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 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm going to make one final attempt to explain why you are completely wrong about this. You seem to have a very hostile attitude towards me (you never address me in the second person) - and I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it. Anyway - personal feelings aside, here are the facts:
The situation in Israel is nothing like the situation in Northern Ireland, as you described above:
The Northern Ireland analogy you give, does, to a certain extent, apply to the situation in Judea, Samaria (collectively known as the West Bank), and the Gaza Strip - where mixed Jewish/Arab populations exists, each of them envisioning a different future for the area. Whilst the Arabs see these areas as the heart of a future independent Palestinian state, most Jews living in these areas would like to see these territories (or at least those parts of them whith substantial Jewish presence) incorporated into Israel.
So you might want to add your comments to the articles about these territories - where they are (somewhat) relevant.
The entire process of negotiation between Israel and the PLO (starting in 1993 with the Oslo accords) was about the future of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The status of Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders (as discussed in this article) was never brought up during the negotiations, and for good reasons. It is not a central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it certainly does not deserve a whole paragraph (and a confused one, too) on the top of the article discussing Israel.
Please feel free to verify the situation as I describned above with whatever independent sources you have. I hope you are honest enough to admit that you do not have a good understanding of the situation in Israel, and to limit your involvement in editing articles related to the subject until you gain such understanding.
uriber 15:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have already made the points over and over again. You constantly mispresent them, make POV assumptions and make extremely unconvincing rebuttals.
1. Israel IS internationally seen in the nature of some of its problems. As such it, Northern Ireland and some other states are studied en bloc in college courses called "Divided Societies".
2. You still completely and grossly mix up separate terms like people, nation and state, something anyone who has done any detailed work in political science would never do. But you simply ignore and definitions and manufacture your own.
3. Your claim that "Whereas in Northern Ireland each of the sides has a "homeland" which they wish the territory to be (or become) part of . . . " shows an incredible lack of understanding of anything to do with Northern Ireland. Both sides for decades have insisted they are already part of a homeland. Nationalists have insisted they are part of Ireland and that the British illegally set up a border on the island to try to set them up somewhere else. Unionists say they are already part of a homeland, the UK and resist anything that in their view weaken that. In Israel, Palestinians say they are already part of a homeland, Palestine, but that a foreign state was foisted on their territory. Israelis say they are already part of a homeland and won't accept any structures that in their view weaken that.
4. "there were virtually no incidents where Israeli Jews were involved in violence against Israeli Arabs" is such a patently absurd suggestion it beggars belief. Fear�IREANN
I still think the analogy with Turkey is the closest one. If you want an example of two groups fighting for the same land, take the Pontian Greeks vs. the Turks -- the Turks kicked them out of Anatolia and renamed their cities (Constantinople --> Istanbul, Smyrma --> Izmir, etc.). (Most of this happened in 1915-1922, though some of the city-renaming happened much earlier). Yet there's nothing in Turkey about this. And the situation with the Kurds is similar to the situation with the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- there are regions which primarily consider themselves part of another nationality. -- Delirium 21:19, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
in reply to Jtdirl
Thank you for finally addressing me directly. Perhaps we are making some progress here after all.
1. The fact that Israel is "internationally seen" in a certain way does not mean the Wikipedia should endorse such an (erronious) POV. This article is for people who want to learn about Israel as it really is - not as it is "internationally seen".
2-3. I said "[people] wish the territory to be (or become) part of..." (notice the grammatical subject of the sentence). You attempt to contradict me by saying (twice): "[people] say they are already part of...". Someone is confusing territory with people here, but it's certainly not me.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that you probably do have a better understanding of the situation in Ireland than I do. That's why you don't see me doing much editing on the
Northern Ireland page.
4. I dare you to produce a list of three such incidents. Please do not resort to the infamous list of "massacres" from 55 years ago. Without even getting into the credibility of these stories, I'll just say the Arabs involved were not Israeli citizens at the time. Also, please only include incidents in which violence was aimed at Israeli Arabs - not the few regrettable cases in which Israeli Arabs were caught in cross-fire, or were shot because they were mistaken for Palestinina (non-Israeli) terrorists (Jewiish Israelis have also been killed by the IDF in cases of mistaken identity).
And if "coterminous" is the standard word, please at least spell it correctly, so I can easily look it up in my dictionary. Thank you. uriber 21:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The user 64.236.243.31 has been blocked for vandalism of this article. (In fact blocked twice, once by me and also by another sysop. If he revisits under a new IP, leave a message on my talk page and if I will reblock him. Fear�IREANN 23:45, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the sentence. Why was it "agreed" to take it out? -- Uncle Ed 13:33, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ah, then maybe it's somebody's view of what the central issue is. And somebody else considers another thing to be the central issue. This is good stuff and should be in the article! --
Uncle Ed 16:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It isn't a long discussion; it is one line. And it belongs in the main article. Fear�IREANN 19:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think you have to say something on the issue on the main page, just as we cannot avoiding saying something about problems on other pages about other countries. Fear�IREANN 21:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As usual, RK, you presume that your side of the argument is invariably right and represents the consensus. I, Erid, 172 and others respectfully disagree. As a compromise I have changed the sentence to make clear that though this is the analysis held by some (aka most academics, though I haven't said that) others disagree.
On a separate issue, on anonymous user keeps deleting the paragraph on demographics, or rather severely editing the paragraph. The current paragraph seems fine and factual and I don't know what their problem is, though they have edited other Israel-linked pages and their editing seems to involve removing detail and replacing it with less detailed bland material. I have reverted their changes twice but they seem determined to want to dumb-down the paragraph. Fear�IREANN 15:01, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page is now PROTECTED -- at JTD's request. -- Uncle Ed 15:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Note: This protection is NOTHING to do with our dispute. It is to do with one anonymous user's continuous rewriting of the demographic section. I think the change should be discussed by everyone, as it does substantially change the meaning of the paragraph (which, BTW was not my work.) As I was involved in other edit wars I thought it imprudent to impose the protection and asked Ed to do so. It should only be a temporary measure and as soon as the 'team' here return to our squabble :-) it can be unprotected. By then the issue at the heart of the anonymous user's rewrite can be discussed. (BTW, Ed inadvertently imposed the protection on the IP user's version rather than the community one, so I unprotected it, reverted to the community version of that paragraph then protected again. So it is Ed's protection, corrected by me.) Everything is above board. (And Ed can feel free to unprotect my protection that followed an unprotection of his protection to install the correct version, then impose a protection again. At least I think that was it. Even I am confused now. :-) Fear�IREANN 15:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Quick question.
I recall that someone, perhaps not even on this page, stated that "of course Israel has a right to exist as a nation". I'm not sure what that statement means. I'm not disagreeing that Israel should exist, but I'm not sure how to define the "right" for any nation to exist. Does Israel have more or less of a right to exist than, say, Kenya or Tuvalu? Does this concept of "right to exist" (exclusive of the I/P conflict) have any bearing on those states that are not recognized at present but seek such recognition? It seems that this question of "right to exist" as a nation state could impact our discussions of various topics (I/P conflict, Tibet/China conflict, UK/Ireland conflict, and many other land disputes). Anyone care to weigh in without starting any kind of unpleasantness? -- Dante Alighieri 20:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep this page protected. -- Uncle Ed 14:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To anon: the bit on what "Jewish" means is important here. Israel is often called the "Jewish state" - it's highly useful to know what sense of "Jewish" this means. Does it mean adherents to the Jewish religion? The answer, as you can tell from the bit you want removed, is no. Evercat 18:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah. An important distinction exists in a state that is largely of one faith between those for whom that religious identity is largely religious, and those for whom the identity is cultural, heritage, history, etc, ie., someone proud of their Jewish heritage and history but themselves is not a practicing religious believer. They tend to be more liberal and attach less importance to biblical references to the 'land of Israel'. The Republic of Ireland for example is 93% Roman Catholic, but many of them are cultural catholics, not actual religious believers. They hold quite liberal views on divorce, abortion, homosexuality, inter-church marriage, etc. Religious Catholics (ie, actual Mass going religious believers) only account for 48% of people. Ireland culturally is a Catholic country, but religiously it isn't, having for example provided for a same age of consent for gays and straights unlike supposedly more secular England. Fear�IREANN 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Very good rewrite. Well done. Fear�IREANN 21:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Highly POV stuff moved from the article, was contributed by
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.30.99.94
Kosebamse 10:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In 1950 statistics, the population of Israel was 18% Jews 82% non-Jews (nearly all Arabs). However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing. So by year 2000, the demography was almost exactly reversed. Today it is nearly 80% Jews and 20% non-Jews (who are generally called Arab-Israelis).
Furthermore, in Israel Jewish citizens are first-class citizens whereas non-Jews have less civil rights. For example, it is the law in Israel that if a Jewish citizen of Israel marries with a foreinger and the foreigner is also a Jew, then that person can become a citizen of Israel; but this law does not apply to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Millions of former citizens of Israel who have been subject to ethnic-cleanisn (or "transportaion out of Israel") live in diaspora in surrounding Arab countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt as well as other Arab countries.
Whether or not the facts are correct, language such as "ethnic cleansing" is not tolerable, and that is why I removed the addition in the first place. Kosebamse 16:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events. D'uh! That's deep. I am sure this phrase replaced something even deeper, but it certainly needs rephrasing. Cema 03:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Need more items in the media reference section? Like, non-English sources? Human rights organizations? Et cetera. Cema 04:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In the list of minorities, where do the Beduins go? Do we count them as part of the Israeli/Palestinian Arab population, or separately like the Druze? Cema 04:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I remind everyone: please try and keep to NPOV! I understand that the topic is loaded, but it is loaded on both sides. No need to pile up bullshit. Cema 09:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Anon look, there are definitely seeds of truth in your additions but you have got some facts totally wrong. It was in 1931 the population was 18% Jews 82% others. The ethnical cleansing you are talking about happened in 1947-48 and involved some 600,000-800,000 Palestinians. Now I have no objections to calling it an "ethnical cleansing" because it was a concious effort made to remove as many Arabs as possible from the Jewish "homeland". The facts you are presenting definitely has merit to be included in the Palestinian Exodus article which is devoted to the subject. More links to that page would be good because those paragraphs you want to insert just does not belong to such a sterile topic as "demographics of israel". BL 14:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
68.120.204.62 has now been blocked. Fear�IREANN 15:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The user returned and threatened to return to this page with his 'friends' to insert POV stuff. I have blocked their new IP and reverted the page to the previous edit, which was by RK. To protect the page from this threat, and because the user is clearly going to keep returning with different IPs and may bring others with him or her, I have temporarily protected it. It is a pity the whole community has to be inconvenienced to stop the behaviour of one person. Fear�IREANN 15:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Will this page be forever protected????! BL 10:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was about unprotect the page, but I see the vandal has come back to talk about you fucking hypocrite and call people ugly baboons. I've blocked his latest IP. I think this user may be a more serious problem. I am going to raise their behaviour on the wiki list. In the meantime I think the safest thing to avoid problems is to leave the page protected. Or anyone else have a different suggestion about how to handle this? Fear�IREANN 18:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have reported the above nutcase's comments and abuse to the w-list, and also blocked his latest IP. In view of his behaviour any more IPs he uses will be blocked and all edits anywhere reverted. Fear�IREANN 18:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It just occured to me the irony: That Israel, the state, and Israel the Wikpedia article, both have to be artificially protected. - 戴眩sv 21:15, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
I'm reverting Martin's deleting of the obscenities of the anonymous user. Normally I would support such an act, but this user's abuse is the subject of debate on the wiki-list. As such, for evidence it is important that it be left in situ for people to read. Censoring the comments simply ensures that people do not realise the nature of the user's conduct and hinders everyone's ability to form fully informed judgments as to the nature and agenda of the user in question. Fear�IREANN 21:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
NP. I appreciate what you were trying to do. This context is a little bit more complicated. I did remove a comment the user made that was merely an attempt to pick a fight with someone by pretending to hold an extreme view, as it was simply provocation. But their other comments were reactive and abusive and worth keeping for the record for the time being. lol Fear�IREANN 21:59, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Efghij, you have stated that "There are some cases, however, in which the rights extended to Jews are not extended to Arabs". This is simply untrue. The only right which is extended exclusively to Jews under Israeli law is the right to obtain Israeli citizenship (the Law of Return). This, naturally, applies only to Jews which are not Israeli citizens, and thus does not consistute discrimination of Arab citizens vs. Jewish citizens.
In fact, the only other issue in which there is a (semi-)official discrimination is that Israeli Jews must serve a 3-year military service (2 years for women) whereas Arabs are generally exempt from this duty.
The claims in the article you linked to either:
Given this, I see no justification for leaving the sentence I quoted at the beginning in the article. uriber 20:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think the Crusades deserve a mention in here between the Roman occupation section and 1947. Given the hotbed around this article, though, I figured I'd bring it up in talk before adding it. -- ObscureAuthor 19:38, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Template pages on countries tend to be quite narrowly focused. I think we should have no more than a line or two on the issue here but it could make a very useful and interesting linked article. lol Fear�IREANN 19:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
On the Israel page, it is mentioned Israel's name in Hebrew, transliterated in Roman alphabets and its translation in English. However isn't Israel's official name in Hebrew Medinat Yisrael while in Arabic isn't it Dawlat Isra'il? I can't type the word without a Arabic keyboard, neither could I edit the page.. --- Sorry, mispelled again. Dawlat al-Isra'il. Besides, speaking of Israel, since there is a lot of states not recognizing Israel, mostly Muslim nations (3 out of 22 Arab states recognize Israel, countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia don't either).
I think Mr. Sharon is a tough-guy wannabe, and he likes fighting Palestinians for the heck of it. In other words, he's a boy ninny. Go figure. Rickyrab 02:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Your the demographics guy eh? Good job sneaking em in. :-) In this case I guess an edit is needed instead of a full revert. BL 02:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Nope. I'd need to do a lot more research to be the demographics guy. Rickyrab 02:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Protection "just in case" is a bad idea imho. Anth�re
Rickyrab. I hesitate to get into any conversation about this page, but Jerusalem is known by several names, according to language. Are we going to list them all in the table? Wouldn't that info be better on the
Jerusalem page?
DJ Clayworth 02:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, do that. I don't mind. Rickyrab 02:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I mean, put it on the Jerusalem page Rickyrab 02:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I think many of us might be able to agree that a holocaust denier like Roger Garaudy is not the source of a website that we should be linking to. A quick check on Google shows that his work is accepted as factual only on neo-Nazi and radical Islamist websites. The virulently anti-Semitic "Institute for Historical Review" pushes his work. This speaks volumes.
I've had a few beers and I'm feeling bold, so I have changed
"Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events."
to
"See also: Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
The date listed in the entry "Israel" for its independance is May 15 1948, while this event is not recorded on the entry "May 15". OTOH, the entry "1948" the date of Israeli decleration of independance is listed as May 14 and this event is also listed in the entry "May 14". unless I'm grossly mistaken, shouldn't the entry for "Israel" be ammended ?
Also - in many country enteries, the listing denotes from which other country independance was declared. IIRC Israel was under a british mandate at the time - shouldn't the entry reflect that ?
"Much of its Arab population subsequently ceased to reside within this area;"
"at the same time,"
"many Jews were made refugees from the surrounding Arab nations."
Even the map, which is produced by the CIA, says "occupied"... Besides, it is only the Palestinian population in the occupied territories that is not counted. *sigh* BL 00:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the Israel wikipage it states that Israel is located in Asia, Is this correct? I was always under the impression they were in Africa since they are in close proximity to Egypt and Jordan which according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook 2003 and their Wikipedia pages both of those countries are part of the African continent. I would appreciate some clarification on this entry. Misterrick 08:30, 06 January 2004 (UTC).
I apologize, After checking you are right about not finding anything about my claims, I was sure I saw something about continents but after seeing your post and double checking I see that I was wrong. Misterrick 21:32 07, Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think Golan_Heights should be listed in the line: "In 1967, the Six-Day War resulted in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Sinai becoming occupied by Israel." I won't add anything here because this is a controversial page. Martijn (usurped) 20:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In a Haaretz interview (Jan. '04) historian Benny Morris states:
"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
Searching for this sentence on Google (web, news and groups) turns up some discussion of the interview but nobody seems to have a problem with this particular statement.
Keith from Calgary 23:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So can we agree that this statement is not controversial?
Keith from Calgary 06:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Israel is technically at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, with previous declarations of war never being repealed by either side. "
Erm, now that the Saddam government is gone, isn't Israel no longer at war with Iraq? WhisperToMe 02:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How is this a POV? I don't get it all. I don't even see why "disputed" is a POV. I rather suspect that the alternative version is someone's strong POV. -- V V 02:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
TO VERYVERILY: The phrase: and other territories occupied since the 1967 war only refers to the NUMBER of territories seized militarily SINCE the 1967 war, NOT that the territories have been held militarily since then, which would still be true, but less neutral. Can the phrase be ambiguous? Yes, if you are a casual reader. -- Cantus 06:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
AGAINST PRO-ISRAELI PARTISAN EDITING Very nice try by the pro-Israeli group, who have waged a constant struggle throughought the history of this article to ensure that it is as sympathetic as possible to Israel (recently including a bizarre and slanderous falsification of history, in which the UN Security Council Resolutions were declared to have been created by "anti-Jewish" Muslim and Soviet satellite countries). There can be no dispute over the term "occupied". Practically the entire international community refers to the "occupation". UN Security Council Resolution 242 declared that the West Bank and Gaza were "occupied" by Israel. But - and most importantly of all - Ariel Sharon, figurehead of the Israeli Right, declared on the Tuesday 26th May 2003, that it was - as we all know it is! - an "occupation". Indeed, he declared that:
"We don't like this word the word, but this is occupation. To keep 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is back for Israel and bad for the Palestinians."
Given practically the entire human race, including the current hardline prime minister of Israel, refers to this state of affairs as an "occupation", why oh why are we prevented from using it? We are using the vocabulary of the most rightwing elements of Israeli society, who frankly in the general panorama of world opinion are an obscure fringe element, instead of a term recognised by the entire international community, the United Nations and even the Israeli government. This is absurd, and testament to the lengths that militantly pro-Israeli Wikipedians will go to in order to secure as strong a bias as possible in favour of Israel. Now, leave "occupied" well alone. Jonesy 13:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
USING ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT There actually is a dispute over the term "occupied" (which kind of disproves your claim that "there could be no dispute" over it.) "Practically the entire international community" is not the same as "everybody". UN Security Council resolutions reflect the political interests of UN Security Council members, and nothing more. Ariel Sharon is not "figurehead of the Israeli Right" (whatever that means), even if he used to be that. He is currently facing a strong opposition from the Israeli Right, since he it practically implementing the traditional policy of the Israeli extreme Left. Anyway, his quote (which was very controversial inIsrael) does not imply that he believes all of the West Bank to be "occupied territory". It is quite clear that he does not believe that. In any event, the fact that Sharon's POV on the subject supposedly coincides with yours, does not make it the POV of "practically the entire human race".
The term "occupation" is not used by the Israeli government when referring to the West Bank. Israel's system of government is not Presidential, and the power to make policy is in the hands of the government, not the PM. The government never made a statement regarding the territories (or part of them) to be "occupied".
This page from the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlines the official Israeli position, and gives several reasonable arguments for why the territories in question are not "occupied".
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once refrred to the territories as the "so-called occupied". While this might not reflect the official position of the US, I'm pretty sure it reflects the sentiment of many Americans. To the best of my knowledge, he was never required to step down or apologize for saying what he did.
To conclude, "occupied" is not an NPOV term in this context, and I, for one, will not leave it well alone -- uriber 19:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of looking up "occupation" in the Oxford English Dictionary, which as far as I am aware is not co-authored by Hamas:
1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action.
It's really that simple. The argument that this is not the situation in Palestine holds as much water as the Earth being flat.
Those who argue against the use of this term respond with indignation at that fact nearly all of humanity regard the state of affairs as occupation. Indeed, they regard this as little more as a dictatorship of the majority over the minority, when Wikipedia is meant to impartially straddle the debates, regardless of however many people subscribe to a particular argument. The problem, however, is that the use of any term but this one refutes the idea that there is an occupation, i.e. it upholds the argument of a tiny minority over the overwhelming majority. I am truly baffled by the idea that this could be construed as a "neutral point of view". The exercise of control over non-Israeli land through a military means and presence is, simply put, occupation.
International law decrees so. The United Nations Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly have all described the state of affairs as an "occupation". Ariel Sharon - who has both directly participated in and led wars against the Arab nations and the Palestinians - has described it as an "occupation". Only the very rightwing of the Zionist movement chooses to use (as Dissident pointed out) this misleading doublespeak. To use a word that denies occupation is a capitulation to a fringe opinion.
That we are dealing with ideologically committed people with extreme opinions is shown by the association made by Uriber of the policies of Ariel Sharon with the Israeli extreme Left. Only an individual on the rightwing fringes would have made this comparison. It is vital to continue to defend truth from those who distort it for political ends. Jonesy 01:12, 4 Apr 2004 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm going to make one final attempt to explain why you are completely wrong about this. You seem to have a very hostile attitude towards me (you never address me in the second person) - and I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it. Anyway - personal feelings aside, here are the facts:
The situation in Israel is nothing like the situation in Northern Ireland, as you described above:
The Northern Ireland analogy you give, does, to a certain extent, apply to the situation in Judea, Samaria (collectively known as the West Bank), and the Gaza Strip - where mixed Jewish/Arab populations exists, each of them envisioning a different future for the area. Whilst the Arabs see these areas as the heart of a future independent Palestinian state, most Jews living in these areas would like to see these territories (or at least those parts of them whith substantial Jewish presence) incorporated into Israel.
So you might want to add your comments to the articles about these territories - where they are (somewhat) relevant.
The entire process of negotiation between Israel and the PLO (starting in 1993 with the Oslo accords) was about the future of the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The status of Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders (as discussed in this article) was never brought up during the negotiations, and for good reasons. It is not a central issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and it certainly does not deserve a whole paragraph (and a confused one, too) on the top of the article discussing Israel.
Please feel free to verify the situation as I describned above with whatever independent sources you have. I hope you are honest enough to admit that you do not have a good understanding of the situation in Israel, and to limit your involvement in editing articles related to the subject until you gain such understanding.
uriber 15:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have already made the points over and over again. You constantly mispresent them, make POV assumptions and make extremely unconvincing rebuttals.
1. Israel IS internationally seen in the nature of some of its problems. As such it, Northern Ireland and some other states are studied en bloc in college courses called "Divided Societies".
2. You still completely and grossly mix up separate terms like people, nation and state, something anyone who has done any detailed work in political science would never do. But you simply ignore and definitions and manufacture your own.
3. Your claim that "Whereas in Northern Ireland each of the sides has a "homeland" which they wish the territory to be (or become) part of . . . " shows an incredible lack of understanding of anything to do with Northern Ireland. Both sides for decades have insisted they are already part of a homeland. Nationalists have insisted they are part of Ireland and that the British illegally set up a border on the island to try to set them up somewhere else. Unionists say they are already part of a homeland, the UK and resist anything that in their view weaken that. In Israel, Palestinians say they are already part of a homeland, Palestine, but that a foreign state was foisted on their territory. Israelis say they are already part of a homeland and won't accept any structures that in their view weaken that.
4. "there were virtually no incidents where Israeli Jews were involved in violence against Israeli Arabs" is such a patently absurd suggestion it beggars belief. Fear�IREANN
I still think the analogy with Turkey is the closest one. If you want an example of two groups fighting for the same land, take the Pontian Greeks vs. the Turks -- the Turks kicked them out of Anatolia and renamed their cities (Constantinople --> Istanbul, Smyrma --> Izmir, etc.). (Most of this happened in 1915-1922, though some of the city-renaming happened much earlier). Yet there's nothing in Turkey about this. And the situation with the Kurds is similar to the situation with the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- there are regions which primarily consider themselves part of another nationality. -- Delirium 21:19, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
in reply to Jtdirl
Thank you for finally addressing me directly. Perhaps we are making some progress here after all.
1. The fact that Israel is "internationally seen" in a certain way does not mean the Wikipedia should endorse such an (erronious) POV. This article is for people who want to learn about Israel as it really is - not as it is "internationally seen".
2-3. I said "[people] wish the territory to be (or become) part of..." (notice the grammatical subject of the sentence). You attempt to contradict me by saying (twice): "[people] say they are already part of...". Someone is confusing territory with people here, but it's certainly not me.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that you probably do have a better understanding of the situation in Ireland than I do. That's why you don't see me doing much editing on the
Northern Ireland page.
4. I dare you to produce a list of three such incidents. Please do not resort to the infamous list of "massacres" from 55 years ago. Without even getting into the credibility of these stories, I'll just say the Arabs involved were not Israeli citizens at the time. Also, please only include incidents in which violence was aimed at Israeli Arabs - not the few regrettable cases in which Israeli Arabs were caught in cross-fire, or were shot because they were mistaken for Palestinina (non-Israeli) terrorists (Jewiish Israelis have also been killed by the IDF in cases of mistaken identity).
And if "coterminous" is the standard word, please at least spell it correctly, so I can easily look it up in my dictionary. Thank you. uriber 21:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The user 64.236.243.31 has been blocked for vandalism of this article. (In fact blocked twice, once by me and also by another sysop. If he revisits under a new IP, leave a message on my talk page and if I will reblock him. Fear�IREANN 23:45, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the sentence. Why was it "agreed" to take it out? -- Uncle Ed 13:33, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ah, then maybe it's somebody's view of what the central issue is. And somebody else considers another thing to be the central issue. This is good stuff and should be in the article! --
Uncle Ed 16:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It isn't a long discussion; it is one line. And it belongs in the main article. Fear�IREANN 19:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think you have to say something on the issue on the main page, just as we cannot avoiding saying something about problems on other pages about other countries. Fear�IREANN 21:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As usual, RK, you presume that your side of the argument is invariably right and represents the consensus. I, Erid, 172 and others respectfully disagree. As a compromise I have changed the sentence to make clear that though this is the analysis held by some (aka most academics, though I haven't said that) others disagree.
On a separate issue, on anonymous user keeps deleting the paragraph on demographics, or rather severely editing the paragraph. The current paragraph seems fine and factual and I don't know what their problem is, though they have edited other Israel-linked pages and their editing seems to involve removing detail and replacing it with less detailed bland material. I have reverted their changes twice but they seem determined to want to dumb-down the paragraph. Fear�IREANN 15:01, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page is now PROTECTED -- at JTD's request. -- Uncle Ed 15:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Note: This protection is NOTHING to do with our dispute. It is to do with one anonymous user's continuous rewriting of the demographic section. I think the change should be discussed by everyone, as it does substantially change the meaning of the paragraph (which, BTW was not my work.) As I was involved in other edit wars I thought it imprudent to impose the protection and asked Ed to do so. It should only be a temporary measure and as soon as the 'team' here return to our squabble :-) it can be unprotected. By then the issue at the heart of the anonymous user's rewrite can be discussed. (BTW, Ed inadvertently imposed the protection on the IP user's version rather than the community one, so I unprotected it, reverted to the community version of that paragraph then protected again. So it is Ed's protection, corrected by me.) Everything is above board. (And Ed can feel free to unprotect my protection that followed an unprotection of his protection to install the correct version, then impose a protection again. At least I think that was it. Even I am confused now. :-) Fear�IREANN 15:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Quick question.
I recall that someone, perhaps not even on this page, stated that "of course Israel has a right to exist as a nation". I'm not sure what that statement means. I'm not disagreeing that Israel should exist, but I'm not sure how to define the "right" for any nation to exist. Does Israel have more or less of a right to exist than, say, Kenya or Tuvalu? Does this concept of "right to exist" (exclusive of the I/P conflict) have any bearing on those states that are not recognized at present but seek such recognition? It seems that this question of "right to exist" as a nation state could impact our discussions of various topics (I/P conflict, Tibet/China conflict, UK/Ireland conflict, and many other land disputes). Anyone care to weigh in without starting any kind of unpleasantness? -- Dante Alighieri 20:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep this page protected. -- Uncle Ed 14:35, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To anon: the bit on what "Jewish" means is important here. Israel is often called the "Jewish state" - it's highly useful to know what sense of "Jewish" this means. Does it mean adherents to the Jewish religion? The answer, as you can tell from the bit you want removed, is no. Evercat 18:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah. An important distinction exists in a state that is largely of one faith between those for whom that religious identity is largely religious, and those for whom the identity is cultural, heritage, history, etc, ie., someone proud of their Jewish heritage and history but themselves is not a practicing religious believer. They tend to be more liberal and attach less importance to biblical references to the 'land of Israel'. The Republic of Ireland for example is 93% Roman Catholic, but many of them are cultural catholics, not actual religious believers. They hold quite liberal views on divorce, abortion, homosexuality, inter-church marriage, etc. Religious Catholics (ie, actual Mass going religious believers) only account for 48% of people. Ireland culturally is a Catholic country, but religiously it isn't, having for example provided for a same age of consent for gays and straights unlike supposedly more secular England. Fear�IREANN 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Very good rewrite. Well done. Fear�IREANN 21:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Highly POV stuff moved from the article, was contributed by
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.30.99.94
Kosebamse 10:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In 1950 statistics, the population of Israel was 18% Jews 82% non-Jews (nearly all Arabs). However, there was a systematic ethnic-cleanising process in Israel, which many Zionists prefer to call "transportation" instead of ehtnic-cleansing. So by year 2000, the demography was almost exactly reversed. Today it is nearly 80% Jews and 20% non-Jews (who are generally called Arab-Israelis).
Furthermore, in Israel Jewish citizens are first-class citizens whereas non-Jews have less civil rights. For example, it is the law in Israel that if a Jewish citizen of Israel marries with a foreinger and the foreigner is also a Jew, then that person can become a citizen of Israel; but this law does not apply to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Millions of former citizens of Israel who have been subject to ethnic-cleanisn (or "transportaion out of Israel") live in diaspora in surrounding Arab countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt as well as other Arab countries.
Whether or not the facts are correct, language such as "ethnic cleansing" is not tolerable, and that is why I removed the addition in the first place. Kosebamse 16:57, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events. D'uh! That's deep. I am sure this phrase replaced something even deeper, but it certainly needs rephrasing. Cema 03:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Need more items in the media reference section? Like, non-English sources? Human rights organizations? Et cetera. Cema 04:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In the list of minorities, where do the Beduins go? Do we count them as part of the Israeli/Palestinian Arab population, or separately like the Druze? Cema 04:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I remind everyone: please try and keep to NPOV! I understand that the topic is loaded, but it is loaded on both sides. No need to pile up bullshit. Cema 09:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Anon look, there are definitely seeds of truth in your additions but you have got some facts totally wrong. It was in 1931 the population was 18% Jews 82% others. The ethnical cleansing you are talking about happened in 1947-48 and involved some 600,000-800,000 Palestinians. Now I have no objections to calling it an "ethnical cleansing" because it was a concious effort made to remove as many Arabs as possible from the Jewish "homeland". The facts you are presenting definitely has merit to be included in the Palestinian Exodus article which is devoted to the subject. More links to that page would be good because those paragraphs you want to insert just does not belong to such a sterile topic as "demographics of israel". BL 14:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
68.120.204.62 has now been blocked. Fear�IREANN 15:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The user returned and threatened to return to this page with his 'friends' to insert POV stuff. I have blocked their new IP and reverted the page to the previous edit, which was by RK. To protect the page from this threat, and because the user is clearly going to keep returning with different IPs and may bring others with him or her, I have temporarily protected it. It is a pity the whole community has to be inconvenienced to stop the behaviour of one person. Fear�IREANN 15:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Will this page be forever protected????! BL 10:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was about unprotect the page, but I see the vandal has come back to talk about you fucking hypocrite and call people ugly baboons. I've blocked his latest IP. I think this user may be a more serious problem. I am going to raise their behaviour on the wiki list. In the meantime I think the safest thing to avoid problems is to leave the page protected. Or anyone else have a different suggestion about how to handle this? Fear�IREANN 18:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have reported the above nutcase's comments and abuse to the w-list, and also blocked his latest IP. In view of his behaviour any more IPs he uses will be blocked and all edits anywhere reverted. Fear�IREANN 18:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It just occured to me the irony: That Israel, the state, and Israel the Wikpedia article, both have to be artificially protected. - 戴眩sv 21:15, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
I'm reverting Martin's deleting of the obscenities of the anonymous user. Normally I would support such an act, but this user's abuse is the subject of debate on the wiki-list. As such, for evidence it is important that it be left in situ for people to read. Censoring the comments simply ensures that people do not realise the nature of the user's conduct and hinders everyone's ability to form fully informed judgments as to the nature and agenda of the user in question. Fear�IREANN 21:23, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
NP. I appreciate what you were trying to do. This context is a little bit more complicated. I did remove a comment the user made that was merely an attempt to pick a fight with someone by pretending to hold an extreme view, as it was simply provocation. But their other comments were reactive and abusive and worth keeping for the record for the time being. lol Fear�IREANN 21:59, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Efghij, you have stated that "There are some cases, however, in which the rights extended to Jews are not extended to Arabs". This is simply untrue. The only right which is extended exclusively to Jews under Israeli law is the right to obtain Israeli citizenship (the Law of Return). This, naturally, applies only to Jews which are not Israeli citizens, and thus does not consistute discrimination of Arab citizens vs. Jewish citizens.
In fact, the only other issue in which there is a (semi-)official discrimination is that Israeli Jews must serve a 3-year military service (2 years for women) whereas Arabs are generally exempt from this duty.
The claims in the article you linked to either:
Given this, I see no justification for leaving the sentence I quoted at the beginning in the article. uriber 20:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think the Crusades deserve a mention in here between the Roman occupation section and 1947. Given the hotbed around this article, though, I figured I'd bring it up in talk before adding it. -- ObscureAuthor 19:38, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Template pages on countries tend to be quite narrowly focused. I think we should have no more than a line or two on the issue here but it could make a very useful and interesting linked article. lol Fear�IREANN 19:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
On the Israel page, it is mentioned Israel's name in Hebrew, transliterated in Roman alphabets and its translation in English. However isn't Israel's official name in Hebrew Medinat Yisrael while in Arabic isn't it Dawlat Isra'il? I can't type the word without a Arabic keyboard, neither could I edit the page.. --- Sorry, mispelled again. Dawlat al-Isra'il. Besides, speaking of Israel, since there is a lot of states not recognizing Israel, mostly Muslim nations (3 out of 22 Arab states recognize Israel, countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia don't either).
I think Mr. Sharon is a tough-guy wannabe, and he likes fighting Palestinians for the heck of it. In other words, he's a boy ninny. Go figure. Rickyrab 02:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Your the demographics guy eh? Good job sneaking em in. :-) In this case I guess an edit is needed instead of a full revert. BL 02:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Nope. I'd need to do a lot more research to be the demographics guy. Rickyrab 02:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Protection "just in case" is a bad idea imho. Anth�re
Rickyrab. I hesitate to get into any conversation about this page, but Jerusalem is known by several names, according to language. Are we going to list them all in the table? Wouldn't that info be better on the
Jerusalem page?
DJ Clayworth 02:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, do that. I don't mind. Rickyrab 02:39, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I mean, put it on the Jerusalem page Rickyrab 02:40, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I think many of us might be able to agree that a holocaust denier like Roger Garaudy is not the source of a website that we should be linking to. A quick check on Google shows that his work is accepted as factual only on neo-Nazi and radical Islamist websites. The virulently anti-Semitic "Institute for Historical Review" pushes his work. This speaks volumes.
I've had a few beers and I'm feeling bold, so I have changed
"Interpretation of the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict depends on how one interprets these events."
to
"See also: Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
The date listed in the entry "Israel" for its independance is May 15 1948, while this event is not recorded on the entry "May 15". OTOH, the entry "1948" the date of Israeli decleration of independance is listed as May 14 and this event is also listed in the entry "May 14". unless I'm grossly mistaken, shouldn't the entry for "Israel" be ammended ?
Also - in many country enteries, the listing denotes from which other country independance was declared. IIRC Israel was under a british mandate at the time - shouldn't the entry reflect that ?
"Much of its Arab population subsequently ceased to reside within this area;"
"at the same time,"
"many Jews were made refugees from the surrounding Arab nations."
Even the map, which is produced by the CIA, says "occupied"... Besides, it is only the Palestinian population in the occupied territories that is not counted. *sigh* BL 00:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the Israel wikipage it states that Israel is located in Asia, Is this correct? I was always under the impression they were in Africa since they are in close proximity to Egypt and Jordan which according to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook 2003 and their Wikipedia pages both of those countries are part of the African continent. I would appreciate some clarification on this entry. Misterrick 08:30, 06 January 2004 (UTC).
I apologize, After checking you are right about not finding anything about my claims, I was sure I saw something about continents but after seeing your post and double checking I see that I was wrong. Misterrick 21:32 07, Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think Golan_Heights should be listed in the line: "In 1967, the Six-Day War resulted in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Sinai becoming occupied by Israel." I won't add anything here because this is a controversial page. Martijn (usurped) 20:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In a Haaretz interview (Jan. '04) historian Benny Morris states:
"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
Searching for this sentence on Google (web, news and groups) turns up some discussion of the interview but nobody seems to have a problem with this particular statement.
Keith from Calgary 23:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So can we agree that this statement is not controversial?
Keith from Calgary 06:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Israel is technically at war with Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, with previous declarations of war never being repealed by either side. "
Erm, now that the Saddam government is gone, isn't Israel no longer at war with Iraq? WhisperToMe 02:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How is this a POV? I don't get it all. I don't even see why "disputed" is a POV. I rather suspect that the alternative version is someone's strong POV. -- V V 02:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
TO VERYVERILY: The phrase: and other territories occupied since the 1967 war only refers to the NUMBER of territories seized militarily SINCE the 1967 war, NOT that the territories have been held militarily since then, which would still be true, but less neutral. Can the phrase be ambiguous? Yes, if you are a casual reader. -- Cantus 06:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
AGAINST PRO-ISRAELI PARTISAN EDITING Very nice try by the pro-Israeli group, who have waged a constant struggle throughought the history of this article to ensure that it is as sympathetic as possible to Israel (recently including a bizarre and slanderous falsification of history, in which the UN Security Council Resolutions were declared to have been created by "anti-Jewish" Muslim and Soviet satellite countries). There can be no dispute over the term "occupied". Practically the entire international community refers to the "occupation". UN Security Council Resolution 242 declared that the West Bank and Gaza were "occupied" by Israel. But - and most importantly of all - Ariel Sharon, figurehead of the Israeli Right, declared on the Tuesday 26th May 2003, that it was - as we all know it is! - an "occupation". Indeed, he declared that:
"We don't like this word the word, but this is occupation. To keep 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is back for Israel and bad for the Palestinians."
Given practically the entire human race, including the current hardline prime minister of Israel, refers to this state of affairs as an "occupation", why oh why are we prevented from using it? We are using the vocabulary of the most rightwing elements of Israeli society, who frankly in the general panorama of world opinion are an obscure fringe element, instead of a term recognised by the entire international community, the United Nations and even the Israeli government. This is absurd, and testament to the lengths that militantly pro-Israeli Wikipedians will go to in order to secure as strong a bias as possible in favour of Israel. Now, leave "occupied" well alone. Jonesy 13:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
USING ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT There actually is a dispute over the term "occupied" (which kind of disproves your claim that "there could be no dispute" over it.) "Practically the entire international community" is not the same as "everybody". UN Security Council resolutions reflect the political interests of UN Security Council members, and nothing more. Ariel Sharon is not "figurehead of the Israeli Right" (whatever that means), even if he used to be that. He is currently facing a strong opposition from the Israeli Right, since he it practically implementing the traditional policy of the Israeli extreme Left. Anyway, his quote (which was very controversial inIsrael) does not imply that he believes all of the West Bank to be "occupied territory". It is quite clear that he does not believe that. In any event, the fact that Sharon's POV on the subject supposedly coincides with yours, does not make it the POV of "practically the entire human race".
The term "occupation" is not used by the Israeli government when referring to the West Bank. Israel's system of government is not Presidential, and the power to make policy is in the hands of the government, not the PM. The government never made a statement regarding the territories (or part of them) to be "occupied".
This page from the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlines the official Israeli position, and gives several reasonable arguments for why the territories in question are not "occupied".
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once refrred to the territories as the "so-called occupied". While this might not reflect the official position of the US, I'm pretty sure it reflects the sentiment of many Americans. To the best of my knowledge, he was never required to step down or apologize for saying what he did.
To conclude, "occupied" is not an NPOV term in this context, and I, for one, will not leave it well alone -- uriber 19:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of looking up "occupation" in the Oxford English Dictionary, which as far as I am aware is not co-authored by Hamas:
1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action.
It's really that simple. The argument that this is not the situation in Palestine holds as much water as the Earth being flat.
Those who argue against the use of this term respond with indignation at that fact nearly all of humanity regard the state of affairs as occupation. Indeed, they regard this as little more as a dictatorship of the majority over the minority, when Wikipedia is meant to impartially straddle the debates, regardless of however many people subscribe to a particular argument. The problem, however, is that the use of any term but this one refutes the idea that there is an occupation, i.e. it upholds the argument of a tiny minority over the overwhelming majority. I am truly baffled by the idea that this could be construed as a "neutral point of view". The exercise of control over non-Israeli land through a military means and presence is, simply put, occupation.
International law decrees so. The United Nations Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly have all described the state of affairs as an "occupation". Ariel Sharon - who has both directly participated in and led wars against the Arab nations and the Palestinians - has described it as an "occupation". Only the very rightwing of the Zionist movement chooses to use (as Dissident pointed out) this misleading doublespeak. To use a word that denies occupation is a capitulation to a fringe opinion.
That we are dealing with ideologically committed people with extreme opinions is shown by the association made by Uriber of the policies of Ariel Sharon with the Israeli extreme Left. Only an individual on the rightwing fringes would have made this comparison. It is vital to continue to defend truth from those who distort it for political ends. Jonesy 01:12, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)