![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article says, "Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located mainly in Israel, established the Masoretic Text... ". To the best of my knowledge, there was no territory called 'Israel' during those centuries, just the Greek eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Arab conquest. I suggest defining the relevant territory by its official names of the period. Presumably we all know that it forms part of today's eretz Israel. Politis ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take for someone to see that )less then 24 hours). Its a valid point and I will correct it.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
AMIN AL HUSSEINI NEVER COMMAND A MUSLIM SS SECTION OR UNIT
I want to strongly recall your atention over the imput the infamous Amin al Husseini commanded 'a Bosnian SS' unit in WWII. This never was. First of all, never was 'a bosnian SS' in WWII but a 'Croatische Waffen der SS' enlisted by croats, serbs an yes bosniacs both chistians and muslims ones. His high officers were ever germans, chistians germans and never muslims. This unit dated from 1944 and come into action figthing Tito's partisans and after in Austria against Red Army, and never was involved in Holocaust against jews. Certainliy al Husseini paraded SS troops, but Husseini never reached any military degree. And more: Kurt Waldheim never was acquited or prosecuted for any war crime and the 'comission of historians', suported by Simon Wiesenthal, released him from any guilty. Indeed, Waldheim was honoured by Josip Broz Tito -supossed to be 'his victim'? all 'Waldheim affair' is supossed to be a lie orchestred by Israeli Mossad secret service, in 'Lavon affair' line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 ( talk) 10:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
'''The 'Nasser nazi rocketers', an urban legend?''' When it saids "Egypt develops rockets with the assistance of German scientists... Egypt begins three missile programs based on the German V-2 missile with plans to build 900 missiles of the three models by 1970... When the Mossad learned in 1962 that a team of German scientists were building rockets for the Egyptians to use against Israel, he launched a campaign of murderous intimidation against them and their families. The Nazi association of Nasser were one of the things that inspired Anthony Eden in 1956. The intention of creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas has a clear association with the Nazi extermination program..." etcetera I think is but an 'urban legend' Why? I have read a lot over V2 rocketers in III Reich, GB / USA (operation paperclip) and USSR but, when I try to get something over them in Egypt I can't found nothing. Not a name, not an operative plan, not a nothing! Nothing in Wikipedia, nothing in hundreds and hundreds 'V2' and 'ME affairs' pages in the internet, not a single book over this 'subject'. I had never find a single name of any german scentific involved on that. Now, the input "creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas" is absolutely new to me, never have read that in any 'cold war' and 'ME wars' historians: who said that, who historian, and who granted that?? Yes Peter Malkin -the one who kidnaped Eichmann- said he was 'involved' in a Israeli letter bomb campaing against this 'egyptians nazi rocketers' but, indeed he didn't reveal any detail, any name or dates, any nothing. So when I cant find nothing granting the true, I became to think this subject is untrue. The Harel 'fall' as Mossad superchief comes not by his Egypt rocket obssessions, but by his collision with Abba Evan: over the Eichmann kidnapping in Argentina, Evan's diplomatic prestige was very touched and damaged because Evan, Secetary of External Affairs, was not informed of waht Mossad was doing and even Harel and Malkin team used Evan's plane landed in Buenos Aires airport to 'deliver' undercover Eichmann to Israel -Evan knowing nothing all about. The Eichmann kidnapping fueled a NU votation agaisnt Israel and an Argentina very formal diplomatic protest. In result, Evan and Harel never talked each other again. You can read on at Harel's book 'The Garibaldi street house'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 ( talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I will check up on the Waffen SS unit the Mufti commanded. The text provides references for the material about the Egyptian missiles. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This was reverted by User:Telaviv1.The issue was previously discussed at my talk page:
The following sentence in The War of Independence: The civil war phase was changed by me:
Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas—and outnumbered the Jews by approximately two to one.
where a source is provided for the fact that of the total population of the Mandate there were twice as many arabs as jews. I changed the sentence to this:
Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas.
You reverted this here and here, stating that "deletion summary does not change the fact that this is sourced and fully appropriate". In my view, and as stated in the comment, the total population is not relevant in context of war. The fact that a source of the population figure is provided does not change that. Please explain why you think it is "fully appropriate". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly relevant to note the population difference. If the population of one side is twice that of the other, it is likely that the army of that side will be much larger than the others as well. We can't include that in the article, because it is WP:OR, but we can certainly include the population and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Following that line of reasoning, it would be much more reasonable to mention total manpower instead of total population, as total population also includes children, women and elderly. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith (professor in history at University of Arizona) on page 200 writes "The Jewish community had a slight manpower advantage over Palestinians among males in the twenty to forty-four age group". I suggest we replace the current erroneous text with this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I maintain that total manpower is significant and that stating that the jews outnumbered the arabs, while true when it comes to total population, is misleading to the reader. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the Arabs had more men under arms at first. Does smith give the number of men for each side and if the JEws had more in that age bracket expalin why that was? Can you see what his sources are? I think Benny Morris is probably the best source because almost everyone accepts that he is a reliable informant. I haven't heard of Smith. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
As there has been no response, I will go on and make the change. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I've been busy. The British immigration quotas meant that they had to choose immigrants carefully and people had to prove commitment to get in. Immigrants arrived fluent in Hebrew and trained in a griculture. I will examine what you have added when I have more time.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This line seems to attempt to discredit Waldheim's criticism of Israel, while the article that is cited actually clears Waldheim of any wrongdoing. While the sentence is technically true, it has no bearing on the context; it is just there to mislead, I'm removing it. Thebwt ( talk) 13:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Caption: "A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards southern Israel, January 2009" But summary for the image reads: "12 December 2008" ??? -- Marcus Schätzle ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame there aren't any citations for this whole section, if I may be so bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.182.63 ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy at the moment so this will take me a couple of weeks, but it shouldn't be a problem. Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"after almost two millennia of Jewish dispersal" - is not supported by citation 1. I will add a citations needed tab to this statement in a week after checking this talk page. Beam 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to intrude, so forgive me if this is inappropriate. I also had a problem with this sentence, specifically the part where it is said that the jewish people have been persecuted for almost two millenia. I think we should add some of the important examples of persecution as the sentence, as it stands now, gives the impression of being biased. Or at leasst link to a page with a list of major persecutions and a history of the jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.37.71 ( talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this section, which deals with events of some two to three thousand years ago, has no place in the article: the article is about the state of Israel, which came into existence in 1948 and has a history rooted in the Zionist movement of the 19th century. So the Zionist portion should form the background, but not the history of Iron Age Israel.
However, if ancient history must be mentioned, it needs to be accurate. That means that it can't just summarise the bible - it's pretty normal these days to see the bible as a very biased work of the post-Exilic period, with little value as a source, especially for the very earliest period (notably the business about Abraham and so on). PiCo ( talk) 02:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The state of israel did not magically come into existence in 1948. It already existed and simply declared independence. Much of the conflict with the Palestinians is religious and to understand how crucial the conflict over the temple mount is (for example) one needs to know the history. Or toundersgtand why Hamas talk of crusaders etc. In addition the Jews remained a significant presence in the country up to the Crusades and did not simply vanish in 70AD. There were Jewish revolts against the Romans in the second century and fifth.
If you're that keen go to History of Iraq, independent since 1932 and delete all the "ancient Iraqi history" from the article. Tell them they are only allowed to write about the modern state. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Israel existed in ancient times, hence it is relevant. It is not Jewish only: you have not bothered to read the section. See also the History of China, History of Germany ( acountry which exists only since the 19th century), History of Egypt (was not independent from Cleopatra to 1932), History of Ghana, there is a clear connection between the history and modern events: more so then in other countries. [User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ( talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is not called the history of modern Israel and not called the history of the state of Israel (a state and a country are not the same thing). Templates do exist across wikipedia and in many respects the article follow those templates. Duplication of material also exists across wikipedia. For example the article on Israel includes material on the history of israel: and not just in the modern period. The article focuses on the modern period and merely provides a summary of the ancient history except where it may be relevant to modern Israel or of interest to readers.
Because the Jews were mostly in exile/lived outside the country for many centuries, some background is necessary. Because they are also a religion, some history of the religion is also required. Because religious conflict was and is, a major factor in the conflict it is important to explain how each of the religions touches upon the country. Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Material needs to be cut and merged with the main article. Chesdovi ( talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Who or What?" can you please explain the meaning behind this statement?
The Book of Judith was written around the first century. It contains tens of references to Israel, in terms of a people, a region/country, a tradition. all part of a contiuing history worthy of documentation.
Judith chapter 4 :The children of Israel in Judea learned what had happened to the other nations at the hands of Holofernes, the chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Assyrians... ..All the people of Israel called upon God with great fervor and humbled themselves before him......All the men of Israel in Jerusalem, with their wives and children, bowed before the Temple, sprinkled ashes on their heads...
chapter 5: The Israelites drove all the inhab¬itants into the desert; 15 they inhabited the country of the Amorites and wiped out the Hesh¬bonites. Then, having crossed the Jordan, they took possession of all the hill country, 16 driving out the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Shechemites, and the Ger¬ge¬sites, and they lived there for a long time.
chapter 6: Who are you, Achior, you and all the people bribed by Israel to prophesy against us as you have done today? Why do you counsel us not to make war on the race of Israel because their God will cover them with a shield?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has a substantial overlap with History of Palestine. I think it would be better, as suggested by Chesdovi, to let this article be about just the history of the modern state. As it is now, there are pages and pages of text in several paragraphs before getting to the real meat (i.e. the history of the modern state). This is a disservice to the reader. If the reader passing by is really more interested in ancient Israel, the 1948 war or Zionism, then there are already articles for that. We should direct the reader to the relevant articles, but we should not duplicate the content of those articles here. I suggest the following:
I don't agree so there is no agreement. You have not addressed my points nor made any contribution to this page other than to delete large sections without consultation. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Telaviv1, could you please state why limiting the scope of the article to the modern state is a bad idea, and what your alternative is? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Israel is a nation-state. According to Wikipedia "The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. "
The article notes that Israel is an exceptional case as it combines an ethno-religious group rather then just an ethnicity (it is not a universal religion). In that sense Judaism differs from Christianity or Islam in that it is also an ethnic-group, rather like the ancient Egyptian or Greek religions with which it was once contemporary.
The middle-east conflict is complex and deep, and requires of those of us who edit pages related to it an open-minded, sensitive and tolerant approach. My solution to this, is to avoid editing "Palestinian" pages and to accept that there are two different narratives here. Neither necessarily excludes the other, and no one has a monopoly on truth. Instead we must tolerate our differences and look for common ground.
To suggest that the Israelis are not a nation, that their state is not a region subject to a geopolitical or cultural history or that the people's association with their land is not worthy of recording seems to me discriminatory and POV: it is a political statement, notably your insistence that the region is "Palestine". That understanding is only true for some people but not for others. you are attempting to impose your POV on me and my people. Your attitude derives from intolerance and prejudice and not from an attempt to understand who the Israelis are and what motivates them.
Until a few years ago Al-Qaeda referred to Israelis as "Crusaders" which is why we put in a section on the Crusades, explaining the anti-Jewish genocidal nature of the Crusades. Since then, that language has dissappeared, I think that the article contributed to that.
Many of the readers are Moslems who are unfamiliar with the Jewish connection with the Haram-a-Sharif or Al-Khalil, sites which sit at the very heart of the present conflict. By explaining that association and explaining to Jewish readers the importance of the site to Moslems, we provide Moslem and Jewish readers with a better understanding of each other's connection to the site and so promote understanding and tolerance. Many readers are practising Christians and Jews, so it makes sense to summarize the bibilical period and the evolution of christianity.
Because Israel is partly conceived as a haven for Jews from persecution, and because of the exceptional nature of the persecution endured by the Jews (mainly in Europe), the hsitory of israel needs to provide a summary of that persecution and describe the religious connection with the country.
There have been four or five countries called Israel over the course pf the last 2500 years and it seems relevant to describe them and also explain how, why and when the Jews were driven into exile. Expecially since most people assume it all happened in 77 AD and in fact it was a longer more complex process.
the article is structure in such a way that readers can easily skip to the period that interests them. Telaviv1 ( talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Before I respond I would like to draw your attention to the page ratings, 35 have rated the history of Israel, 14 rated the history of plestine.
History of ISrael is shown first, history of palestine second.
Trustworthy: 4.5 - 3.4 Objective: 2.5 - 2 Comprehensive 3.5 - 3.3 Well written 4 - 4
84.108.237.238 ( talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought we needed a higher-level opinion on this, so I consulted with Professor Benny Morris.
He suggested we rename the "History of Palestine" to the "History of the Land of Israel - Palestine" and commented that the History of Palestine article downplays the Jewish connection to Israel. In my opinion its basically a list of empires that came and went. However, I agree with him that the History of Palestine (regardless of its name)is the appropriate place for a detailed description of the land's history from stone age to Zionism
Regarding the History of Israel, he suggested we remove the intro text "Israeli independence has been marked by massive immigration of Jews, by conflict with the Palestinians and by wars with neighbouring Arab states. Since about 1970 the United States has been the principal ally of Israel. In 1979, an uneasy peace was established with Egypt and in 1994, with Jordan. About 42% of the world's Jews live in Israel today." Which I would like to do, and I doubt you will disagree.
He agrees with me that the History fo Israel must "stronggly refer to the Jewish ties to the land and at least delineate them historically". and that it must "explain the derivation of the name Palestine, designed by Romans to disassociate and distance the Jews from the land".
Personally I believe we must also explain the whole issue of the temple mount and haram a sharif. So a lot of ancient history is required.
If you like I will also ask Professor David Cesarani and I can check with Dr. Hillel Cohen too.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest in addition that we add segments to ancient history explaining the origins of the Druze.
Telaviv1 (
talk)
09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As comparisons, History of Italy, History of India, History of Brazil, History of China, History of Ukraine, etc. refer to the ancient history, before the modern states were founded. It appears to be the norm. Are there examples of "History of country X" articles that don't refer to history before the founding of the modern country? Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I will check with Prof Morris before I publish our correspondence.
The History of Palestine is quite different from this article: it contains very little Jewish history, and would need to be renamed if it was going to be related to this article.
The History of Israel section on ancient history is quite specific in its orientation: it is about the Jewish connection to the country and provides only a brief overview of the years when there was no Jewish presence.
Comparing Israel to India is like comparing a Gnat to an Elephant. The History of India is a vast undertaking. Try History of Sri Lanka or History of Burma. Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, you are grossly oversimplifying the comparison with the indian subcontinent and south east asia. None of the countries you mentioned have a history similar to the State of Israel. As you know, Israel's history lies mostly in European Zionism, not in the region which it currently occupies. What happened in the region for the intervening two thousand years is not relevant to the history of the state of Israel, and this is reflected in how poor this section of this article is. As Frederico says, it should be removed - it is simply not relevant to this article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment—The problem with the proposal is twofold.
Overall, I don't see a problem with having these two articles having some overlapping content. The article History of Israel has a very clear focus that is completely different from the article History of Palestine. The sections of the articles that overlap are not, and should not be identical, because of this different focus. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hyrcanus never conquered Edom, he conquered and converted Idumea as one can read in his own wikipedia article for one. Also see Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs by Aryeh Kasher. (it's the last sentence in the section: Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE)). please change this. Titirius ( talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, you are still fighting here only because you refuse to acknowledge that the history of the State of Israel is comparatively unique. Clearly no country has exactly the same history, but some characteristics are shared:
By the way, from your comments above, you appear to be confused about Chinese/Taiwanese history. You also appear to be choosing to ignore the hatnote at the top of History of India. I urge you to accept the comparisons above and let us begin improving the quality of this article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's clear that there is no consensus for the proposal to limit the article scope to the history of the modern state. What I would like to see instead is an alternative. What should the scope of the article be, and how do you avoid overlap with the article History of Palestine? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following alterations
I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).
This is the History of Israel, not a history of European Jews. The section on growth of persecution in eastern Europe s not really required. If it can be justified, then it should be reduced to the following. The formation of modern nations and national identities was accompanied by a change in anti-Jewish prejudice. Prejudice that had previously been justified on grounds of religion was now defined in universal scientific language using the then current racial antisemitic terms. While Jews were attaining basic civil rights, other groups saw a decline in their power, including the Russian Tsars and the Church, and these groups were easily persuaded that a Jewish conspiracy was behind their difficulties. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The reference to invasion, as opposed to intervention by Arab states is POV, here and elsewhere in wikipedia. See this in this article:
Arab invasion (May 14 – June 11, 1948) The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine.[83] They declared war on the new state of Israel and immediately invaded.
The Statement by the Arab League upon the Declaration of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948), see http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm clearly refers to intervention. Can we come to a consensus that we reflect both descriptions, i.e. invasion/intervention? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not just have the title as Arab forces enter Palestine? If we are going to use invade, then we need to use invade,( without the quote marks) for Jewish military actions outside their partition area. We need consistency here. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 06:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following alterations
I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).
We should first agree on the best version of the Declaration by the Arab States of 15 May 1948. I have so far found four:
I suspect that the wording in Version 1 and Version 2 is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram. I think that Version 4 should be used as a reference with a wikilink to Version 3. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
the invaders can use whatever euphemism they like, it remains an invasion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bach Aria (
talk •
contribs)
17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed a couple of sentences sourced to Baylis Thomas. There are a few of issues.
"surprisingly few" border incidents is POV (how many is few? how serious?) and implies that the ISraelis were indeed responding to attacks. Bayliss is not an original source and rehashes existing material. Either way the link to the 101 unit was left in place. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has almost the same scope as History of Palestine, till you get to the mid twentieth century, and even then the scopes are extremely slimmer, Should they be merged, or something (maybe the new name could be something like "History of the land of Palestine")? Or alternatively maybe the scope of this page could be reduced to history sense the mid twentieth century, with a hatnote pointing to History of Palestine. It seams like having two articles for almost the same thing would cause a lot of wasted effort. Please respond at Talk:History_of_Palestine#This_article_has_almost_the_same_scope_as_History_of_Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The people known as palestinians have no independent or national history prior to the 20th century. It might make sense for the History of Palestine to be restricted to telling the story of the Arab population of the Land of Israel after the Balfour Declaration. The area is Israel, the page is the History of Israel, a country recognized by the UN which has roots deep in regional history. Palestine has only ever existed as a province in an empire and no such country has ever existed. Even as a province, the area was only called Palestine for 30 years of the last 1000. Its official name was then Palestine Eretz Israel, it was usually known as Palestine E.I. You can still seen the original name plates at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.
Your approach is likely to lead to unnecessary confrontation. There are two different narratives related to the territory and it is more peaceful to allow each side to tell its version fo the narrative. Telaviv1 ( talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I won't respond on the History of Palestine since this is the primary regional page and because I do not consider the request relevant Telaviv1 ( talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
this keeps on being removed because it was added by an alleged sock. is there anything else wrong with this addition outside of the alleged fact that it was introduced by an uber-evil sockpuppet? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
the number of rocket attacks has quite clearly decreased. If you live in Israel that is obvious. Telaviv1 ( talk) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I lost my patience and was in the wrong and I really do apologize. But as I said, I do not provide guarantees for my edits. I edit according to what I believe to be true and am not that interested in anything else. 82.81.22.146 ( talk) 20:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign in. I will also delete the offending text, unless you really want to keep it. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all what is a DP? It is not jsut a Jews displaec by the war. Millions were displaced by the war. (what does that mean?). It was a title given by the allies to Jews who were given asylum after the war. The British worked to restrict its applicaiton to Jews, because they were being asked to admit them into Palestine. Secondly what is a refugee? Who defines your status? Third, what is a Holocaust survivor? Does it mean you survived a camp or just that you lived in central Europe during the war? If you hid in the forest are you a holocast survivor? According to this http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129 170,000 Jewish DPs and refugees migrated to Israel from Europe between 1948 - 1953. but it cites no sources and does not explain how the terms were defined.
This source gives 350,000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630341
This source gives 500,000: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/new-israeli-study-finds-signs-of-trauma-in-grandchildren-of-holocaust-survivors-1.424480
Good figures here: http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Society/4)+The+Mass+Migration+of+the+1950s.htm
This source is interesting. Its in Hebrew and says that half the Israeli soldiers in the 1948 war were holocaust survivors: http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=16227 This source http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/he/exhibitions/survivors/book/yablunka.pdf says that if you add in migrants from 1940 onwards, 2/3 of the Israeli army were holocast survivors.
Finally there is the issue of Jews who migrated before 1948. Weren't German Jews refugees? I think we will need to give a short explanation of the problematics. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The Tribes of Israel were divided by Ahijah the Shilonite in the book of Kings 1 and is specifically mentioned in the chapter 11. At least 10 of the 12 Tribes of Israel were taken from Solomon, the Jewish ruler at that time. Question, how can I improve this quote before posting?
34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.
— First mention of the tables in Kings 1, 11:34-11:36 [1]
Twillisjr ( talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
ONLY the UN security council can create new states. The General Assembly has no independent authority and only meets twice a year. All power at the UN is in the hands of the security council but requires acceptance by the five permanent members. That the UNSC gave the decision of how to handle the British Mandate of Palestine to the GA was highly unusual. Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Good question! Article 4: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
The Security council must reccomend you before the GA can vote on membership. Reference: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I have fully protected this page due to sockpuppetry. Since there is no consensus to PC2, I will not apply it. However, if there is an overwhelming consensus, I'll consider WP:IAR. If the preferred option is still to semi-protect the page or if any other options are considered, please list them. I am keeping a watch on this thread. Elockid ( Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain this in plain English? Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ran against the edit roadblock while using DAB-solver; Please correct the following:
GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1. The image of the western wall on the top right is in my opinion inappropriate because it is showing a religious site rather than a "national" image. We need a less in-your-face image. 2. the image of the temple in the "Persian and Hellenistic rule" section needs to be moved two sections down to the "Herodian kingdom" becaue that particular model of the temple relates to that period. Before that it was just a small building of some sort. 3. There is a single reference to the "mufti" in the article. We need to expand his title to the Mufti of Jerusalem and he deserves a few more references.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article says, "Between the 7th and 11th centuries, Jewish scribes, called the Masoretes and located mainly in Israel, established the Masoretic Text... ". To the best of my knowledge, there was no territory called 'Israel' during those centuries, just the Greek eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Arab conquest. I suggest defining the relevant territory by its official names of the period. Presumably we all know that it forms part of today's eretz Israel. Politis ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take for someone to see that )less then 24 hours). Its a valid point and I will correct it.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
AMIN AL HUSSEINI NEVER COMMAND A MUSLIM SS SECTION OR UNIT
I want to strongly recall your atention over the imput the infamous Amin al Husseini commanded 'a Bosnian SS' unit in WWII. This never was. First of all, never was 'a bosnian SS' in WWII but a 'Croatische Waffen der SS' enlisted by croats, serbs an yes bosniacs both chistians and muslims ones. His high officers were ever germans, chistians germans and never muslims. This unit dated from 1944 and come into action figthing Tito's partisans and after in Austria against Red Army, and never was involved in Holocaust against jews. Certainliy al Husseini paraded SS troops, but Husseini never reached any military degree. And more: Kurt Waldheim never was acquited or prosecuted for any war crime and the 'comission of historians', suported by Simon Wiesenthal, released him from any guilty. Indeed, Waldheim was honoured by Josip Broz Tito -supossed to be 'his victim'? all 'Waldheim affair' is supossed to be a lie orchestred by Israeli Mossad secret service, in 'Lavon affair' line... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 ( talk) 10:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
'''The 'Nasser nazi rocketers', an urban legend?''' When it saids "Egypt develops rockets with the assistance of German scientists... Egypt begins three missile programs based on the German V-2 missile with plans to build 900 missiles of the three models by 1970... When the Mossad learned in 1962 that a team of German scientists were building rockets for the Egyptians to use against Israel, he launched a campaign of murderous intimidation against them and their families. The Nazi association of Nasser were one of the things that inspired Anthony Eden in 1956. The intention of creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas has a clear association with the Nazi extermination program..." etcetera I think is but an 'urban legend' Why? I have read a lot over V2 rocketers in III Reich, GB / USA (operation paperclip) and USSR but, when I try to get something over them in Egypt I can't found nothing. Not a name, not an operative plan, not a nothing! Nothing in Wikipedia, nothing in hundreds and hundreds 'V2' and 'ME affairs' pages in the internet, not a single book over this 'subject'. I had never find a single name of any german scentific involved on that. Now, the input "creating the rockets for delivery of poison gas" is absolutely new to me, never have read that in any 'cold war' and 'ME wars' historians: who said that, who historian, and who granted that?? Yes Peter Malkin -the one who kidnaped Eichmann- said he was 'involved' in a Israeli letter bomb campaing against this 'egyptians nazi rocketers' but, indeed he didn't reveal any detail, any name or dates, any nothing. So when I cant find nothing granting the true, I became to think this subject is untrue. The Harel 'fall' as Mossad superchief comes not by his Egypt rocket obssessions, but by his collision with Abba Evan: over the Eichmann kidnapping in Argentina, Evan's diplomatic prestige was very touched and damaged because Evan, Secetary of External Affairs, was not informed of waht Mossad was doing and even Harel and Malkin team used Evan's plane landed in Buenos Aires airport to 'deliver' undercover Eichmann to Israel -Evan knowing nothing all about. The Eichmann kidnapping fueled a NU votation agaisnt Israel and an Argentina very formal diplomatic protest. In result, Evan and Harel never talked each other again. You can read on at Harel's book 'The Garibaldi street house'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 ( talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I will check up on the Waffen SS unit the Mufti commanded. The text provides references for the material about the Egyptian missiles. Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This was reverted by User:Telaviv1.The issue was previously discussed at my talk page:
The following sentence in The War of Independence: The civil war phase was changed by me:
Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas—and outnumbered the Jews by approximately two to one.
where a source is provided for the fact that of the total population of the Mandate there were twice as many arabs as jews. I changed the sentence to this:
Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas.
You reverted this here and here, stating that "deletion summary does not change the fact that this is sourced and fully appropriate". In my view, and as stated in the comment, the total population is not relevant in context of war. The fact that a source of the population figure is provided does not change that. Please explain why you think it is "fully appropriate". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly relevant to note the population difference. If the population of one side is twice that of the other, it is likely that the army of that side will be much larger than the others as well. We can't include that in the article, because it is WP:OR, but we can certainly include the population and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Following that line of reasoning, it would be much more reasonable to mention total manpower instead of total population, as total population also includes children, women and elderly. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith (professor in history at University of Arizona) on page 200 writes "The Jewish community had a slight manpower advantage over Palestinians among males in the twenty to forty-four age group". I suggest we replace the current erroneous text with this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I maintain that total manpower is significant and that stating that the jews outnumbered the arabs, while true when it comes to total population, is misleading to the reader. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the Arabs had more men under arms at first. Does smith give the number of men for each side and if the JEws had more in that age bracket expalin why that was? Can you see what his sources are? I think Benny Morris is probably the best source because almost everyone accepts that he is a reliable informant. I haven't heard of Smith. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
As there has been no response, I will go on and make the change. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I've been busy. The British immigration quotas meant that they had to choose immigrants carefully and people had to prove commitment to get in. Immigrants arrived fluent in Hebrew and trained in a griculture. I will examine what you have added when I have more time.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This line seems to attempt to discredit Waldheim's criticism of Israel, while the article that is cited actually clears Waldheim of any wrongdoing. While the sentence is technically true, it has no bearing on the context; it is just there to mislead, I'm removing it. Thebwt ( talk) 13:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Caption: "A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards southern Israel, January 2009" But summary for the image reads: "12 December 2008" ??? -- Marcus Schätzle ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame there aren't any citations for this whole section, if I may be so bold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.182.63 ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy at the moment so this will take me a couple of weeks, but it shouldn't be a problem. Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"after almost two millennia of Jewish dispersal" - is not supported by citation 1. I will add a citations needed tab to this statement in a week after checking this talk page. Beam 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to intrude, so forgive me if this is inappropriate. I also had a problem with this sentence, specifically the part where it is said that the jewish people have been persecuted for almost two millenia. I think we should add some of the important examples of persecution as the sentence, as it stands now, gives the impression of being biased. Or at leasst link to a page with a list of major persecutions and a history of the jewish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.37.71 ( talk) 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this section, which deals with events of some two to three thousand years ago, has no place in the article: the article is about the state of Israel, which came into existence in 1948 and has a history rooted in the Zionist movement of the 19th century. So the Zionist portion should form the background, but not the history of Iron Age Israel.
However, if ancient history must be mentioned, it needs to be accurate. That means that it can't just summarise the bible - it's pretty normal these days to see the bible as a very biased work of the post-Exilic period, with little value as a source, especially for the very earliest period (notably the business about Abraham and so on). PiCo ( talk) 02:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The state of israel did not magically come into existence in 1948. It already existed and simply declared independence. Much of the conflict with the Palestinians is religious and to understand how crucial the conflict over the temple mount is (for example) one needs to know the history. Or toundersgtand why Hamas talk of crusaders etc. In addition the Jews remained a significant presence in the country up to the Crusades and did not simply vanish in 70AD. There were Jewish revolts against the Romans in the second century and fifth.
If you're that keen go to History of Iraq, independent since 1932 and delete all the "ancient Iraqi history" from the article. Tell them they are only allowed to write about the modern state. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Israel existed in ancient times, hence it is relevant. It is not Jewish only: you have not bothered to read the section. See also the History of China, History of Germany ( acountry which exists only since the 19th century), History of Egypt (was not independent from Cleopatra to 1932), History of Ghana, there is a clear connection between the history and modern events: more so then in other countries. [User:Telaviv1|Telaviv1]] ( talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is not called the history of modern Israel and not called the history of the state of Israel (a state and a country are not the same thing). Templates do exist across wikipedia and in many respects the article follow those templates. Duplication of material also exists across wikipedia. For example the article on Israel includes material on the history of israel: and not just in the modern period. The article focuses on the modern period and merely provides a summary of the ancient history except where it may be relevant to modern Israel or of interest to readers.
Because the Jews were mostly in exile/lived outside the country for many centuries, some background is necessary. Because they are also a religion, some history of the religion is also required. Because religious conflict was and is, a major factor in the conflict it is important to explain how each of the religions touches upon the country. Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Material needs to be cut and merged with the main article. Chesdovi ( talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Who or What?" can you please explain the meaning behind this statement?
The Book of Judith was written around the first century. It contains tens of references to Israel, in terms of a people, a region/country, a tradition. all part of a contiuing history worthy of documentation.
Judith chapter 4 :The children of Israel in Judea learned what had happened to the other nations at the hands of Holofernes, the chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Assyrians... ..All the people of Israel called upon God with great fervor and humbled themselves before him......All the men of Israel in Jerusalem, with their wives and children, bowed before the Temple, sprinkled ashes on their heads...
chapter 5: The Israelites drove all the inhab¬itants into the desert; 15 they inhabited the country of the Amorites and wiped out the Hesh¬bonites. Then, having crossed the Jordan, they took possession of all the hill country, 16 driving out the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Shechemites, and the Ger¬ge¬sites, and they lived there for a long time.
chapter 6: Who are you, Achior, you and all the people bribed by Israel to prophesy against us as you have done today? Why do you counsel us not to make war on the race of Israel because their God will cover them with a shield?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has a substantial overlap with History of Palestine. I think it would be better, as suggested by Chesdovi, to let this article be about just the history of the modern state. As it is now, there are pages and pages of text in several paragraphs before getting to the real meat (i.e. the history of the modern state). This is a disservice to the reader. If the reader passing by is really more interested in ancient Israel, the 1948 war or Zionism, then there are already articles for that. We should direct the reader to the relevant articles, but we should not duplicate the content of those articles here. I suggest the following:
I don't agree so there is no agreement. You have not addressed my points nor made any contribution to this page other than to delete large sections without consultation. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Telaviv1, could you please state why limiting the scope of the article to the modern state is a bad idea, and what your alternative is? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Israel is a nation-state. According to Wikipedia "The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. "
The article notes that Israel is an exceptional case as it combines an ethno-religious group rather then just an ethnicity (it is not a universal religion). In that sense Judaism differs from Christianity or Islam in that it is also an ethnic-group, rather like the ancient Egyptian or Greek religions with which it was once contemporary.
The middle-east conflict is complex and deep, and requires of those of us who edit pages related to it an open-minded, sensitive and tolerant approach. My solution to this, is to avoid editing "Palestinian" pages and to accept that there are two different narratives here. Neither necessarily excludes the other, and no one has a monopoly on truth. Instead we must tolerate our differences and look for common ground.
To suggest that the Israelis are not a nation, that their state is not a region subject to a geopolitical or cultural history or that the people's association with their land is not worthy of recording seems to me discriminatory and POV: it is a political statement, notably your insistence that the region is "Palestine". That understanding is only true for some people but not for others. you are attempting to impose your POV on me and my people. Your attitude derives from intolerance and prejudice and not from an attempt to understand who the Israelis are and what motivates them.
Until a few years ago Al-Qaeda referred to Israelis as "Crusaders" which is why we put in a section on the Crusades, explaining the anti-Jewish genocidal nature of the Crusades. Since then, that language has dissappeared, I think that the article contributed to that.
Many of the readers are Moslems who are unfamiliar with the Jewish connection with the Haram-a-Sharif or Al-Khalil, sites which sit at the very heart of the present conflict. By explaining that association and explaining to Jewish readers the importance of the site to Moslems, we provide Moslem and Jewish readers with a better understanding of each other's connection to the site and so promote understanding and tolerance. Many readers are practising Christians and Jews, so it makes sense to summarize the bibilical period and the evolution of christianity.
Because Israel is partly conceived as a haven for Jews from persecution, and because of the exceptional nature of the persecution endured by the Jews (mainly in Europe), the hsitory of israel needs to provide a summary of that persecution and describe the religious connection with the country.
There have been four or five countries called Israel over the course pf the last 2500 years and it seems relevant to describe them and also explain how, why and when the Jews were driven into exile. Expecially since most people assume it all happened in 77 AD and in fact it was a longer more complex process.
the article is structure in such a way that readers can easily skip to the period that interests them. Telaviv1 ( talk) 11:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Before I respond I would like to draw your attention to the page ratings, 35 have rated the history of Israel, 14 rated the history of plestine.
History of ISrael is shown first, history of palestine second.
Trustworthy: 4.5 - 3.4 Objective: 2.5 - 2 Comprehensive 3.5 - 3.3 Well written 4 - 4
84.108.237.238 ( talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought we needed a higher-level opinion on this, so I consulted with Professor Benny Morris.
He suggested we rename the "History of Palestine" to the "History of the Land of Israel - Palestine" and commented that the History of Palestine article downplays the Jewish connection to Israel. In my opinion its basically a list of empires that came and went. However, I agree with him that the History of Palestine (regardless of its name)is the appropriate place for a detailed description of the land's history from stone age to Zionism
Regarding the History of Israel, he suggested we remove the intro text "Israeli independence has been marked by massive immigration of Jews, by conflict with the Palestinians and by wars with neighbouring Arab states. Since about 1970 the United States has been the principal ally of Israel. In 1979, an uneasy peace was established with Egypt and in 1994, with Jordan. About 42% of the world's Jews live in Israel today." Which I would like to do, and I doubt you will disagree.
He agrees with me that the History fo Israel must "stronggly refer to the Jewish ties to the land and at least delineate them historically". and that it must "explain the derivation of the name Palestine, designed by Romans to disassociate and distance the Jews from the land".
Personally I believe we must also explain the whole issue of the temple mount and haram a sharif. So a lot of ancient history is required.
If you like I will also ask Professor David Cesarani and I can check with Dr. Hillel Cohen too.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest in addition that we add segments to ancient history explaining the origins of the Druze.
Telaviv1 (
talk)
09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As comparisons, History of Italy, History of India, History of Brazil, History of China, History of Ukraine, etc. refer to the ancient history, before the modern states were founded. It appears to be the norm. Are there examples of "History of country X" articles that don't refer to history before the founding of the modern country? Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I will check with Prof Morris before I publish our correspondence.
The History of Palestine is quite different from this article: it contains very little Jewish history, and would need to be renamed if it was going to be related to this article.
The History of Israel section on ancient history is quite specific in its orientation: it is about the Jewish connection to the country and provides only a brief overview of the years when there was no Jewish presence.
Comparing Israel to India is like comparing a Gnat to an Elephant. The History of India is a vast undertaking. Try History of Sri Lanka or History of Burma. Telaviv1 ( talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, you are grossly oversimplifying the comparison with the indian subcontinent and south east asia. None of the countries you mentioned have a history similar to the State of Israel. As you know, Israel's history lies mostly in European Zionism, not in the region which it currently occupies. What happened in the region for the intervening two thousand years is not relevant to the history of the state of Israel, and this is reflected in how poor this section of this article is. As Frederico says, it should be removed - it is simply not relevant to this article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment—The problem with the proposal is twofold.
Overall, I don't see a problem with having these two articles having some overlapping content. The article History of Israel has a very clear focus that is completely different from the article History of Palestine. The sections of the articles that overlap are not, and should not be identical, because of this different focus. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hyrcanus never conquered Edom, he conquered and converted Idumea as one can read in his own wikipedia article for one. Also see Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs by Aryeh Kasher. (it's the last sentence in the section: Hasmonean kingdom (2nd century BCE – 64 BCE)). please change this. Titirius ( talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, you are still fighting here only because you refuse to acknowledge that the history of the State of Israel is comparatively unique. Clearly no country has exactly the same history, but some characteristics are shared:
By the way, from your comments above, you appear to be confused about Chinese/Taiwanese history. You also appear to be choosing to ignore the hatnote at the top of History of India. I urge you to accept the comparisons above and let us begin improving the quality of this article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's clear that there is no consensus for the proposal to limit the article scope to the history of the modern state. What I would like to see instead is an alternative. What should the scope of the article be, and how do you avoid overlap with the article History of Palestine? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following alterations
I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).
This is the History of Israel, not a history of European Jews. The section on growth of persecution in eastern Europe s not really required. If it can be justified, then it should be reduced to the following. The formation of modern nations and national identities was accompanied by a change in anti-Jewish prejudice. Prejudice that had previously been justified on grounds of religion was now defined in universal scientific language using the then current racial antisemitic terms. While Jews were attaining basic civil rights, other groups saw a decline in their power, including the Russian Tsars and the Church, and these groups were easily persuaded that a Jewish conspiracy was behind their difficulties. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The reference to invasion, as opposed to intervention by Arab states is POV, here and elsewhere in wikipedia. See this in this article:
Arab invasion (May 14 – June 11, 1948) The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine.[83] They declared war on the new state of Israel and immediately invaded.
The Statement by the Arab League upon the Declaration of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948), see http://www.mideastweb.org/arableague1948.htm clearly refers to intervention. Can we come to a consensus that we reflect both descriptions, i.e. invasion/intervention? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not just have the title as Arab forces enter Palestine? If we are going to use invade, then we need to use invade,( without the quote marks) for Jewish military actions outside their partition area. We need consistency here. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 06:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following alterations
I suspect that the Jewish Virtual Library version is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram (Arabic or English).
We should first agree on the best version of the Declaration by the Arab States of 15 May 1948. I have so far found four:
I suspect that the wording in Version 1 and Version 2 is an English translation of a Hebrew translation of the original cablegram. I think that Version 4 should be used as a reference with a wikilink to Version 3. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
the invaders can use whatever euphemism they like, it remains an invasion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bach Aria (
talk •
contribs)
17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed a couple of sentences sourced to Baylis Thomas. There are a few of issues.
"surprisingly few" border incidents is POV (how many is few? how serious?) and implies that the ISraelis were indeed responding to attacks. Bayliss is not an original source and rehashes existing material. Either way the link to the 101 unit was left in place. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has almost the same scope as History of Palestine, till you get to the mid twentieth century, and even then the scopes are extremely slimmer, Should they be merged, or something (maybe the new name could be something like "History of the land of Palestine")? Or alternatively maybe the scope of this page could be reduced to history sense the mid twentieth century, with a hatnote pointing to History of Palestine. It seams like having two articles for almost the same thing would cause a lot of wasted effort. Please respond at Talk:History_of_Palestine#This_article_has_almost_the_same_scope_as_History_of_Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The people known as palestinians have no independent or national history prior to the 20th century. It might make sense for the History of Palestine to be restricted to telling the story of the Arab population of the Land of Israel after the Balfour Declaration. The area is Israel, the page is the History of Israel, a country recognized by the UN which has roots deep in regional history. Palestine has only ever existed as a province in an empire and no such country has ever existed. Even as a province, the area was only called Palestine for 30 years of the last 1000. Its official name was then Palestine Eretz Israel, it was usually known as Palestine E.I. You can still seen the original name plates at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.
Your approach is likely to lead to unnecessary confrontation. There are two different narratives related to the territory and it is more peaceful to allow each side to tell its version fo the narrative. Telaviv1 ( talk) 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I won't respond on the History of Palestine since this is the primary regional page and because I do not consider the request relevant Telaviv1 ( talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
this keeps on being removed because it was added by an alleged sock. is there anything else wrong with this addition outside of the alleged fact that it was introduced by an uber-evil sockpuppet? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
the number of rocket attacks has quite clearly decreased. If you live in Israel that is obvious. Telaviv1 ( talk) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I lost my patience and was in the wrong and I really do apologize. But as I said, I do not provide guarantees for my edits. I edit according to what I believe to be true and am not that interested in anything else. 82.81.22.146 ( talk) 20:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign in. I will also delete the offending text, unless you really want to keep it. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all what is a DP? It is not jsut a Jews displaec by the war. Millions were displaced by the war. (what does that mean?). It was a title given by the allies to Jews who were given asylum after the war. The British worked to restrict its applicaiton to Jews, because they were being asked to admit them into Palestine. Secondly what is a refugee? Who defines your status? Third, what is a Holocaust survivor? Does it mean you survived a camp or just that you lived in central Europe during the war? If you hid in the forest are you a holocast survivor? According to this http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129 170,000 Jewish DPs and refugees migrated to Israel from Europe between 1948 - 1953. but it cites no sources and does not explain how the terms were defined.
This source gives 350,000: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630341
This source gives 500,000: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/new-israeli-study-finds-signs-of-trauma-in-grandchildren-of-holocaust-survivors-1.424480
Good figures here: http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Society/4)+The+Mass+Migration+of+the+1950s.htm
This source is interesting. Its in Hebrew and says that half the Israeli soldiers in the 1948 war were holocaust survivors: http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=16227 This source http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/he/exhibitions/survivors/book/yablunka.pdf says that if you add in migrants from 1940 onwards, 2/3 of the Israeli army were holocast survivors.
Finally there is the issue of Jews who migrated before 1948. Weren't German Jews refugees? I think we will need to give a short explanation of the problematics. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The Tribes of Israel were divided by Ahijah the Shilonite in the book of Kings 1 and is specifically mentioned in the chapter 11. At least 10 of the 12 Tribes of Israel were taken from Solomon, the Jewish ruler at that time. Question, how can I improve this quote before posting?
34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.
— First mention of the tables in Kings 1, 11:34-11:36 [1]
Twillisjr ( talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
ONLY the UN security council can create new states. The General Assembly has no independent authority and only meets twice a year. All power at the UN is in the hands of the security council but requires acceptance by the five permanent members. That the UNSC gave the decision of how to handle the British Mandate of Palestine to the GA was highly unusual. Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Good question! Article 4: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
The Security council must reccomend you before the GA can vote on membership. Reference: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I have fully protected this page due to sockpuppetry. Since there is no consensus to PC2, I will not apply it. However, if there is an overwhelming consensus, I'll consider WP:IAR. If the preferred option is still to semi-protect the page or if any other options are considered, please list them. I am keeping a watch on this thread. Elockid ( Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain this in plain English? Telaviv1 ( talk) 08:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ran against the edit roadblock while using DAB-solver; Please correct the following:
GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1. The image of the western wall on the top right is in my opinion inappropriate because it is showing a religious site rather than a "national" image. We need a less in-your-face image. 2. the image of the temple in the "Persian and Hellenistic rule" section needs to be moved two sections down to the "Herodian kingdom" becaue that particular model of the temple relates to that period. Before that it was just a small building of some sort. 3. There is a single reference to the "mufti" in the article. We need to expand his title to the Mufti of Jerusalem and he deserves a few more references.