![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This article claims Israel is 20km2 and ranked 150th while List of countries and outlying territories by total area claims 22km2 and ranked 149th. Can they be verified? eeemess 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This article does not give Arab view of events. The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. The Arabs and Palestinian did not play any part in it. So talking about partitioning their land to compensate the European Jews is not negotiable. Essentially, they said it is European problem and should be solved in Europe. Siddiqui 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who represented the Palestinians during WWII sided with Hitler and Nazi Germany. There is extensive documentation of the Mufti and Nazi Germany's diplomatic relations, thereby making the Arabs complicit in the death of many Jews living in and around Palestine. Also, I'd just like to point out the ridiculousness of the above logic. When wars are waged, land and territory are often exchanged, either by force or treaty. In the case of Palestine (which is really no different than many other lands that have been lost due to war), Britain and the Allied powers had gained control of it. Not only was a majority of the population Jewish in the land that was carved out as Israel, BUT the Arabs had sided with the fascist regimes and Nazi Germany. Why do the losers of WWII deserve an equal place at the bargaining table? Remember that the country the Arabs sided with annexed Austria and invaded Poland; why do they cry out when it happens to them (to a much lesser degree, of course)? -- ZTMission 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you sight source for any of your statments? Also, you neglect to mention the history of arab oppression of middle eastern jews for centuries. Not to mention your statement "effectively emotionally hardened by their mistreatment" considering that you are talking about 3 million people it seems an unfair generalization. Finally I dont think it is "natural" for people to revolt against immigration. The Isiah 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The figures in the infobox and the demographics section don't match. Can we please have the latest data, properly referenced? Nomist 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what about a chart showing the demographic evolution of Israel ?
Ok these are my thoughts:
What I'm wondering is how the Wiki NPOV applies to this article versus other articles. Because, the dehumanization of Jews, and other "undesirables" is clearly stated in the Nazism article. However, in the case of the Palestine conflict, Israel's dehumanization of the Palestinian Arabs is not [if you think that Israel hasn't done anything wrong to the Palestinians then you have a skewed point of view. For more information see Ted Swedenburg's scholarly articles or http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/history.html]
Therefore, what I as an American and non-Palestinian [but a person who reads European newspapers and has looked into the murder of Rachel Corrie, James Miller, and others by Israeli soldiers] have come to the conclusion that the NPOV is still skewed to be Pro-Israeli which is what the American media is giving us. The Corrie and Miller case should get some note on the site since its a direct killing of Americans or British who show solidarity with the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.
Once finals are over I'll try to put together some information using the forementioned sources and also http://www.btselem.org/ which has facts\figures relating to casualties caused by both sides and reveals that Israel has killed more Palestinians, espcially children, then vice versa (the organization is run by Israeli and other Jews and can be read in Hebrew as well for those who want to check it out.)
151.205.180.108 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) SafireRain
I would like to see more on Israeli policy with what it terms as terrorism and its solutions and also what is termed as Israeli state terrorism and the justifications for it. 72.57.230.179 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The prime minister today said he would draw up the borders with or without Palestinian support. I don't see why the West Bank didn't remain with Jordan and why Gaza with Egypt. The Palestinians have demonstrated time and time again that they can't govern themselves nor live with others. see Israeli and Lebanese history with the PLO... not to mention Jordanian. 12.15.7.70
The article does not metion that the zionist movement was investigating differnet contries to create a homeland for Jews. For example Argentina was seriously considered, however the zionists backed off fearing that an anti-semetic atmosphere has already developed in that country.
Again, the above is facts that you can find off of any book that talks about the creation of israel. You can also find it on the websites of the jewish zionist movements. For example Theodore Hertzl's book "The Jewish State" states (1896)
Is Palestine or Argentina preferable? The Society will take whatever it is given and whatever Jewish public opinion favors.... Argentina is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, is sparsely populated, and has a temperate climate. It would be in its own highest interest for the Republic of Argentina to cede us a portion of its territory.... Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland. The very name would be a marvelously effective rallying cry
Also Grande island New York by Buffalo was proposed as the zionist state. The Isiah 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Uganda was Hertzel's last attempt to find a country other then Palistine.
There is little mention of the promised land I would like an Israeli Jew to tell me in their opinion what constitutes the borders of the Jewish promised land? Thank you. Zakaria mohyeldin 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Infobox displayed with this article (upper right of screen) gives:
|national_motto = Occupy the arab lands from the Nile to the Furat river(which are represented by the two blue stripes on its flag above).
This strikes me as highly unlikely, specious, and inflammatory. What is the protocol for removing such material? The insertion does not have a User Name associated with it.
Thank you!
Deborahjay
19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are we using the full spelling of G-d rather than G-d? Please explain. Ariel C 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless I am reading the article wrong, I don't see any mention of Ethiopian Jews and their coming to Israel. Ariel C 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While I realize that editing is open to all comers, it stands to reason that not all are professionals with experience writing reportage on current events and human rights issues in Israel for a local and global readership (as I am, and do). A passage I've copyedited in this article (2000s section) may eventually be modified, so I'd just like to elucidate for the benefit of my fellow editors the particular language used:
I distinguished (without the use of "scare quotes"; emphasis added here) between: suspected terrorists / alleged members of militant organizations / apparently unaffiliated civilians [including] minors.
(NB: The "affiliated" in the latter expression reflects the prevalent contentions, and actual possibility, that some of these individuals might indeed turn out to belong to the previous category (members of militant organizations), or even be unsuspected terrorists. Otherwise, I'd have used a word such as apparently/ostensibly/purportedly, etc.)
As it is, I aimed to employ language consistent with the guidelines of responsible reportage, which I believe suitable to Wikipedia.
Deborahjay
05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The infobox states that there are two official languages in Israel, Hebrew and Arabic. Isn't Russian also an official language? A lot of Jewish immigrants are from the former USSR and there is also a Russian broadcasting company in Israel. -- Soetermans 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
English is not an official language according to http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/fog0000000007.html and http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/lprcprof.htm -- Avi 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JKelly I'm sure you are not Israeli, but let me assure you, I am. The data in the article is wrong, because the Golan Heights, Judas and Samaria, Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem are Israeli territories, and so the data about the 20,700 square killometers is wrong - plus 365 km2 for Gaza, 5,523 km2 for Judas and Samarias and 1,190 km2 for the Golan Heights, we have 27,848 km2. This is a currect information and I'm truly surprised that in Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia I cannot edit currectly an article. -- AmadeusW 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-- AmadeusW 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The West Bank and Gaza are not considered to be part of Israel even by the Israeli government. Obviously they are occupied by Israel, and they are not claimed by any de facto sovereign state (although they are claimed by Palestine, which is recognized as a state by several other countries), but that doesn't make them part of Israel. As to the Golan Heights, these were not annexed by Israel. They are, iirc, administered by Israel in the same way that Israel administers its own territory, but, on the other hand, pretty much every other government in the world recognizes them as part of Syria. As to East Jerusalem, it was annexed by Israel, but this annexation is not recognized by any other country. A listing of Israel's territorial extent should give the extent of its undisputed territory - that is to say, territory inside the green line. Perhaps the area of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be noted parenthetically. The area of the West Bank and Gaza should not be included under any circumstances. john k 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is very biased, it has an entire section dedicated to Jewish undergound groups yet does not talk of the appaulling massacre at the Haifa oil refinery, it refers to Haganah as a defensive group which is disputable, it makes Ariel Sharons appearance at Al-Asqa and the starting of the second intifada only seem coincidental, it does not refer to the west bank wall as illegal and there is very little mention of the ethnic cleasing policies, curfews and mistreatment imposed on the Arabs. Zcaky06 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That is blatently untrue; ethnic cleansing policies, curfews etc performed by Israeli's are well known particularly in the West Bank, a simple web search will reveal as such. And how can Haganah be a defensive organisation if it was responsible for the massacres at two villages after the Haifa Oil refinery incident which was conviniently left out of the article and many sources believe it was Ariel Sharrons visit that sparked the second intifada, it was not simply a peaceful visit, he came with an entourage of roughly 200 armed men. Finally the wall is illegal and is one of the reasons Israel is accused by the international community of being an aparthied state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2155 http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0994/9409012.htm Zcaky06 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ariel Sharron knew that the leader of the oppression and killings of Palestinian families visiting one of their most sacred places would be contentious and would provoke them, particularly against the backdrop of the collasped peacetalks, this the reason he is widely not considered innocent of instigating the second intifada. As for saying the ethnic cleasing policies were for terrorists, unless you consider entire palestinian neighbourhoods are terrorists, i don't think this presumption holds, please see the sources below which show indicate state ordained rapes, massacres, midnight raids and evictions on entire families http://www.vtjp.org/letters/Ethnic_cleansing_by_Israel.htm http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html I am confused about your point with regard to Haganah, it sounds like you acknowledge they perform massacres but only in retaliation for other masacres. This does not sound defensive, and to say they attack only in retaliation is untrue, the oil refinery massacre was instigated by a Jewish organisation, and even during the Arab retaliation, some Jewish workers were protected by Arab workers. And please provide evidence that they were supported by the British. Also please inspect the sources i provided in my last post. Zcaky06 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are starting to use 'you are only looking at the flat side of the coin' as a deflective statement that in no way changes what i have stated. Your entire line of argument has also gone to a tangent, wikipedia only allows you to state what you can verify in the article. Making up highly dubious and quite frankly absurd assumptions that the palestinians may have been illegal settlers without any evidence particularly when it is more likely their existence predated Israel is unacceptable. Brushing off the 'as-if massacre' not by denying it but by simply refering an arab riot also makes no sense. Quite frankyly your last statement does not deny any of these things i.e. the Hanagah massacre, the arab persecution etc rather accepts it and then tries to make up fanciful justifications which are unbacked up. I will reiterate my position, i wish to include in the article the following points for which I have provided sources for in my previous posts; the massacre by Hanagh, that Hanagh is a defensive group is dubious, Ariel Sharrons visit is thought by some to be a deliberate attempt to instigate the second intifada, the west bank wall is illegal, palestinians have been subjected to ethnic cleansing policies, curfews in the west bank and periods of state sanctioned massacres, rapes and murders. I do not intend to continue a discussion of hypothesise and theories.
This article is nothing but Israeli propaganda.
The state of Israel was established in Palestine against the will of the indigenous population. Why isn't this basic fact made clear?
Far from being a democracy, Israel is an apartheid state in which Jewish citizens enjoy rights and privileges denied to non-Jewish citizens. A keystone of democracy is the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. Israel is *predicated* on the notion of religious-ethnic elitism, and on this basis alone cannot be accurately termed a democracy.
Since its inception, Israel has flouted international laws and treaties, and has refused to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring it to withdraw from the Palestinian territories it illegally occupies. It has developed and amassed huge stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has refused to sign up to any of the treaties intended to limit the spread of nuclear weapons (including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty).
Israel has been condemned repeatedly by humanitarian and civil rights organizations for its human rights abuses (including torture and imprisonment without trial), and for its policies of discrimination against Palestinians.
In short this article makes no acknowledgement of the fact that Israel is an outlaw state which occupies land to which it has no legal right whatsoever, and has been established against the will of the Palestinian people, through US-sponsored military force, and by brutal methods including state terrorism, assassination, torture, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the ghettoization of Palestinian "refugees" (ie, the people whose land and property has been taken over by Israel), the erection of barriers to fragment Palestinian communities, intimidation, discrimination and various other forms of oppression.
217.216.24.116
02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is funny when it comes to Israel such self-righteous condemnations fizzle, as any other country; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China have made their fair of mistakes. 1st point, no one here is defending the attrocites of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc or trying to pass them off as minor mistakes. 2nd point, it is extremely offensive to class the consistent mass brutality and killings of the Palestinians (which include actions such as harderned snipers shooting at small children as a result of direct orders from above) as mistakes! As for Jewish people living in Palestine for three thousands years, this is true, but only some Jewish people, there is no objection to them living and working in Palestine and in fact they themselves would be Palestinians. However, to use this as an excuse to say all Jewsih people from all around then have a natural right to Palestinians soil is absurd. Also the Peel commision suggested that the Palestinians give up land that was always theirs to create a state soverign only to Jewish individuals. Any people would have rejected this, imagine if Italians/Romans moved into Israel and then tried to annex a part of it to create their own country, would Israeli's be so willing to accept this. The rejection of the Peel commission and other unfair partition plans does not mean that Palestinians are rejecting peace but are refusing to surrender their homeland. My last point, do not turn this into a cheap debate by quoting slogans such as 'don't blame Jews', many Jewish people do not support Israel and you are the one who brought 'Jews' into this discussion.
Zcaky06
02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
User:66.69.219.9 inserted this:
The Gematria (Hebrew numerology) of the word Israel equals One or Unity, numerically "1", represented in ancient Hebrew as an Aleph"
I'm not sure this is either relevant or correct. The letters do add up to 541, which can be re-summed to 1, but so what? (Of course, one can ask "so what" about Gematria in general...) -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I value your comments and apologize for not providing sufficent context in the original edit. I've improved my too-brief remarks on the Gematria of Israel with a note of explanation. This explanation was clearly needed for those unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew -- which the word "Israel" certainly is. Names are about meaning, not merely linguistics. Thank you for helping to improve this section.-- 66.69.219.9 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems a glaring omission that no reference is made to the abundant UN Resolutions (mostly Chapter 7) to which Israel is in violation. (especially if we are considering adding Gematria info first) During 1967-2000 Israel was the subject of 138 resolutions, while Iraq only 69. Iraq was invaded for the safety of the world, and yet Israel is barely ever mentioned in this light in Western Media outlets. Disparities can be explained by anti-jewish bias, or attempts to antagonize the United States into using its veto powers to protect is ally. This is all very notable information on the country and its international ties/world relation. I would be happy to start a stub on it. Please share feedback on how we can address this in a NPOV manner. Sarastro777 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well.. I'm open about what to write. I would propose giving a number count of resolutions between a particular date, depending on what we can verify. I found a source for 1967-2000. Probably differentiate between binding resolutions and non-binding and how many were from each category. How many are still held to be in violation. Probably give the Iraq statistic for context (most people wouldn't know how many resolutions an average country may be in violation of). I would imagine there might be some mitigating factors which should be mentioned. I speculated on some that came up right off the bat. I just don't know what all would be appropriate while still maintaining NPOV (i.e. not becoming apologist). Sarastro777 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, Iraq was considered worldwide as a major violator with that statistic specifically given as a basis. Certainly we COULD list figures on other countries .. but a list of every country would just be silly. For one thing, most countries are not in violation, or if they are .. a very small number. It would not give perspective to the figures as the figure on Iraq does. Maybe list say Switzerland, the United Kingdom, China, Syria, Iraq, and Israel? That gives a pretty wide variety. Sarastro777 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The points you bring up would be what I consider "mitigating factors" that should also be mentioned to insure the information is being presented neutrally. Is anyone disagreeing the violations are in and of themselves abundant enough to qualify as notable information? If not, then we can begin writing and add the mitigating factors. I would also suggest that Israel is frequently the victim of Anti-Semitism in the UN (no sources yet) and is only saved by its ally the U.S. in vetoes. Sarastro777 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Iraq invaded Kuweit and had, on numerous occasions, fired scud missiles into Israel (who was not involved in the Gulf War) during the Gulf War. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. He subjected his own people and ethnic minorities to torture and took away almost all basic human rights from them. Do not try and make the claim that because Israel annexed territories after being forced into an engagement with the Arab-League puts them in the same boat as Saddam because it does not. Israel is in violation of a UN that is in violation of itself. The UN charter forces it to intervene in the case of a military engagement where a nation's territorial sovereignty is under attack. Why then did the UN not defend Israel when 4 Arab armies (supported by several other Arab nations not bordering Israel) massed on it's borders. The UN was not there for Israel in it's hour of need therefore Israel has no responsibility to respond to it's Arab-biased resolutions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.181.250 ( talk • contribs)
In the sections that I marked there a several POVish statements that need to be cleaned up.-- Konstable 09:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has been removed from the GA list due to NPOV statements as said in the following which is on the GA disputes page. Tarret 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a "good article" ??? It has a total Zionist bias, only Jewish interests are promoted. Non-Jewish interests are relegated to another article (Palestine) in violation of WP policy. But Jewish interests seem to take precedence over WP policies. Is Jimbo Jewish? 24.64.165.176 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) move to top of list as per instructions Gnangarra 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs neutrality. -- Oiboy77 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some mis-interpretation here as to what has happened. It has already been delisted as a GA, on the 12th of June when Tarret started this talk section. The discussion is pretty much over and was copied here from original palce at WP:GA/D by Tarret as an explanation of why the article got delisted. So if you want to get the article re-listed as a GA you need to fix up the NPOV issues (for instance the ones I listed in the section immediately above this one), and once they are fixed you can renominate the article on WP:GA/N.
As to Humus's comments. The original complaint by 24.64.165.176 is why it appeared on the delisting page, but it is not why it got delisted. Other problems were found in the article. As to fixing them up rather than delisting them - I have posted a list of just some of the NPOV statements in a section above. That was 6 days ago and not a single one of them has been addressed! So you have demonstrated that they cannot be fixed quickly.-- Konstable 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I just got a note on my Talk page about my removal of a link to scripture4all.org. I looked at the website. It doesn't seem to me to be offering anything encyclopedic that we don't offer at either he:בראשית or at the Hebrew Wikisource Genesis page. If it is for some reason important to link to a searchable Hebrew text for Genesis from this article, there is really no reason not to link to our own resources. Jkelly 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You've substantiated the wisdom in the statement that if one doesn't believe something is there, they can't see it. If you'd done better research, and actually used the free interlinear tool that I've referenced no less than 5 times now for the purpose of sourcing the definition of Israel -- per the original edit -- you'd have found that there are in fact no less than *30* references to the word "Ishr" (Hebrew letters: "Yod-Shin-Resh") as conveying the meaning "upright" in the Hebrew Bible. The first reference is in 1 Samuel 29:6, and the last of the 30 references is in Micah 7:4. All of this could have been avoided if you'd TRUSTED my original edit, i.e. adhered to Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. But download the full, free, interlinear scripture analyzer (ISA) at [2] to see that the above is true. -- 8.2.208.4 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As you wish...and so that the word may be fulfilled: see any Biblical Hebrew-English dictionary for the translation of the Hebrew word יִשְׂר -- 8.2.208.4 12:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged a number of POV-issue statements and conclusions in 1990s and 2000s of the History section. I hope you guys can clear it up quickly if we want Israel's GA listing as soon as possible. We're not here to speculate, we're here to give solid evidence and neutral information, not biased ideas. Ariedartin 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Tasc, I would like you to justify your reverts to my edits. Your argument that references can be found in relevant articles is poor. We are meant to bring the evidence to the readers, not make them find it themselves. If we follow your idea, won't it possible for people to create articles with false information, and thus in turn confusing readers? And don't say "it's their problem if the readers don't read the main article themselves." Ariedartin 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This article claims Israel is 20km2 and ranked 150th while List of countries and outlying territories by total area claims 22km2 and ranked 149th. Can they be verified? eeemess 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This article does not give Arab view of events. The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. The Arabs and Palestinian did not play any part in it. So talking about partitioning their land to compensate the European Jews is not negotiable. Essentially, they said it is European problem and should be solved in Europe. Siddiqui 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who represented the Palestinians during WWII sided with Hitler and Nazi Germany. There is extensive documentation of the Mufti and Nazi Germany's diplomatic relations, thereby making the Arabs complicit in the death of many Jews living in and around Palestine. Also, I'd just like to point out the ridiculousness of the above logic. When wars are waged, land and territory are often exchanged, either by force or treaty. In the case of Palestine (which is really no different than many other lands that have been lost due to war), Britain and the Allied powers had gained control of it. Not only was a majority of the population Jewish in the land that was carved out as Israel, BUT the Arabs had sided with the fascist regimes and Nazi Germany. Why do the losers of WWII deserve an equal place at the bargaining table? Remember that the country the Arabs sided with annexed Austria and invaded Poland; why do they cry out when it happens to them (to a much lesser degree, of course)? -- ZTMission 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you sight source for any of your statments? Also, you neglect to mention the history of arab oppression of middle eastern jews for centuries. Not to mention your statement "effectively emotionally hardened by their mistreatment" considering that you are talking about 3 million people it seems an unfair generalization. Finally I dont think it is "natural" for people to revolt against immigration. The Isiah 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The figures in the infobox and the demographics section don't match. Can we please have the latest data, properly referenced? Nomist 15:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what about a chart showing the demographic evolution of Israel ?
Ok these are my thoughts:
What I'm wondering is how the Wiki NPOV applies to this article versus other articles. Because, the dehumanization of Jews, and other "undesirables" is clearly stated in the Nazism article. However, in the case of the Palestine conflict, Israel's dehumanization of the Palestinian Arabs is not [if you think that Israel hasn't done anything wrong to the Palestinians then you have a skewed point of view. For more information see Ted Swedenburg's scholarly articles or http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/history.html]
Therefore, what I as an American and non-Palestinian [but a person who reads European newspapers and has looked into the murder of Rachel Corrie, James Miller, and others by Israeli soldiers] have come to the conclusion that the NPOV is still skewed to be Pro-Israeli which is what the American media is giving us. The Corrie and Miller case should get some note on the site since its a direct killing of Americans or British who show solidarity with the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.
Once finals are over I'll try to put together some information using the forementioned sources and also http://www.btselem.org/ which has facts\figures relating to casualties caused by both sides and reveals that Israel has killed more Palestinians, espcially children, then vice versa (the organization is run by Israeli and other Jews and can be read in Hebrew as well for those who want to check it out.)
151.205.180.108 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) SafireRain
I would like to see more on Israeli policy with what it terms as terrorism and its solutions and also what is termed as Israeli state terrorism and the justifications for it. 72.57.230.179 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The prime minister today said he would draw up the borders with or without Palestinian support. I don't see why the West Bank didn't remain with Jordan and why Gaza with Egypt. The Palestinians have demonstrated time and time again that they can't govern themselves nor live with others. see Israeli and Lebanese history with the PLO... not to mention Jordanian. 12.15.7.70
The article does not metion that the zionist movement was investigating differnet contries to create a homeland for Jews. For example Argentina was seriously considered, however the zionists backed off fearing that an anti-semetic atmosphere has already developed in that country.
Again, the above is facts that you can find off of any book that talks about the creation of israel. You can also find it on the websites of the jewish zionist movements. For example Theodore Hertzl's book "The Jewish State" states (1896)
Is Palestine or Argentina preferable? The Society will take whatever it is given and whatever Jewish public opinion favors.... Argentina is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, is sparsely populated, and has a temperate climate. It would be in its own highest interest for the Republic of Argentina to cede us a portion of its territory.... Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland. The very name would be a marvelously effective rallying cry
Also Grande island New York by Buffalo was proposed as the zionist state. The Isiah 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Uganda was Hertzel's last attempt to find a country other then Palistine.
There is little mention of the promised land I would like an Israeli Jew to tell me in their opinion what constitutes the borders of the Jewish promised land? Thank you. Zakaria mohyeldin 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Infobox displayed with this article (upper right of screen) gives:
|national_motto = Occupy the arab lands from the Nile to the Furat river(which are represented by the two blue stripes on its flag above).
This strikes me as highly unlikely, specious, and inflammatory. What is the protocol for removing such material? The insertion does not have a User Name associated with it.
Thank you!
Deborahjay
19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are we using the full spelling of G-d rather than G-d? Please explain. Ariel C 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless I am reading the article wrong, I don't see any mention of Ethiopian Jews and their coming to Israel. Ariel C 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While I realize that editing is open to all comers, it stands to reason that not all are professionals with experience writing reportage on current events and human rights issues in Israel for a local and global readership (as I am, and do). A passage I've copyedited in this article (2000s section) may eventually be modified, so I'd just like to elucidate for the benefit of my fellow editors the particular language used:
I distinguished (without the use of "scare quotes"; emphasis added here) between: suspected terrorists / alleged members of militant organizations / apparently unaffiliated civilians [including] minors.
(NB: The "affiliated" in the latter expression reflects the prevalent contentions, and actual possibility, that some of these individuals might indeed turn out to belong to the previous category (members of militant organizations), or even be unsuspected terrorists. Otherwise, I'd have used a word such as apparently/ostensibly/purportedly, etc.)
As it is, I aimed to employ language consistent with the guidelines of responsible reportage, which I believe suitable to Wikipedia.
Deborahjay
05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The infobox states that there are two official languages in Israel, Hebrew and Arabic. Isn't Russian also an official language? A lot of Jewish immigrants are from the former USSR and there is also a Russian broadcasting company in Israel. -- Soetermans 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
English is not an official language according to http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/fog0000000007.html and http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/lprc/lprcprof.htm -- Avi 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear JKelly I'm sure you are not Israeli, but let me assure you, I am. The data in the article is wrong, because the Golan Heights, Judas and Samaria, Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem are Israeli territories, and so the data about the 20,700 square killometers is wrong - plus 365 km2 for Gaza, 5,523 km2 for Judas and Samarias and 1,190 km2 for the Golan Heights, we have 27,848 km2. This is a currect information and I'm truly surprised that in Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia I cannot edit currectly an article. -- AmadeusW 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-- AmadeusW 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The West Bank and Gaza are not considered to be part of Israel even by the Israeli government. Obviously they are occupied by Israel, and they are not claimed by any de facto sovereign state (although they are claimed by Palestine, which is recognized as a state by several other countries), but that doesn't make them part of Israel. As to the Golan Heights, these were not annexed by Israel. They are, iirc, administered by Israel in the same way that Israel administers its own territory, but, on the other hand, pretty much every other government in the world recognizes them as part of Syria. As to East Jerusalem, it was annexed by Israel, but this annexation is not recognized by any other country. A listing of Israel's territorial extent should give the extent of its undisputed territory - that is to say, territory inside the green line. Perhaps the area of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should be noted parenthetically. The area of the West Bank and Gaza should not be included under any circumstances. john k 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is very biased, it has an entire section dedicated to Jewish undergound groups yet does not talk of the appaulling massacre at the Haifa oil refinery, it refers to Haganah as a defensive group which is disputable, it makes Ariel Sharons appearance at Al-Asqa and the starting of the second intifada only seem coincidental, it does not refer to the west bank wall as illegal and there is very little mention of the ethnic cleasing policies, curfews and mistreatment imposed on the Arabs. Zcaky06 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That is blatently untrue; ethnic cleansing policies, curfews etc performed by Israeli's are well known particularly in the West Bank, a simple web search will reveal as such. And how can Haganah be a defensive organisation if it was responsible for the massacres at two villages after the Haifa Oil refinery incident which was conviniently left out of the article and many sources believe it was Ariel Sharrons visit that sparked the second intifada, it was not simply a peaceful visit, he came with an entourage of roughly 200 armed men. Finally the wall is illegal and is one of the reasons Israel is accused by the international community of being an aparthied state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2155 http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0994/9409012.htm Zcaky06 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ariel Sharron knew that the leader of the oppression and killings of Palestinian families visiting one of their most sacred places would be contentious and would provoke them, particularly against the backdrop of the collasped peacetalks, this the reason he is widely not considered innocent of instigating the second intifada. As for saying the ethnic cleasing policies were for terrorists, unless you consider entire palestinian neighbourhoods are terrorists, i don't think this presumption holds, please see the sources below which show indicate state ordained rapes, massacres, midnight raids and evictions on entire families http://www.vtjp.org/letters/Ethnic_cleansing_by_Israel.htm http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html I am confused about your point with regard to Haganah, it sounds like you acknowledge they perform massacres but only in retaliation for other masacres. This does not sound defensive, and to say they attack only in retaliation is untrue, the oil refinery massacre was instigated by a Jewish organisation, and even during the Arab retaliation, some Jewish workers were protected by Arab workers. And please provide evidence that they were supported by the British. Also please inspect the sources i provided in my last post. Zcaky06 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are starting to use 'you are only looking at the flat side of the coin' as a deflective statement that in no way changes what i have stated. Your entire line of argument has also gone to a tangent, wikipedia only allows you to state what you can verify in the article. Making up highly dubious and quite frankly absurd assumptions that the palestinians may have been illegal settlers without any evidence particularly when it is more likely their existence predated Israel is unacceptable. Brushing off the 'as-if massacre' not by denying it but by simply refering an arab riot also makes no sense. Quite frankyly your last statement does not deny any of these things i.e. the Hanagah massacre, the arab persecution etc rather accepts it and then tries to make up fanciful justifications which are unbacked up. I will reiterate my position, i wish to include in the article the following points for which I have provided sources for in my previous posts; the massacre by Hanagh, that Hanagh is a defensive group is dubious, Ariel Sharrons visit is thought by some to be a deliberate attempt to instigate the second intifada, the west bank wall is illegal, palestinians have been subjected to ethnic cleansing policies, curfews in the west bank and periods of state sanctioned massacres, rapes and murders. I do not intend to continue a discussion of hypothesise and theories.
This article is nothing but Israeli propaganda.
The state of Israel was established in Palestine against the will of the indigenous population. Why isn't this basic fact made clear?
Far from being a democracy, Israel is an apartheid state in which Jewish citizens enjoy rights and privileges denied to non-Jewish citizens. A keystone of democracy is the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. Israel is *predicated* on the notion of religious-ethnic elitism, and on this basis alone cannot be accurately termed a democracy.
Since its inception, Israel has flouted international laws and treaties, and has refused to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring it to withdraw from the Palestinian territories it illegally occupies. It has developed and amassed huge stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has refused to sign up to any of the treaties intended to limit the spread of nuclear weapons (including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty).
Israel has been condemned repeatedly by humanitarian and civil rights organizations for its human rights abuses (including torture and imprisonment without trial), and for its policies of discrimination against Palestinians.
In short this article makes no acknowledgement of the fact that Israel is an outlaw state which occupies land to which it has no legal right whatsoever, and has been established against the will of the Palestinian people, through US-sponsored military force, and by brutal methods including state terrorism, assassination, torture, the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the ghettoization of Palestinian "refugees" (ie, the people whose land and property has been taken over by Israel), the erection of barriers to fragment Palestinian communities, intimidation, discrimination and various other forms of oppression.
217.216.24.116
02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is funny when it comes to Israel such self-righteous condemnations fizzle, as any other country; Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China have made their fair of mistakes. 1st point, no one here is defending the attrocites of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc or trying to pass them off as minor mistakes. 2nd point, it is extremely offensive to class the consistent mass brutality and killings of the Palestinians (which include actions such as harderned snipers shooting at small children as a result of direct orders from above) as mistakes! As for Jewish people living in Palestine for three thousands years, this is true, but only some Jewish people, there is no objection to them living and working in Palestine and in fact they themselves would be Palestinians. However, to use this as an excuse to say all Jewsih people from all around then have a natural right to Palestinians soil is absurd. Also the Peel commision suggested that the Palestinians give up land that was always theirs to create a state soverign only to Jewish individuals. Any people would have rejected this, imagine if Italians/Romans moved into Israel and then tried to annex a part of it to create their own country, would Israeli's be so willing to accept this. The rejection of the Peel commission and other unfair partition plans does not mean that Palestinians are rejecting peace but are refusing to surrender their homeland. My last point, do not turn this into a cheap debate by quoting slogans such as 'don't blame Jews', many Jewish people do not support Israel and you are the one who brought 'Jews' into this discussion.
Zcaky06
02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
User:66.69.219.9 inserted this:
The Gematria (Hebrew numerology) of the word Israel equals One or Unity, numerically "1", represented in ancient Hebrew as an Aleph"
I'm not sure this is either relevant or correct. The letters do add up to 541, which can be re-summed to 1, but so what? (Of course, one can ask "so what" about Gematria in general...) -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I value your comments and apologize for not providing sufficent context in the original edit. I've improved my too-brief remarks on the Gematria of Israel with a note of explanation. This explanation was clearly needed for those unfamiliar with ancient Hebrew -- which the word "Israel" certainly is. Names are about meaning, not merely linguistics. Thank you for helping to improve this section.-- 66.69.219.9 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems a glaring omission that no reference is made to the abundant UN Resolutions (mostly Chapter 7) to which Israel is in violation. (especially if we are considering adding Gematria info first) During 1967-2000 Israel was the subject of 138 resolutions, while Iraq only 69. Iraq was invaded for the safety of the world, and yet Israel is barely ever mentioned in this light in Western Media outlets. Disparities can be explained by anti-jewish bias, or attempts to antagonize the United States into using its veto powers to protect is ally. This is all very notable information on the country and its international ties/world relation. I would be happy to start a stub on it. Please share feedback on how we can address this in a NPOV manner. Sarastro777 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Well.. I'm open about what to write. I would propose giving a number count of resolutions between a particular date, depending on what we can verify. I found a source for 1967-2000. Probably differentiate between binding resolutions and non-binding and how many were from each category. How many are still held to be in violation. Probably give the Iraq statistic for context (most people wouldn't know how many resolutions an average country may be in violation of). I would imagine there might be some mitigating factors which should be mentioned. I speculated on some that came up right off the bat. I just don't know what all would be appropriate while still maintaining NPOV (i.e. not becoming apologist). Sarastro777 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, Iraq was considered worldwide as a major violator with that statistic specifically given as a basis. Certainly we COULD list figures on other countries .. but a list of every country would just be silly. For one thing, most countries are not in violation, or if they are .. a very small number. It would not give perspective to the figures as the figure on Iraq does. Maybe list say Switzerland, the United Kingdom, China, Syria, Iraq, and Israel? That gives a pretty wide variety. Sarastro777 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The points you bring up would be what I consider "mitigating factors" that should also be mentioned to insure the information is being presented neutrally. Is anyone disagreeing the violations are in and of themselves abundant enough to qualify as notable information? If not, then we can begin writing and add the mitigating factors. I would also suggest that Israel is frequently the victim of Anti-Semitism in the UN (no sources yet) and is only saved by its ally the U.S. in vetoes. Sarastro777 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Iraq invaded Kuweit and had, on numerous occasions, fired scud missiles into Israel (who was not involved in the Gulf War) during the Gulf War. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. He subjected his own people and ethnic minorities to torture and took away almost all basic human rights from them. Do not try and make the claim that because Israel annexed territories after being forced into an engagement with the Arab-League puts them in the same boat as Saddam because it does not. Israel is in violation of a UN that is in violation of itself. The UN charter forces it to intervene in the case of a military engagement where a nation's territorial sovereignty is under attack. Why then did the UN not defend Israel when 4 Arab armies (supported by several other Arab nations not bordering Israel) massed on it's borders. The UN was not there for Israel in it's hour of need therefore Israel has no responsibility to respond to it's Arab-biased resolutions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.181.250 ( talk • contribs)
In the sections that I marked there a several POVish statements that need to be cleaned up.-- Konstable 09:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has been removed from the GA list due to NPOV statements as said in the following which is on the GA disputes page. Tarret 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a "good article" ??? It has a total Zionist bias, only Jewish interests are promoted. Non-Jewish interests are relegated to another article (Palestine) in violation of WP policy. But Jewish interests seem to take precedence over WP policies. Is Jimbo Jewish? 24.64.165.176 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) move to top of list as per instructions Gnangarra 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs neutrality. -- Oiboy77 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some mis-interpretation here as to what has happened. It has already been delisted as a GA, on the 12th of June when Tarret started this talk section. The discussion is pretty much over and was copied here from original palce at WP:GA/D by Tarret as an explanation of why the article got delisted. So if you want to get the article re-listed as a GA you need to fix up the NPOV issues (for instance the ones I listed in the section immediately above this one), and once they are fixed you can renominate the article on WP:GA/N.
As to Humus's comments. The original complaint by 24.64.165.176 is why it appeared on the delisting page, but it is not why it got delisted. Other problems were found in the article. As to fixing them up rather than delisting them - I have posted a list of just some of the NPOV statements in a section above. That was 6 days ago and not a single one of them has been addressed! So you have demonstrated that they cannot be fixed quickly.-- Konstable 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I just got a note on my Talk page about my removal of a link to scripture4all.org. I looked at the website. It doesn't seem to me to be offering anything encyclopedic that we don't offer at either he:בראשית or at the Hebrew Wikisource Genesis page. If it is for some reason important to link to a searchable Hebrew text for Genesis from this article, there is really no reason not to link to our own resources. Jkelly 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You've substantiated the wisdom in the statement that if one doesn't believe something is there, they can't see it. If you'd done better research, and actually used the free interlinear tool that I've referenced no less than 5 times now for the purpose of sourcing the definition of Israel -- per the original edit -- you'd have found that there are in fact no less than *30* references to the word "Ishr" (Hebrew letters: "Yod-Shin-Resh") as conveying the meaning "upright" in the Hebrew Bible. The first reference is in 1 Samuel 29:6, and the last of the 30 references is in Micah 7:4. All of this could have been avoided if you'd TRUSTED my original edit, i.e. adhered to Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. But download the full, free, interlinear scripture analyzer (ISA) at [2] to see that the above is true. -- 8.2.208.4 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
As you wish...and so that the word may be fulfilled: see any Biblical Hebrew-English dictionary for the translation of the Hebrew word יִשְׂר -- 8.2.208.4 12:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged a number of POV-issue statements and conclusions in 1990s and 2000s of the History section. I hope you guys can clear it up quickly if we want Israel's GA listing as soon as possible. We're not here to speculate, we're here to give solid evidence and neutral information, not biased ideas. Ariedartin 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Tasc, I would like you to justify your reverts to my edits. Your argument that references can be found in relevant articles is poor. We are meant to bring the evidence to the readers, not make them find it themselves. If we follow your idea, won't it possible for people to create articles with false information, and thus in turn confusing readers? And don't say "it's their problem if the readers don't read the main article themselves." Ariedartin 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)