped rolling in for Israel.

Where is the US on this. I guess Israel managed to acquire billions and billions of dollars by magic. What a blatantly self-serving article. I'm not a Nazi pig or whatever but this belongs on some pro-israel nutter site, not on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irocktoomuch (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Beyond the initial 1947 partition plan, the UN never did anything for Israel. The US has given a lot of monetary support to Israel, but Israeli soldiers do the fighting and the dieing. To say that Israel "relied 100% on UN and US support" is baseless. Let's not forget that the US's support is also a nice subsidy for american industries. Also, look at the sums involved - Israel's national budget is something like 250 billion NIS, of that 40 billion for defense. The US gives only a small part of that, something like 2.4 billion dollars, or 10 billion NIS). (By the way, the US also gives 1.7 billion dollars to Egypt.) okedem 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the U.S. didn't give any significant aid to Israel until 1967. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
100%? You can always tell a troll by the hyperbole.141.156.150.185 10:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Susan

If it is worth mentioning US financial and military support of Israel, then it is worth mentioning USSR's financial and military support of Egypt and Syria, which directly led to the October (Yom Kippur) War. This war also saw French arms being used against Israel through Egypt (via Algeria), as well as Iraq being equipped by the USSR. Or how about Saudi Arabia's financial support of Syria and Egypt to the tune of 1 billion dollars to support their military aggression against Israel? Yet you are only concerned about the US support of Israel? M000558 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking country

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Israel is not an English-speaking country. No more than any other country in the world. Reluctantly I can live with "Russian-speaking", but not English-speaking.--Doron 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most European countries and many other countries have English taught in school. And 100,000 German-speakers is but a fraction of the population, come on!--Doron 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rest assured, there are many times as many English speakers in Germany than there are in Israel, yet, you don't see Germany added to the category "English speaking countries". I don't see Japan listed as a "Korean speaking country" either, even though more than a million Koreans live in Japan. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea, it's absurd. By that logic we'd have to add the US to 100 different categories... okedem 21:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Border with Gaza

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to a current Washington Post article "The Israeli government is arguing in domestic courts that it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip" and "In February, Israel opened a $35 million terminal at the Erez crossing on the Gaza border, where travelers now receive Israeli exit and entry stamps in their passports." So, unless someone thinks the WaPo could be in error, I will add the border with Gaza to the first paragraph. Fourtildas 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is not a country, so it does not belong in the first paragraph. Furthermore, whether the Gaza Strip is occupied by Israel or not is a matter of dispute.--Doron 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware tha there were any legitimate claims that Gaza was still occupied (unlike the West Bank). But I could be wrong and I agree, it isn't a country so it shouldn't be included. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of anti-Israel bias in AI and HRW

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've made a small deletion to the "Human Rights" section, but given the contentious naure of this article wanted to provide a brief explanation. The criticisms of AI and HRW are cited, and then there are two inter-wiki links to accussed anti-Israeli bias in these organizations, the first of which (to AI) goes to a section that no longer exists. I feel this would be justified under certain circumstances, but cannot given the frequent citations to Freedom House in the paragraph that follows. It is not that I seek to discredit Freedom House, but I did note that on the Freedom House page there is an allegation of neo-conservative bias (which is strongly pro-Israel). I feel that the AI and HRW accusations against Israel in this section are balanced out by the favorable reviews Israel is given by Freedom House. Thus, if accusations of bias are to be referenced, they should be referenced to all the organizations mentioned or none at all. In other words, "AI and HRW have been accused of being anti-Israel" as well as "FH has been accussed of a neo-con bias." Frankly, I think neither are necessary. I think both sides are accurately represented and thus the assertions should speak for themselves.

On a side note, I am a student of foreign affairs but admitedly Israel and the Middle East are not one my areas of expertise. But I would like to submit for you to consider, from a neutral outsider's perspective, that this article at points seems highly defensive of Israel. I can understand the need to be so, given that this article and similar ones are probably a constant source of anti-Israeli vandalism. Again, Israel and the Middle East are not my areas of expertise, but I'm educated enough to know about the contentious nature of the topic. Not being an expert I don't intend to edit this article much, but I would like you to consider that POV in any instance can work against the author's intended effect. I think you can trust intelligent readers to draw impartial and accurate conclusions.

Best, SpiderMMB 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SpiderMMB. The connection between Freedom House's alleged neoconservative bias to Israel is too indirect. If an allegation of bias existed, it would have to be direct. (And by the way, a recent Gallup poll found that American sympathy for Israel is strong within each political orientation, including liberal Democrats. Not that this matters.) --Shamir1 05:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Template:Israel-InfoBox

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Israel-InfoBox regarding whether or not the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem should be considered part of Israel for the purpose of determining Israel's area.--Doron 10:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


fled or were forced out of their homes

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i suggest changing the section were the article states that Palestinians "fled" in the 1948 war of independence to a less biased expression "fled or were forced out of their homes", since this issue is disputed.--213.6.44.241 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, some were indeed forced to leave and some ranaway by their own. viclick """"" 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image under 'economy'

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I think it should be replaced with this image. The reasons are that it has more contrast, no power lines, higher resolution, and shows the actual diamong exchange complex and not nearby unrelated towers. Any thoughts? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I have just found out that the Hebrew wiki has the same image with a higher resolution. However, the licensing is still GFDL, the image I am proposing was made by mean and it is PD-self. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Just in case I leave before anyone replies, I have uploaded the image to commons at Image:Bursa05.jpg. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that it shows the edge of a TNT commercial, though it is considerably more relevant and clear than the former. I would suggest to leave the current image until a better version would be found. Etams 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a night picture. The towers are much more impressive then. --Bear and Dragon 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with a night picture is that we want to clearly show the area. Many buildings would be barely visible at night, or not visible like they should be.
Etams, would you still oppose the new image if the TNT ad was photoshopped out?
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If that is done, I would delightfully approve. Etams
I have photoshopped out the logo and added the image to the main page. Please state your reasons here if you disagree. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of photos like these: http://www.pbase.com/gilazouri/telaviv . Such photos are a beautiful view of Tel Aviv's modern world. For example, the ones halfway down the page with the University railway station on the foreground. --Bear and Dragon 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

These photos are from three years ago! Many of the structures that exist today are still under construction in them. Etams 13:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the history section is too detailed and long for this article - the detailed history should be at History of Israel, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries says that history should be "A brief outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs should do), including at least a paragraph on the current events going on there. Link to "History of X"."...was looking at this and it will be hard to do but I think we should do it. I didn't want to delete stuff from this article because there are gaps in the history of Israel article-for example, Herzl isn't mentionned at all. Flymeoutofhere 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some lines are blank somehow

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

- In the "History" part, some lines seems to be blank. Is it a tamplate problem or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viclick (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, most of these problems are caused by conflicting templates or images. I have personally helped fix this several times, although the problem still persists. There are a few possible solutions:
- Use less templates and images
- Move some images to the left
- Strategically place templates and images so that they don't conflict (complicated, annoying and non-scalable, but will give the best visual result)
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Israel really need better P.R . The ancient history of Israel is only briefly introduced even though it have a lot to do with the Israeli Jewish people at present, and more important -due the ancient Jewish history at Israel, the population overtaken major achievements , comparing with many other nations of that time, almost at any possible field : Science , Architecture ,Industry ,Military thought (i.e. Guerilla war against modern army which the Mccabees were between the first to use ) , Religious , Establishment and etc .especially when the Jews had their own autonomy , before the Roman occupation ruined every thing. More, the Israeli Hi-Tech achievements , which are phenomenal at any scale , are only shortly mentioned and with no getting into details and nor do the military industries, which are of importance, are (a project like the "Lavi" can tell ones a lot about the country) .Sport achievements are mentioned while they are actually negligible and not impressive one's .Facts like that Israel is the second most advanced country relatively to its age, although the wars it had , and although lack of naturl resources and the very complex reality of life in Israel , under consistent threats and total corruption of the political establishment, is not mentioned nor do the fact that the Israeli GNP is within the 30 world highest in spite of all the difficulties .There are many good examples for what should be include at that article -like that with a 1/20 of investment the engineering faculty of the "Technion" is ranking as the first in the world aside to M.I.T faculty, and that all of Israel 6 universities (serving more than 100,000 students together) are at the world top 500. The impression that the average American/European and etc have , is that Israel is actually a place in which people 'driving' to work riding on a camel.--Gilisa 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree these should be noted to all, but this is an encyclopedia, how much can we put an emphasis on "good" and neglect the rest of the information? I know you're right and I know the importance of the common belief outside of Israel about Israel, but really, can we do that? 84.108.149.70 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We can find space for doing so if we delete the less successful sections...--Gilisa 16:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we won't start deleting sections, and we won't turn this into a P.R. publication. okedem 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnostate

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to link Israel to the ethnostate article. Would people who have worked on the Israel article more than I have please do this. --Twoheel 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No. "Ethnostate" is a neologism and a POV fork. It's gonna be deleted soon anyway. okedem 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eichmann

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The information regarding Eichmann is not correct and should be fixed or removed. See Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem.

Uh, what? El_C 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1968 AL Karamah War

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.118.8.214 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The 1968 AL Karamah War

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was wondering why the writer of the article ignored a very important fact in Arab-Israeli history that is Al Karamah war in which the Jordanian Royal army succefully fought, stopped and fully destroyed the invading Israeli armies. I think that articles must not be biost as the one you proudly show, as it has many miconceptions and many missing facts that change the view of the reader and makes him get history in an unproper manner. If I may ask the people in charge of these articles (the publisher) to please fully check each article before it is published in order to save time, trouble, and to reveal History as it's supposed to be shown.

Regards, A Proud Jordanian Citizen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.118.8.214 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

If you are talking about the 11 February, 1968 Israeli-Jordanian border clashes then I don't see where is the war here. I have never heard of an Arab-Israeli war taking place in 1968. Etams 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With a quick glance over the article I noticed that you need to make sure to quickly add citations or remove the statements that have "citation needed" after them. This may cause the article to be quick-failed. Look over the GA criteria to make sure anything else needs to be fixed. Also, as a heads up, it looks like the coat of arms image is up for deletion, so the editors here may want to weigh in on its discussion. Image:Idf logo4.jpg and Image:Itzhak perlman.jpg also need fair use rationales. These are just some things I noticed that need to be fixed, so please do fix them so that the article is not immediately failed. Good work so far and good luck with GAC. --Nehrams2020 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks - think ive sorted out the citations? and i'll wait and see with the images.--Flymeoutofhere 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalized

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe this was vandalized, there are "pigs" in the infobox. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 07:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it was...I'll take the appropriate actions--Flymeoutofhere 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the history section is too large for two reasons:

  1. If you look at FA Country articles, this section is much smaller
  2. It is in too much depth for the average reader who will see the history of Israel article if they want this information

Please comment - I am happy to work on making it more concise.--Flymeoutofhere 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_20&oldid=1079218162"