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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
An editor just added Israel and Jordan to the Category "Former British colonies" ( [1], [2]). Can we all agree that this is a good-faith mistake and that Israel and Jordan were never colonies of the British Crown but rather mandated territories?— Biosketch ( talk) 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I just labeled the map so that people can more easily identify A, B and C on the map. I realize people get upset about things like me doing that, so figure I'd explain my reasons. 1) They are territories under more or less Israeli military/administrative control, 2) afaik, the vast majority of countries in the world consider them not legally part of Israel proper, 3) people looking at a map and seeing numbers from 1-6 explained but letters A-C not explained will wonder why A-C is so secret or why people don't want to talk about it. As the rest of the article doesn't much use terms like "Judea" and "Samaria" for the West Bank and Gaza I didn't do that here either. I don't even know if there's an extreme Zionist term for the Golan Heights. An alternative would be to alter the map and exclude the letters A, B and C. I'd argue against that as it's misleading the customer, i.e. the reader, into thinking those parts are not under Israeli control. Feel free to jump all over my case about this, it's the internet after all. Pär Larsson ( talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"Haganah" does not mean "The Defense". It means "Defense". Pdronsard ( talk) 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi paramilitary groups split off.[63]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there some incorrect information, i have the correction experience to correct it thank you
joseph camerieri Support Isreal
Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ALL the incorrect dating system to correct historical Gregorian dating system dating letters from "BCE" to "BC" and "CE" to "AD" this will correct the offensive dating system to the correct Gregorian Calender dating to the Jews and Christians. Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change all "BCE" TO BC and "CE" TO AD
Jojotruth1 (
talk)
17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
adminstrator malik thank you Jojotruth1 ( talk)
Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please perform the following edit -
Existing phrase:
Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans.
should be:
Other minorities are Druze, Circassians, Samaritans and a large community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union gaining Israeli citizenship following the Law of Return.
Thank you. א/O 31.210.176.210 ( talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Conflicts_and_peace_treaties, the link to the "Sabra and shatila camp massacre" is broken, most likely the name is obsolete.
The link should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Drumking ( talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you for noting the error. GabrielF ( talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
explain this: how could Israel declare it the capital without it being part of Israel? That doesn't make sense. Of course it's annexed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to change the infobox so that capital is shown as " Jerusalem (disputed) [a]"? This would more clearly direct the reader to the note about UN resolution 478 etc. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask, if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is? Than, how can a country have no capital? And how can Jerusalem not be Israel's capital if it has the Knesset and all the political things there? What, can we just move them? 109.65.213.130 ( talk) 07:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.130 ( talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]". This is misleading, it makes it sound like all of Jerusalem is considered occupied rather than just East Jerusalem. The area referred to as West Jerusalem is in areas recognised as belonging to the State of Israel by most of the world. It should say "partially located in occupied territories." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation.
Daily's claims are simply not supported by the facts and history. What claims do you specifically challenge? That Israel didn't conquer Jerusalem from Jordan? That the Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem until after the 67 war - and the UN never considered the land to be "Palestinian" in UN242? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This isn't my opinion, it is reality. How can you see that as soap-boxing? No international body has disputed Israel's capital, a lack of recognition is not the same thing as a binding charge. Now, one could argue what constitutes a "capital" and if "international" recognition is necessary to legitimize it. Positions on Jerusalem is where all support/opposition should go. Wikifan Be nice 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories". If I'm correct, the definition of "occupied territories" includes only land that was not under Israeli control before 1967. Since West Jerusalem has been controlled by the State of Israel since 1948, is it really "occupied territories" any more than places such as Tel Aviv or Eilat? I'd be bold and add "partially" before "located" in the sentence that I quoted above, but I'm wary of someone becoming angry on such a hot topic. Nyttend ( talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read lots of times that Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of Israel, and we have that cited to the CIA Factbook. But this Haaretz article says (my emphasis) "based on current mandatory law, Arabic and English are also recognized as official languages". Is it possible to find a more definitive source, like a high court ruling or legal text? Zero talk 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]
Straight from the intro. The source does not describe Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather Israel proclaimed its capital as Jerusalem, period. So either this is an editor mixing up sources or simply including their own POV without consulting the material they supposedly cite form.
The reality is parts of Jerusalem are considered "occupied" by various bodies of government and non-binding resolutions, but the peace process - and history - has never inferred the whole city Jerusalem as occupied territory. Israel captured parts of Jerusalem from Jordan, not Palestine. And Jerusalem was never sovereign to begin with. So yeah Sean, write this off as Soap Boxing, but all I say here is predicated on facts. Editors must rely on sourced material rather than their own opinions when contributing to an article as sensitive as this. Wikifan Be nice 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
nableezy - 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)p. 584: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
A good source for the entire sentence: Bowen, Stephen, ed. (1997), Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories, International studies in human rights, vol. 52, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8
In 1980 Israel's parliament declared "Jerusalem, complete and united" to be the "capital of Israel". The U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly each declared this law a nullity on the grounds that an occupying power may not annex occupied territory.
nableezy - 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Daily, I'm going to make this simple. This source does not support " Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since parts of it are located in occupied territories." For something controversial of course you need a source to support it, especially in an article like this. The whole city of Jerusalem has a whole has never been recognized as part of occupied territory although this is a common accusation. And the parts of Jerusalem that later became "Palestinian territory" was a political mutation, Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan. So unless the lead is going to be hijacked so the issue of Jerusalem can be described with all the facts, that sentence should go. Wikifan Be nice 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan, several sources have been provided here that specify that the reason that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital is because East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that Israel's effective annexation of that territory violated international law which proscribes the annexation of occupied territory. Your edit is both wrong and dishonest, as you are well aware of these sources. nableezy - 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake in the following sentence: "In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23]"
There are Druze in the Golan Heights rather then Arabs. They are not to be confused. The above sentence is not consistent with the paragraph: "Arabs form by far the country's second-largest ethnic group, which includes Muslims and Christians. Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[22] In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23] "
Which separates the Arabs from the Druze. Any thoughts? Guy.other ( talk) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Guy.other
According to the May 2010 population estimate, including 300,000 "non-citizen" Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, these minorities number 1,579,700
there are christian states and muslim states, israel is a jewish state. unless we are going to change all christian countries into a christian majority state, and all muslim countries to muslim majority states ect than i believe this mistake should be fixed. just because the palestinians refuse, in their hatred, to recognize israel as a jewish a jewish state. which means that they dont recognize any Jewish presence in palestine, does not mean that we members of the international world, should give in into such antisemitic rhetoric!-- 129.98.153.186 ( talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
i completely agree, israel is a jewish state, in the deceleration of independence we declared the establishment of a "jewish atte in the land of israel" not a jewish majority state. we need to change it immediately.-- Marbehtorah-marbehchaim ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
sean.holyland if thats the best you can do you should do it, and i thank you for at least finding a compromise. But if israel will be considered a jewish majority state than all muslim and christian and buddhist states should also be put in as "muslim majority" and christian majority ect.. I wanted it to be written a jewish state since thats what it is, there is a deference between a state of jews and a jewish state. a jewish state has meaning, it is run by the hebrew calender, and it nationally celebrates the jewish holidays and mourns the jewish memorial days. israel is a Jewish state, that is not an opinion it is fact. and no matter what the world discusses or what the world transcribes-israel shall remain a Jewish state.-- 129.98.153.186 ( talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
פארוק (
talk)
17:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
How about instead of removing sourced material, why not explain the edits in discussion?
These sorts of statements aren't exactly collaborative: "it doesn't belong in the lede, but you're going to pad it anyway? what a maroon.."
I read the sources. My edit comes straight from the source, almost verbatim. The previous edit was not supported by the sources. This is a very sensitive article and as long as editors refuse to explain their edits in talk they shouldn't be reverting other users edits. So Malik, I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan Be nice 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, as East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.
I've boosted the sizes of a few, slightly, and preferred right- over left-side placement, and top-of-section placement: this optimises for all window-widths in terms of the image–text relationship, minimising text sandwiching.
In my view, there are too many images. Those in "Economy" and "Transport" are underwhelming—are there no better ones? I'd sooner remove them. What has "Ramat Gan" got to do with "Economy"? Needs to be removed or at least referred to in the main text or the caption, I'd say.
"Tourism" needs expansion, and I see there's a daughter article ... two sentences are hardly sufficient. Tony (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm on a voluntary ORR so I didn't revert this edit even though I believe it should be. I'm not so sure on the rationale of the editor and the edit itself is in the wrong section. The section is about Israel's laws, not press freedom. Two entirely different issues tied together arbitrarily. Right? Wikifan Be nice 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"Zionism, the urge of the Jewish people to return to Palestine, is almost as ancient as the Jewish diaspora itself. Some Talmudic statements ... Almost a millennium later, the poet and philosopher Yehuda Halevi ... In the 19th century ..."
Doesn't make sense to me; just a bunch of fractured phrases and clauses. It's the Rosenweig, top of "Zionism and the British mandate". Thanks.
BTW, the images are very messy, and prone to sandwich text in narrow screens. Also, some seem forced down to 180px, which was the default until 18 months ago. The default is now 220px (49% larger), but the guidelines were loosened last year to allow for detail-rich images to be boosted in size beyond 220. I've made some 240, and also jammed the syntaxes at the top of their section in edit-mode, since this minimises the damage arising from narrow and wide window-widths. Please give feedback here if it's a problem. Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Under WP:ROC the introduction is missing a key "notable" topic re Israel - the international criticism it has received. Whether or not we agree with the criticism, its existence is widely recognised and it is highly relevant to the country. It is clearly a sensitive topic however - I have put a suggestion below, and would ask if all editors could help me make sure it is balanced before putting it in. Thanks.
Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948, including with respect to its refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, its invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the building of settlements therein, and accusations of economic strangulation of occupied territories and human rights abuses of Palestinian Arabs.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both. Dailycare, the key aspect of the proposed text is not already in the lead, that is, there is no description of the international criticism which Israel has had to defend itself against. Malik, your comment was flippant given I have said that I am aware this is sensitive - I have tried to remove any POV. Please expand your critique or preferably suggest an appropriate balance - it is clearly a highly notable subject with respect to Israel. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Below is a raft of WP:RS on the proposed topic. Sean, I take your point - i'll clarify and add as appropriate in the body of the article and then come back to the lead.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? Dailycare's comment that four of the quotes in the talk page represent a pro-Israel POV makes no comment on the text and variety of sources in the article. The question of article size requires a considered analysis of the article as a whole, rather than singling out the latest additions. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The last few paragraphs of the proposed section are particularly problematic. I don't like the idea of citing Wikileaks cables without a secondary source explaining them, since they are unfiltered private comments. However, even if quoting this cable were encyclopedic, the commentary on the cable is not ("suprisingly...", "In the WikiLeaks cable Dermer didn't offer evidence...") First, this is POV and original research (Wikipedia is responding to Dermer instead of quoting someone else responding to Dermer), but just as importantly, when we cherrypick one private conversation and then criticize it we risk creating straw men - that is to say we run the risk of choosing one particular form of an idea, say the one that we think is weakest, rather than the most mainstream or well-thought-out version of that idea so that we implicitly make the other side's position look stronger. GabrielF ( talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikibias blog has brought this up: [3] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So I gather international criticism of Israel and the attitude of Israelis to it are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Because its "an entirely unprecedented section"? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? The main arguments given against the section refer to there being no precedents for it in other country articles. Not only is that argument not valid, ghit analysis and the WP:RS provided show that the topic is highly notable. Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Whilst numerous facts and arguments supporting the inclusion of the text have been set out in the discussion above, none of the posts against inclusion have been substantiated with valid or adequately explained arguments or facts. This makes it very difficult to move towards real consensus. Perhaps each of the dissenting editors could explain clearly exactly how important and notable a topic would need to be to justify inclusion in this article, in their judgement? My view is clear - it is one of the most notable topics of all in relation to Israel, almost a defining topic, as illustrated by all of the broad facts and WP:RS shown above - and shown best in our world by the sheer number of POV WP editors which exist in relation to this overall topic. Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Most editors will have seen the following discussion over the past two weeks, which has now closed. Many good points were raised on all sides of the debate. Perhaps we can now try to agree on this page as to whether the relative notability of Criticism of the Israeli Government versus the other topics in the Government, politics and legal system section justifies the inclusion of a summary. I'll start:
Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:
As such, unless any opposing editors can produce policy-based arguments, a section will be added to the article in due course. I'll wait a bit longer though before adding as keen to ensure all opportunities are given for any possible policy-based counter-arguments. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"International Criticism" (whatever that means) is mostly related to Israel's occupation of the west bank which is covered by a large section. Another cause is the large body of Arab states in conflict with Israel and their ability to dominate international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee whose chair was Libya until recently. That would come under foreign policy. I think the non-specific title is POV. If there is something you want to criticize you should say what it is and try to express it in terms which are acceptable to different perspectives. Its not easy. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you open a section on Criticism of America on the USA page and provide further examples of countries being criticized before inserting it in the Israel article, otherwise its hard to see it as anything other then POV soapboxing and/or discriminatory behavior. There is also a Criticism of Judaism article which is not mentioned in the Judaism page. Are you suggesting that should be mentioned in the article? Use of majority voting to impose your will on a minority is not democratic behavior, you need to seek a consensus. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Since noone has been able to suggest that a subsection on Criticism of the Israeli Government within the politics section of this article would be any less notable than the existing subsections such as the fascinating one on Museums, I will add a new subsection. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
did the Christian world really aware of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and it's jewish people ? . Why Jerusalem have not any embassy of any country ? . i want to know please. פארוק ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
No, but aware about en:2011 Israeli housing protests . What zydowie blizni mean chanting "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi Netanyahu" [9].
Hi! why you polskie blizni dont have article about the protests? Isreal half a million strong protest.
this protest is from COMMUNIST STUDENT FROM TEL AVIV !!!! they don't represet the all people of israel. and the RT CHANNEL (RUSSIA TODAY) who was interview STAV SHAFIR are russian anti-semitic communist channel . thank you. פארוק ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I added to the overview, after "Israel is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state" the words "with many Arab mks in its Knesset, elected by the significant, roughly 20 percent Arab minority."
I have many reasons for this change, that i will get into shortly. The most obvious is that the article gives an example of how it is a Jewish state (and is the world's only Jewish majority state) but fails to provide an example of how it is a democratic state -- something that my change fixes.
A user named Malik Shabazz undid my change, because "That isn't one of the most important facts about Israel that the reader needs in the first paragraph."
I then wrote on his talk page reasons why i thought it was important: "I think that it is something very important, as it shows that Israel is a very democratic state, accepting of people of all walks of life and views, even those of the same race who currently fight them, and even in the highest levels of its government. Not only that, but the overview is misleading, as it says that Israel is a "Jewish State" which implies that there are no arabs or people of any other race in its government, other than jewish. My addition would rectify this problem, and would also tell people a lot of important info about Israel today and its demographic make up, besides for saying a lot about its society and government. It clears up many misconceptions that people have about the country. So this is very essential, and crucial info that also fixes a misleading statement."
And here is the reason i originally gave in the 'reason for your edit' section -- "thought that the significant Arab minority should be noted in the overview. Proportionality there are more Arabs in israel then the black and asian minorities in the US combined."
Malik wrote back that I should put this on the Israel talk page to see if the edit has consensus, so here it is. You can weigh in on whether you agree with this edit or not, and your reasons one way or another. Thanks Darkkelf99 ( talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The above mentioned image was firstly removed by me about a week ago or so. The image was part of about 4-5 images in the military section, all appeared one above the other, intruding into the sections below the military section and creating untidy appearance. Therefore I removed all of the images aside for the upper one (the F-16s image). We can all agree that having more than 2 images at the same side of the section is excessive and better avoid. One of the images was of Karkal battalion, which is one of two unisex battalions in the Israeli army. The caption below the image told that this battalion serves in "full combat" capacity, which is factually wrong. The battalion serves only in the southern front of Israel and wasn't involved in major conflicts that Israel had in her northern borders (unlike battalions which serve in full combat capacity). More important, the battalion is dealing with routine security only. Though reference was added to the caption, it didn't support it. Moreover, as the reference was given in citation template and I was advised by the technical support board that there are already too many of them in this article, significantly effecting the speed in which one can download it or make edits in it, I find it just to remove this image as well. I wrote part of the reasons in the edit summaries. Then I added one image below the one of the F-16s, presenting Israeli paratroopers in training. The Image was removed by Avya1, without any reason given. I was thinking that the image didn't look well to her or that it thought that one image is enough, so I didn't revert her. About day or two after she remove the image she added again the image of Karkal battalion in training, I removed it-this time without writing anything in the edit summary -so she revert my edit and wrote that she revert because I didn't justify my action. So just for the good will and understanding, I sum it all for you and for her. One image is enough for the military section, the image of Karakal is relatively new here and replaced other image that was in this section before. So to avoid edit wars I suggest only one image in this section, the present one. Also, there is no place to add image in the left side of the section because it's too long and it wouldn't look good-and there is no reason to cut the section short for having another image.-- Gilisa ( talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Although the Arab armies attacked formally only in May, 1948, the local Arabs (known today as the Phalestines) began the war at 29 November 1947, the day the UN declared the Israely country, and started the Indipendence War. Please update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 ( talk) 11:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the spelling doesn't really matter since it's a forgein word (however there is no F in Arab as well). What I said is that the war began at 29 November- with 6 Jews killed at the first day of the battle. Parts of the country (especially near Jerusalem) were conquered by the Arabs even before May 1948! I suggest to write that the war began in November, not May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed "Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from Israel during the conflict," as it isn't sourced and isn't true. -- 72.47.85.22 ( talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
My problem is the leading with the word "expelled" rather than 'fled" since while there were, indeed, people who were scared out of Israel by certain groups, their number was so small in comparison with those who simply "got out of the way" at the behest of the Arab Higher Committee that the word order is misleading. (The other problem comes when you note that, until the 60's, the word "Palestinian" always meant "Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine". I would suggest "Arab refugees" instead) FlaviaR ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Searching for the word "Swine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine redirects the page to Israel. This appears to be vandalism, please revert the redirect to point towards "Pig".
BringFire ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you for bringing the vandalism to our attention. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section about the legality of Israel? Philoleb ( talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have found some information relating to the previously discussed topic of Israel and Jerusalem.
Whilst certain Israeli's are adamant that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many large world organisations like the BBC and VISA card company reject Jerusalem as the capital, and regard it as Tel Aviv, as shown here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122764. Also, the Friends of Al Aqsa ( http://www.foa.org.uk/), International Institute of Islamic Thought ( http://www.iiit.org/), Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK ( http://www.mpacuk.org/)and the Arab Media Watch ( http://arabmediawatch.blogspot.com/) have all disputed the mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Furthermore, the embassies of El Salvador and Costa Rica have been moved to Tel Aviv, and this is a significant point, as embassies are traditionally held in the capital city. Therefore, I request that the capital city of Israel be changed from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.
The start of the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate seems to be a bit odd. I don't think it's vandalism, but the link there was supposed to be there isn't.
Also, why can't I edit it directly? I thought that, as a registered user, I was allowed to edit the article responsibly. Having to start a topic in Discussion just to correct these minor errors is a bit of a pain. Kilmax ( talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The intro claims that "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" This is clearly not accurate. They do not let the Palestinians vote, yet do not recognize them as independent. If calling them an apartheid state would be POV, then surely calling them a democracy is as well. Claiming they have universal sufferage is really going way too far considering the lack of voting rights for so many of the people living under the jurisdiction of Israel. This need to be at least changed to "Israel claims itself to be...."; if not taken out entirely. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
-Israel does not recognize Palestine as independent. The claim of universal sufferage needs to change. You can't vote in Canada but are not subject to their law either. Palestinians can't vote but are subject to Israeli law. Your anology is not a good one. One of two things needs to happen for Israel to have universal sufferage. 1. They let everybody, including the Palestinians vote. Or 2. They recognize Palestine as independent from Israel. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should tell that to Israel. Because they seem to believe quite strongly that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel. The article needs to be changed. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The obvious change is "Israel claims to be..." The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 04:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm being more than generous in my recomendation. I could have easily demanded that it be changed to "Israel claimes to be....but...." Like I said if they recognized Palestine then your argument about them not being citizens would make more sense. But they dont recognize that country as an independent being. Shown most promanently in Jerusalem were Israel has officially declared annexation but it is also true with regard to Gaza and te West Bank as well. Bottom line is that Israels status as a democracy is at best controversal. And the wiki article needes to say that. Just flatly declaring them a democracy is incorrect. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 06:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'll keep showing up and demand changes to the article whether you feel its appropriate or not, thanks though. Especially since my argument remains unchallenged. Your side tried to claim that Palestinians don't live under the jurisdiction of Israel. This was proven wrong with the mention of East Jerusalem. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I was already specific about how it should change. The claim about universal sufferage should be taken out completely. And the sentance declaring them to be a democracy needs to be changed to include the words, "Israel claims to be..." 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
Кажеться Вы забыли указать самую грозную часть населения Израиля - четыре тысячи черкесов. Абрек-Аскер — Preceding unsigned comment added by Абрек-Аскер ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Pmurnion ( talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The article section 'Conflicts and Peace Treaties' is quite misleading. Specifically the Intifada is casually mentioned in part of a paragraph which begins with a justification of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Intifada was clearly critically different from all earlier conflicts involving Israel. It was the first in which Israel was not 'defending' itself from a state attacker. The Intifada brought international focus on the status of the occupation as opposed to the territorial security of Israel. That was an enormous change which is true irrespective of ones opinions on the rights or wrongs of the intifada or the Israeli occupation. The failure to reflect this in the article is a fatal flaw. This flaw should always have been obvious, but now, in the aftermath of the second Iraq war and (current events in) Afghanistan, it should be clear that conflicts that involve non-states are often much more important in the modern world than inter-state conflicts. Failure to deal with this renders the article misleading and is also a general problem for wikipedia aricles on the middle east and conflict in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurnion ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Could the Hebrew language font issue please be corrected. {{Hebrew|... should be changed to {{lang|he|... to get rid of an unreadable and overlarge font. I would do it myself, but of course I am not allowed to edit this page! Thank you. ( Nathanielba ( talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
Should these parameters be filled: GDP_PPP_rank, GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank, GDP_nominal_rank and GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank? If so, these are the values: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. -- 92.37.196.167 ( talk) 11:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, fill these parameters:
|Gini_rank = 69th ( source)
|date_format = dd/mm/yyyy ( AD) (according to Date format by country)
-- 92.37.197.189 ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs" change to "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day to annihilate the newly formed Jewish state". If "support of the Palestinian Arabs" is added, it should be prior to it an statement on the fact that Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN decision of two countries while the Jewish population accepted it. Then, it will be understood to which support we are referring.
98.246.34.216 ( talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"In the Golan Heights, Druze are entitled to citizenship but most have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[22] -- if you go to the Wikipedia page on Israeli Druze, you find that 93% of young Druze in Israel consider themselves Israelis. If so, this would not seem to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.216.152 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
the druze in israel have an israeli citizenship. most of then are serving the israeli army and see themselves as israelis. the druze in the golan hights dont see themselves as israelis because of the relation to syria and a fair that one day israel withdrawal fron the golan, and they will be accused in loyality to israel. Nirvadel ( talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Israel is not a "parlamentary democracy", Iran neither. It's a "etnocracy" or a "jewcracy", not a democracy. Israel is not a Republic (State of all its citizens), but is a Jewish State (State of the Jews that live in Israel or out of it). Anti-zionists cannnot run in the elections according the Basic Law of the Knesset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.46.102 ( talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
There is inconsistency here regarding the population of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The number given for Judea and Samaria is for Jewish settlers and not Palestinians while the number given for the Gaza Strip is for Palestinians (since Jewish settlers were pulled out). This inconsistency makes it look like the Gaza Strip has a larger population than Judea and Samaria, which is not the case. Death by fugue ( talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggest alteration to Map and Table featured in this section which identify the Administrative Divisions/Districts of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza using the letters A, B and C, respectively. This may give rise to confusion due to the fact that the formal Administrative Divisions of the West Bank are known as Areas A, B and C. Imahd ( talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Hello!
There is no climate chart for Israel (as for eg. Malta).
Don't make me watch Israeli weather reports for a year!
Shalom.
Gottservant ( talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence is missing the word "days":
The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers, and cool winter but with fewer rainy "days" than the Mediterranean climate.
Imahd (
talk)
18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, the comma after "summers" (above) may be superfluous. Imahd ( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest: The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers and cool winters but with fewer rainy days than the average Mediterranean climate. Imahd ( talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The user AndyTheGrump on the Talk:East Germany discussion page has claimed that I am being unfair by only addressing the issue of satellite state status of East Germany while not bringing up a statement I made in which I claimed that I believe that the circumstances involving Israel-United States relations warrant Israel to be considered a client state of the United States. I am not making a judgement about Israel's culture or society beyond analyzing the relations between Israel and the United States. I know that there will be MANY patriotic Israelis here who may take serious offense to this, I did not want to raise the issue as I predicted such a response, but to respond to AndyTheGrump's demand for fairness, I have no choice but to address it. I know more about East Germany than I do about Israel - I may be wrong - but here are some scholarly reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. But please, I remind you that I have been pressured to do this out of a demand by the user AndyTheGrump for fairness - I am fully aware that there is little chance that most users who will contribute to this discussion will agree - out of patriotic opposition to claims suggesting that Israel's independence is less than it is officially stated - so please DON'T GET MAD AT ME - IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP OR HAVEN'T READ THE BEGINNING OF THIS LONG EXPLANATION OF WHY I AM DOING THIS DISCUSSION, READ IT AGAIN (I say it in bold because it is necessary for everyone to understand and to not overreact to this).-- R-41 ( talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
|
in the section on language, it states that non-Jewish Russian immigrants are not accepted as Jews by the Orthodox rabbinate, but the Law of Return does accept them. This sentence is misleading. The Law of Return is in fact agnostic of religious or halachic considerations, and functions on the principles of the Nuremberg race laws. The text should be changed so as not to imply discrimination where none exists. 95.86.77.244 ( talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) bennyp
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to insert a short paragraph in Science and technology about Israel's notable water technology industry. AnkhMorpork ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think British English makes much sense for this. The British left decades ago and Israel is a close US ally. Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
all links here with vandalism. פארוק ( talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's second paragraph reads like so, in reference to the Israeli War of Independence: "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states"; sentence one holds an incredibly biased view of Arab motives, which at the time and ever since have always been publicly declared to be "the elimination of the Zionist entity," and not "support for Palestinian Arabs." Proof of this lies partially in the many recorded & written sources declaring such motives, and also partially in the fact that the War ended with Jordan annexing the West Bank instead of establishing there a Palestinian state, which could easily have been done by allowing the thousands of Palestinian refugees who'd left instead of staying to return to the West Bank and set up a state.
Secondly, Israel has a history of being invaded by its neighboring Arab states, in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Only in 1982 did Israel engage in an offensive action, and although it went horribly wrong due to the actions of Christian Phalangist massacres of Palestinians, which Israel was not wise enough to guard against but by its own admission takes as its own indirect fault, the action was a necessary attempt to eliminate the violence caused by PLO terrorists that had been attacking civilian targets throughout Northern Israel from bases in Lebanon. All this needs to be pointed out; defensive wars are quite different from wars of aggression, and the expression of anti-Semitism formerly directed at Jews by European Christians in the form of violence must not be allowed to define Israel now that there are few Jews left in post-WW2 Europe, as it continues in the European press's attempts to label any and all Israeli defensive maneuvers as war crimes, but to cheerfully legitimize Palestinian murders of Israeli citizens. Palestinians have had numerous chances to seriously negotiate with Israel and establish a state for themselves, but have constantly refused to do so, believing the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian mandate to be Arab lands, a "waqf" given to them to rule "until Judgment Day." This appears in Palestinian charters, but always is ignored by the European powers who would be just as happy with no Israel.
Please, let's eliminate this biased reading. Remember, the Arab states who surround her (with the exception of Jordan and pre-Arab Spring Egypt) have still refused vehemently to recognized her very right to exist, frequently call for her destruction, and still say "the Jews are our dogs" when speaking in Arabic to their peoples. This although Israel has been there for over 60 years. (I say "pre-Arab Spring Egypt" because the Muslim Brotherhood in that country holds a majority in its parliament, and has sworn to annihilate Israel despite the Sadat/Begin peace treaty. Were the military of Egypt to submit to civilian control, its parliament would obviously, according to a majority of its members, therefore void said peace treaty, and leave Jordan as the sole Arab state recognizing her right to exist. BarakZ ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page is not the appropriate forum to
promulgate your particular point of view and expound upon historical events. Please specify the text that you object to and what you would rather it was replaced with, and supply a reliable source to support this viewpoint.
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk)
23:02, 25 February 2012 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
An editor just added Israel and Jordan to the Category "Former British colonies" ( [1], [2]). Can we all agree that this is a good-faith mistake and that Israel and Jordan were never colonies of the British Crown but rather mandated territories?— Biosketch ( talk) 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I just labeled the map so that people can more easily identify A, B and C on the map. I realize people get upset about things like me doing that, so figure I'd explain my reasons. 1) They are territories under more or less Israeli military/administrative control, 2) afaik, the vast majority of countries in the world consider them not legally part of Israel proper, 3) people looking at a map and seeing numbers from 1-6 explained but letters A-C not explained will wonder why A-C is so secret or why people don't want to talk about it. As the rest of the article doesn't much use terms like "Judea" and "Samaria" for the West Bank and Gaza I didn't do that here either. I don't even know if there's an extreme Zionist term for the Golan Heights. An alternative would be to alter the map and exclude the letters A, B and C. I'd argue against that as it's misleading the customer, i.e. the reader, into thinking those parts are not under Israeli control. Feel free to jump all over my case about this, it's the internet after all. Pär Larsson ( talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"Haganah" does not mean "The Defense". It means "Defense". Pdronsard ( talk) 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi paramilitary groups split off.[63]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there some incorrect information, i have the correction experience to correct it thank you
joseph camerieri Support Isreal
Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ALL the incorrect dating system to correct historical Gregorian dating system dating letters from "BCE" to "BC" and "CE" to "AD" this will correct the offensive dating system to the correct Gregorian Calender dating to the Jews and Christians. Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change all "BCE" TO BC and "CE" TO AD
Jojotruth1 (
talk)
17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
adminstrator malik thank you Jojotruth1 ( talk)
Jojotruth1 ( talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please perform the following edit -
Existing phrase:
Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans.
should be:
Other minorities are Druze, Circassians, Samaritans and a large community of immigrants from the former Soviet Union gaining Israeli citizenship following the Law of Return.
Thank you. א/O 31.210.176.210 ( talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Conflicts_and_peace_treaties, the link to the "Sabra and shatila camp massacre" is broken, most likely the name is obsolete.
The link should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Drumking ( talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you for noting the error. GabrielF ( talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
explain this: how could Israel declare it the capital without it being part of Israel? That doesn't make sense. Of course it's annexed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to change the infobox so that capital is shown as " Jerusalem (disputed) [a]"? This would more clearly direct the reader to the note about UN resolution 478 etc. - Pointillist ( talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask, if Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, what is? Than, how can a country have no capital? And how can Jerusalem not be Israel's capital if it has the Knesset and all the political things there? What, can we just move them? 109.65.213.130 ( talk) 07:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.130 ( talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]". This is misleading, it makes it sound like all of Jerusalem is considered occupied rather than just East Jerusalem. The area referred to as West Jerusalem is in areas recognised as belonging to the State of Israel by most of the world. It should say "partially located in occupied territories." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In fact no country except Israel considers West Jerusalem to be part of Israel. East Jerusalem is under belligerent occupation, West Jerusalem is under non-belligerent occupation. That leaves both halves under occupation.
Daily's claims are simply not supported by the facts and history. What claims do you specifically challenge? That Israel didn't conquer Jerusalem from Jordan? That the Palestinians made no claims to Jerusalem until after the 67 war - and the UN never considered the land to be "Palestinian" in UN242? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This isn't my opinion, it is reality. How can you see that as soap-boxing? No international body has disputed Israel's capital, a lack of recognition is not the same thing as a binding charge. Now, one could argue what constitutes a "capital" and if "international" recognition is necessary to legitimize it. Positions on Jerusalem is where all support/opposition should go. Wikifan Be nice 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories". If I'm correct, the definition of "occupied territories" includes only land that was not under Israeli control before 1967. Since West Jerusalem has been controlled by the State of Israel since 1948, is it really "occupied territories" any more than places such as Tel Aviv or Eilat? I'd be bold and add "partially" before "located" in the sentence that I quoted above, but I'm wary of someone becoming angry on such a hot topic. Nyttend ( talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read lots of times that Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages of Israel, and we have that cited to the CIA Factbook. But this Haaretz article says (my emphasis) "based on current mandatory law, Arabic and English are also recognized as official languages". Is it possible to find a more definitive source, like a high court ruling or legal text? Zero talk 13:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since it is located in occupied territories.[a]
Straight from the intro. The source does not describe Jerusalem as "occupied" but rather Israel proclaimed its capital as Jerusalem, period. So either this is an editor mixing up sources or simply including their own POV without consulting the material they supposedly cite form.
The reality is parts of Jerusalem are considered "occupied" by various bodies of government and non-binding resolutions, but the peace process - and history - has never inferred the whole city Jerusalem as occupied territory. Israel captured parts of Jerusalem from Jordan, not Palestine. And Jerusalem was never sovereign to begin with. So yeah Sean, write this off as Soap Boxing, but all I say here is predicated on facts. Editors must rely on sourced material rather than their own opinions when contributing to an article as sensitive as this. Wikifan Be nice 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
nableezy - 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)p. 584: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
A good source for the entire sentence: Bowen, Stephen, ed. (1997), Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories, International studies in human rights, vol. 52, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, ISBN 978-90-411-0502-8
In 1980 Israel's parliament declared "Jerusalem, complete and united" to be the "capital of Israel". The U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly each declared this law a nullity on the grounds that an occupying power may not annex occupied territory.
nableezy - 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Daily, I'm going to make this simple. This source does not support " Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, since parts of it are located in occupied territories." For something controversial of course you need a source to support it, especially in an article like this. The whole city of Jerusalem has a whole has never been recognized as part of occupied territory although this is a common accusation. And the parts of Jerusalem that later became "Palestinian territory" was a political mutation, Israel conquered Jerusalem from Jordan. So unless the lead is going to be hijacked so the issue of Jerusalem can be described with all the facts, that sentence should go. Wikifan Be nice 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan, several sources have been provided here that specify that the reason that Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's capital is because East Jerusalem is occupied territory and that Israel's effective annexation of that territory violated international law which proscribes the annexation of occupied territory. Your edit is both wrong and dishonest, as you are well aware of these sources. nableezy - 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a mistake in the following sentence: "In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23]"
There are Druze in the Golan Heights rather then Arabs. They are not to be confused. The above sentence is not consistent with the paragraph: "Arabs form by far the country's second-largest ethnic group, which includes Muslims and Christians. Other minorities are Druze, Circassians and Samaritans. At the end of 2005, 93% of the Arab population of East Jerusalem had permanent residency and 5% had Israeli citizenship.[22] In the Golan Heights, Arabs are entitled to citizenship but most them have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[23] "
Which separates the Arabs from the Druze. Any thoughts? Guy.other ( talk) 10:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Guy.other
According to the May 2010 population estimate, including 300,000 "non-citizen" Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, these minorities number 1,579,700
there are christian states and muslim states, israel is a jewish state. unless we are going to change all christian countries into a christian majority state, and all muslim countries to muslim majority states ect than i believe this mistake should be fixed. just because the palestinians refuse, in their hatred, to recognize israel as a jewish a jewish state. which means that they dont recognize any Jewish presence in palestine, does not mean that we members of the international world, should give in into such antisemitic rhetoric!-- 129.98.153.186 ( talk) 18:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
i completely agree, israel is a jewish state, in the deceleration of independence we declared the establishment of a "jewish atte in the land of israel" not a jewish majority state. we need to change it immediately.-- Marbehtorah-marbehchaim ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
sean.holyland if thats the best you can do you should do it, and i thank you for at least finding a compromise. But if israel will be considered a jewish majority state than all muslim and christian and buddhist states should also be put in as "muslim majority" and christian majority ect.. I wanted it to be written a jewish state since thats what it is, there is a deference between a state of jews and a jewish state. a jewish state has meaning, it is run by the hebrew calender, and it nationally celebrates the jewish holidays and mourns the jewish memorial days. israel is a Jewish state, that is not an opinion it is fact. and no matter what the world discusses or what the world transcribes-israel shall remain a Jewish state.-- 129.98.153.186 ( talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
פארוק (
talk)
17:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
How about instead of removing sourced material, why not explain the edits in discussion?
These sorts of statements aren't exactly collaborative: "it doesn't belong in the lede, but you're going to pad it anyway? what a maroon.."
I read the sources. My edit comes straight from the source, almost verbatim. The previous edit was not supported by the sources. This is a very sensitive article and as long as editors refuse to explain their edits in talk they shouldn't be reverting other users edits. So Malik, I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan Be nice 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem is the country's capital, although it is not recognized internationally as such, as East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as being Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.
I've boosted the sizes of a few, slightly, and preferred right- over left-side placement, and top-of-section placement: this optimises for all window-widths in terms of the image–text relationship, minimising text sandwiching.
In my view, there are too many images. Those in "Economy" and "Transport" are underwhelming—are there no better ones? I'd sooner remove them. What has "Ramat Gan" got to do with "Economy"? Needs to be removed or at least referred to in the main text or the caption, I'd say.
"Tourism" needs expansion, and I see there's a daughter article ... two sentences are hardly sufficient. Tony (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm on a voluntary ORR so I didn't revert this edit even though I believe it should be. I'm not so sure on the rationale of the editor and the edit itself is in the wrong section. The section is about Israel's laws, not press freedom. Two entirely different issues tied together arbitrarily. Right? Wikifan Be nice 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"Zionism, the urge of the Jewish people to return to Palestine, is almost as ancient as the Jewish diaspora itself. Some Talmudic statements ... Almost a millennium later, the poet and philosopher Yehuda Halevi ... In the 19th century ..."
Doesn't make sense to me; just a bunch of fractured phrases and clauses. It's the Rosenweig, top of "Zionism and the British mandate". Thanks.
BTW, the images are very messy, and prone to sandwich text in narrow screens. Also, some seem forced down to 180px, which was the default until 18 months ago. The default is now 220px (49% larger), but the guidelines were loosened last year to allow for detail-rich images to be boosted in size beyond 220. I've made some 240, and also jammed the syntaxes at the top of their section in edit-mode, since this minimises the damage arising from narrow and wide window-widths. Please give feedback here if it's a problem. Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Under WP:ROC the introduction is missing a key "notable" topic re Israel - the international criticism it has received. Whether or not we agree with the criticism, its existence is widely recognised and it is highly relevant to the country. It is clearly a sensitive topic however - I have put a suggestion below, and would ask if all editors could help me make sure it is balanced before putting it in. Thanks.
Israel has faced ongoing international criticism since its Independence in 1948, including with respect to its refusal to allow post-war Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, its invasion, occupation and annexation of neighbouring territories and the building of settlements therein, and accusations of economic strangulation of occupied territories and human rights abuses of Palestinian Arabs.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both. Dailycare, the key aspect of the proposed text is not already in the lead, that is, there is no description of the international criticism which Israel has had to defend itself against. Malik, your comment was flippant given I have said that I am aware this is sensitive - I have tried to remove any POV. Please expand your critique or preferably suggest an appropriate balance - it is clearly a highly notable subject with respect to Israel. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Below is a raft of WP:RS on the proposed topic. Sean, I take your point - i'll clarify and add as appropriate in the body of the article and then come back to the lead.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? Dailycare's comment that four of the quotes in the talk page represent a pro-Israel POV makes no comment on the text and variety of sources in the article. The question of article size requires a considered analysis of the article as a whole, rather than singling out the latest additions. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The last few paragraphs of the proposed section are particularly problematic. I don't like the idea of citing Wikileaks cables without a secondary source explaining them, since they are unfiltered private comments. However, even if quoting this cable were encyclopedic, the commentary on the cable is not ("suprisingly...", "In the WikiLeaks cable Dermer didn't offer evidence...") First, this is POV and original research (Wikipedia is responding to Dermer instead of quoting someone else responding to Dermer), but just as importantly, when we cherrypick one private conversation and then criticize it we risk creating straw men - that is to say we run the risk of choosing one particular form of an idea, say the one that we think is weakest, rather than the most mainstream or well-thought-out version of that idea so that we implicitly make the other side's position look stronger. GabrielF ( talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikibias blog has brought this up: [3] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So I gather international criticism of Israel and the attitude of Israelis to it are irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Because its "an entirely unprecedented section"? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Please could editors kindly keep comments to WP policies and guidelines relating to the text and sources in the article? The main arguments given against the section refer to there being no precedents for it in other country articles. Not only is that argument not valid, ghit analysis and the WP:RS provided show that the topic is highly notable. Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Whilst numerous facts and arguments supporting the inclusion of the text have been set out in the discussion above, none of the posts against inclusion have been substantiated with valid or adequately explained arguments or facts. This makes it very difficult to move towards real consensus. Perhaps each of the dissenting editors could explain clearly exactly how important and notable a topic would need to be to justify inclusion in this article, in their judgement? My view is clear - it is one of the most notable topics of all in relation to Israel, almost a defining topic, as illustrated by all of the broad facts and WP:RS shown above - and shown best in our world by the sheer number of POV WP editors which exist in relation to this overall topic. Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Most editors will have seen the following discussion over the past two weeks, which has now closed. Many good points were raised on all sides of the debate. Perhaps we can now try to agree on this page as to whether the relative notability of Criticism of the Israeli Government versus the other topics in the Government, politics and legal system section justifies the inclusion of a summary. I'll start:
Thanks for your thoughts. To summarise:
As such, unless any opposing editors can produce policy-based arguments, a section will be added to the article in due course. I'll wait a bit longer though before adding as keen to ensure all opportunities are given for any possible policy-based counter-arguments. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"International Criticism" (whatever that means) is mostly related to Israel's occupation of the west bank which is covered by a large section. Another cause is the large body of Arab states in conflict with Israel and their ability to dominate international bodies, such as the UN human rights committee whose chair was Libya until recently. That would come under foreign policy. I think the non-specific title is POV. If there is something you want to criticize you should say what it is and try to express it in terms which are acceptable to different perspectives. Its not easy. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you open a section on Criticism of America on the USA page and provide further examples of countries being criticized before inserting it in the Israel article, otherwise its hard to see it as anything other then POV soapboxing and/or discriminatory behavior. There is also a Criticism of Judaism article which is not mentioned in the Judaism page. Are you suggesting that should be mentioned in the article? Use of majority voting to impose your will on a minority is not democratic behavior, you need to seek a consensus. Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Since noone has been able to suggest that a subsection on Criticism of the Israeli Government within the politics section of this article would be any less notable than the existing subsections such as the fascinating one on Museums, I will add a new subsection. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile ( talk) 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
did the Christian world really aware of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and it's jewish people ? . Why Jerusalem have not any embassy of any country ? . i want to know please. פארוק ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
No, but aware about en:2011 Israeli housing protests . What zydowie blizni mean chanting "Mubarak, Assad, Bibi Netanyahu" [9].
Hi! why you polskie blizni dont have article about the protests? Isreal half a million strong protest.
this protest is from COMMUNIST STUDENT FROM TEL AVIV !!!! they don't represet the all people of israel. and the RT CHANNEL (RUSSIA TODAY) who was interview STAV SHAFIR are russian anti-semitic communist channel . thank you. פארוק ( talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I added to the overview, after "Israel is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state" the words "with many Arab mks in its Knesset, elected by the significant, roughly 20 percent Arab minority."
I have many reasons for this change, that i will get into shortly. The most obvious is that the article gives an example of how it is a Jewish state (and is the world's only Jewish majority state) but fails to provide an example of how it is a democratic state -- something that my change fixes.
A user named Malik Shabazz undid my change, because "That isn't one of the most important facts about Israel that the reader needs in the first paragraph."
I then wrote on his talk page reasons why i thought it was important: "I think that it is something very important, as it shows that Israel is a very democratic state, accepting of people of all walks of life and views, even those of the same race who currently fight them, and even in the highest levels of its government. Not only that, but the overview is misleading, as it says that Israel is a "Jewish State" which implies that there are no arabs or people of any other race in its government, other than jewish. My addition would rectify this problem, and would also tell people a lot of important info about Israel today and its demographic make up, besides for saying a lot about its society and government. It clears up many misconceptions that people have about the country. So this is very essential, and crucial info that also fixes a misleading statement."
And here is the reason i originally gave in the 'reason for your edit' section -- "thought that the significant Arab minority should be noted in the overview. Proportionality there are more Arabs in israel then the black and asian minorities in the US combined."
Malik wrote back that I should put this on the Israel talk page to see if the edit has consensus, so here it is. You can weigh in on whether you agree with this edit or not, and your reasons one way or another. Thanks Darkkelf99 ( talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The above mentioned image was firstly removed by me about a week ago or so. The image was part of about 4-5 images in the military section, all appeared one above the other, intruding into the sections below the military section and creating untidy appearance. Therefore I removed all of the images aside for the upper one (the F-16s image). We can all agree that having more than 2 images at the same side of the section is excessive and better avoid. One of the images was of Karkal battalion, which is one of two unisex battalions in the Israeli army. The caption below the image told that this battalion serves in "full combat" capacity, which is factually wrong. The battalion serves only in the southern front of Israel and wasn't involved in major conflicts that Israel had in her northern borders (unlike battalions which serve in full combat capacity). More important, the battalion is dealing with routine security only. Though reference was added to the caption, it didn't support it. Moreover, as the reference was given in citation template and I was advised by the technical support board that there are already too many of them in this article, significantly effecting the speed in which one can download it or make edits in it, I find it just to remove this image as well. I wrote part of the reasons in the edit summaries. Then I added one image below the one of the F-16s, presenting Israeli paratroopers in training. The Image was removed by Avya1, without any reason given. I was thinking that the image didn't look well to her or that it thought that one image is enough, so I didn't revert her. About day or two after she remove the image she added again the image of Karkal battalion in training, I removed it-this time without writing anything in the edit summary -so she revert my edit and wrote that she revert because I didn't justify my action. So just for the good will and understanding, I sum it all for you and for her. One image is enough for the military section, the image of Karakal is relatively new here and replaced other image that was in this section before. So to avoid edit wars I suggest only one image in this section, the present one. Also, there is no place to add image in the left side of the section because it's too long and it wouldn't look good-and there is no reason to cut the section short for having another image.-- Gilisa ( talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Although the Arab armies attacked formally only in May, 1948, the local Arabs (known today as the Phalestines) began the war at 29 November 1947, the day the UN declared the Israely country, and started the Indipendence War. Please update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 ( talk) 11:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the spelling doesn't really matter since it's a forgein word (however there is no F in Arab as well). What I said is that the war began at 29 November- with 6 Jews killed at the first day of the battle. Parts of the country (especially near Jerusalem) were conquered by the Arabs even before May 1948! I suggest to write that the war began in November, not May. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.121.108 ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed "Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from Israel during the conflict," as it isn't sourced and isn't true. -- 72.47.85.22 ( talk) 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
My problem is the leading with the word "expelled" rather than 'fled" since while there were, indeed, people who were scared out of Israel by certain groups, their number was so small in comparison with those who simply "got out of the way" at the behest of the Arab Higher Committee that the word order is misleading. (The other problem comes when you note that, until the 60's, the word "Palestinian" always meant "Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine". I would suggest "Arab refugees" instead) FlaviaR ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Searching for the word "Swine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine redirects the page to Israel. This appears to be vandalism, please revert the redirect to point towards "Pig".
BringFire ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Done Thank you for bringing the vandalism to our attention. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section about the legality of Israel? Philoleb ( talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have found some information relating to the previously discussed topic of Israel and Jerusalem.
Whilst certain Israeli's are adamant that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, many large world organisations like the BBC and VISA card company reject Jerusalem as the capital, and regard it as Tel Aviv, as shown here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122764. Also, the Friends of Al Aqsa ( http://www.foa.org.uk/), International Institute of Islamic Thought ( http://www.iiit.org/), Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK ( http://www.mpacuk.org/)and the Arab Media Watch ( http://arabmediawatch.blogspot.com/) have all disputed the mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Furthermore, the embassies of El Salvador and Costa Rica have been moved to Tel Aviv, and this is a significant point, as embassies are traditionally held in the capital city. Therefore, I request that the capital city of Israel be changed from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.
The start of the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate seems to be a bit odd. I don't think it's vandalism, but the link there was supposed to be there isn't.
Also, why can't I edit it directly? I thought that, as a registered user, I was allowed to edit the article responsibly. Having to start a topic in Discussion just to correct these minor errors is a bit of a pain. Kilmax ( talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The intro claims that "Israel is....a representative democracy with a parliamentary system and universal suffrage" This is clearly not accurate. They do not let the Palestinians vote, yet do not recognize them as independent. If calling them an apartheid state would be POV, then surely calling them a democracy is as well. Claiming they have universal sufferage is really going way too far considering the lack of voting rights for so many of the people living under the jurisdiction of Israel. This need to be at least changed to "Israel claims itself to be...."; if not taken out entirely. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
-Israel does not recognize Palestine as independent. The claim of universal sufferage needs to change. You can't vote in Canada but are not subject to their law either. Palestinians can't vote but are subject to Israeli law. Your anology is not a good one. One of two things needs to happen for Israel to have universal sufferage. 1. They let everybody, including the Palestinians vote. Or 2. They recognize Palestine as independent from Israel. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should tell that to Israel. Because they seem to believe quite strongly that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel. The article needs to be changed. 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The obvious change is "Israel claims to be..." The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 04:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm being more than generous in my recomendation. I could have easily demanded that it be changed to "Israel claimes to be....but...." Like I said if they recognized Palestine then your argument about them not being citizens would make more sense. But they dont recognize that country as an independent being. Shown most promanently in Jerusalem were Israel has officially declared annexation but it is also true with regard to Gaza and te West Bank as well. Bottom line is that Israels status as a democracy is at best controversal. And the wiki article needes to say that. Just flatly declaring them a democracy is incorrect. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 06:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'll keep showing up and demand changes to the article whether you feel its appropriate or not, thanks though. Especially since my argument remains unchallenged. Your side tried to claim that Palestinians don't live under the jurisdiction of Israel. This was proven wrong with the mention of East Jerusalem. The article needs to be changed 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I was already specific about how it should change. The claim about universal sufferage should be taken out completely. And the sentance declaring them to be a democracy needs to be changed to include the words, "Israel claims to be..." 97.91.179.137 ( talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Israeli troops at Golan front 1973.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
Кажеться Вы забыли указать самую грозную часть населения Израиля - четыре тысячи черкесов. Абрек-Аскер — Preceding unsigned comment added by Абрек-Аскер ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Pmurnion ( talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The article section 'Conflicts and Peace Treaties' is quite misleading. Specifically the Intifada is casually mentioned in part of a paragraph which begins with a justification of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The Intifada was clearly critically different from all earlier conflicts involving Israel. It was the first in which Israel was not 'defending' itself from a state attacker. The Intifada brought international focus on the status of the occupation as opposed to the territorial security of Israel. That was an enormous change which is true irrespective of ones opinions on the rights or wrongs of the intifada or the Israeli occupation. The failure to reflect this in the article is a fatal flaw. This flaw should always have been obvious, but now, in the aftermath of the second Iraq war and (current events in) Afghanistan, it should be clear that conflicts that involve non-states are often much more important in the modern world than inter-state conflicts. Failure to deal with this renders the article misleading and is also a general problem for wikipedia aricles on the middle east and conflict in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurnion ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Could the Hebrew language font issue please be corrected. {{Hebrew|... should be changed to {{lang|he|... to get rid of an unreadable and overlarge font. I would do it myself, but of course I am not allowed to edit this page! Thank you. ( Nathanielba ( talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
Should these parameters be filled: GDP_PPP_rank, GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank, GDP_nominal_rank and GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank? If so, these are the values: 50th, 28th, 41st, 27th. -- 92.37.196.167 ( talk) 11:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, fill these parameters:
|Gini_rank = 69th ( source)
|date_format = dd/mm/yyyy ( AD) (according to Date format by country)
-- 92.37.197.189 ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs" change to "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day to annihilate the newly formed Jewish state". If "support of the Palestinian Arabs" is added, it should be prior to it an statement on the fact that Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN decision of two countries while the Jewish population accepted it. Then, it will be understood to which support we are referring.
98.246.34.216 ( talk) 17:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"In the Golan Heights, Druze are entitled to citizenship but most have rejected it in favor of "loyalty to Syria."[22] -- if you go to the Wikipedia page on Israeli Druze, you find that 93% of young Druze in Israel consider themselves Israelis. If so, this would not seem to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.216.152 ( talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
the druze in israel have an israeli citizenship. most of then are serving the israeli army and see themselves as israelis. the druze in the golan hights dont see themselves as israelis because of the relation to syria and a fair that one day israel withdrawal fron the golan, and they will be accused in loyality to israel. Nirvadel ( talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Israel is not a "parlamentary democracy", Iran neither. It's a "etnocracy" or a "jewcracy", not a democracy. Israel is not a Republic (State of all its citizens), but is a Jewish State (State of the Jews that live in Israel or out of it). Anti-zionists cannnot run in the elections according the Basic Law of the Knesset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.46.102 ( talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
There is inconsistency here regarding the population of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. The number given for Judea and Samaria is for Jewish settlers and not Palestinians while the number given for the Gaza Strip is for Palestinians (since Jewish settlers were pulled out). This inconsistency makes it look like the Gaza Strip has a larger population than Judea and Samaria, which is not the case. Death by fugue ( talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggest alteration to Map and Table featured in this section which identify the Administrative Divisions/Districts of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, and Gaza using the letters A, B and C, respectively. This may give rise to confusion due to the fact that the formal Administrative Divisions of the West Bank are known as Areas A, B and C. Imahd ( talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Hello!
There is no climate chart for Israel (as for eg. Malta).
Don't make me watch Israeli weather reports for a year!
Shalom.
Gottservant ( talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence is missing the word "days":
The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers, and cool winter but with fewer rainy "days" than the Mediterranean climate.
Imahd (
talk)
18:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, the comma after "summers" (above) may be superfluous. Imahd ( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest: The area of Beersheba and the Northern Negev has a semi-arid climate with hot summers and cool winters but with fewer rainy days than the average Mediterranean climate. Imahd ( talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The user AndyTheGrump on the Talk:East Germany discussion page has claimed that I am being unfair by only addressing the issue of satellite state status of East Germany while not bringing up a statement I made in which I claimed that I believe that the circumstances involving Israel-United States relations warrant Israel to be considered a client state of the United States. I am not making a judgement about Israel's culture or society beyond analyzing the relations between Israel and the United States. I know that there will be MANY patriotic Israelis here who may take serious offense to this, I did not want to raise the issue as I predicted such a response, but to respond to AndyTheGrump's demand for fairness, I have no choice but to address it. I know more about East Germany than I do about Israel - I may be wrong - but here are some scholarly reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. But please, I remind you that I have been pressured to do this out of a demand by the user AndyTheGrump for fairness - I am fully aware that there is little chance that most users who will contribute to this discussion will agree - out of patriotic opposition to claims suggesting that Israel's independence is less than it is officially stated - so please DON'T GET MAD AT ME - IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP OR HAVEN'T READ THE BEGINNING OF THIS LONG EXPLANATION OF WHY I AM DOING THIS DISCUSSION, READ IT AGAIN (I say it in bold because it is necessary for everyone to understand and to not overreact to this).-- R-41 ( talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
|
in the section on language, it states that non-Jewish Russian immigrants are not accepted as Jews by the Orthodox rabbinate, but the Law of Return does accept them. This sentence is misleading. The Law of Return is in fact agnostic of religious or halachic considerations, and functions on the principles of the Nuremberg race laws. The text should be changed so as not to imply discrimination where none exists. 95.86.77.244 ( talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) bennyp
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to insert a short paragraph in Science and technology about Israel's notable water technology industry. AnkhMorpork ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think British English makes much sense for this. The British left decades ago and Israel is a close US ally. Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
all links here with vandalism. פארוק ( talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's second paragraph reads like so, in reference to the Israeli War of Independence: "Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states"; sentence one holds an incredibly biased view of Arab motives, which at the time and ever since have always been publicly declared to be "the elimination of the Zionist entity," and not "support for Palestinian Arabs." Proof of this lies partially in the many recorded & written sources declaring such motives, and also partially in the fact that the War ended with Jordan annexing the West Bank instead of establishing there a Palestinian state, which could easily have been done by allowing the thousands of Palestinian refugees who'd left instead of staying to return to the West Bank and set up a state.
Secondly, Israel has a history of being invaded by its neighboring Arab states, in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Only in 1982 did Israel engage in an offensive action, and although it went horribly wrong due to the actions of Christian Phalangist massacres of Palestinians, which Israel was not wise enough to guard against but by its own admission takes as its own indirect fault, the action was a necessary attempt to eliminate the violence caused by PLO terrorists that had been attacking civilian targets throughout Northern Israel from bases in Lebanon. All this needs to be pointed out; defensive wars are quite different from wars of aggression, and the expression of anti-Semitism formerly directed at Jews by European Christians in the form of violence must not be allowed to define Israel now that there are few Jews left in post-WW2 Europe, as it continues in the European press's attempts to label any and all Israeli defensive maneuvers as war crimes, but to cheerfully legitimize Palestinian murders of Israeli citizens. Palestinians have had numerous chances to seriously negotiate with Israel and establish a state for themselves, but have constantly refused to do so, believing the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian mandate to be Arab lands, a "waqf" given to them to rule "until Judgment Day." This appears in Palestinian charters, but always is ignored by the European powers who would be just as happy with no Israel.
Please, let's eliminate this biased reading. Remember, the Arab states who surround her (with the exception of Jordan and pre-Arab Spring Egypt) have still refused vehemently to recognized her very right to exist, frequently call for her destruction, and still say "the Jews are our dogs" when speaking in Arabic to their peoples. This although Israel has been there for over 60 years. (I say "pre-Arab Spring Egypt" because the Muslim Brotherhood in that country holds a majority in its parliament, and has sworn to annihilate Israel despite the Sadat/Begin peace treaty. Were the military of Egypt to submit to civilian control, its parliament would obviously, according to a majority of its members, therefore void said peace treaty, and leave Jordan as the sole Arab state recognizing her right to exist. BarakZ ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page is not the appropriate forum to
promulgate your particular point of view and expound upon historical events. Please specify the text that you object to and what you would rather it was replaced with, and supply a reliable source to support this viewpoint.
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk)
23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)