![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Should there be such a topic at all? I mean Peace who needs it! -- Leonakselrad 17:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Remember, according to the Christians, when peace is brought between the Jews and Arabs, by the Anti-Christ, that the apocalypse is not that far down the road, so pray for no peace in the Middle East. 06:19 January 31 2006 (UTC)
"Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. A 1973 armistice agreement governs relations with its most immediate military adversary, Syria, and a de facto armistice persists with the other states as well. The chances for peace negotiations and/or full diplomatic relations with most Arab nations appear a more likely prospect once an independent Palestinian Entity is established."
I don't know, but is Isreal still formally at war with Iraq since the invasion and the installation of the new regime? 69.250.25.213 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement "Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon" is wrong for two reasons.
Adam 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
My first statement is a straightforward statement of international law. There are of course plenty of de facto "states of war," but the word "formally" can only refer to a de jure state of war, which cannot exist between UN Charter signatories. Adam 14:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Whose idea was it for this? No other countries have information regarding their military. -- MPA
I just RV'd some changes that 68.235.169.70 put in place, I took the liberty of changing some "gramatical" changes back to where they were. I personally don't think some of the phonetics this user used are globally accepted, such as the "Iyy" for the "Iud" sound in "Iyar". I left "Herzliyyah" unchanged, but I'd like to form some kind of consensus before undertaking the task. I was refrained of reversing all the changes from "day month" (ie: 5 Iyar) back to where they were, like "Month, Day" (Iyar, 5) more in accord with the english nomenclature. Unless somebody expresses their disconform here within a couple of days, I'll go ahead and put them back as they were. -- Sebastian Kessel 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I just did it. -- Sebastian Kessel 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have reduced the size of the article from 55 to 38kb by
Adam 11:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This article says that 60% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. The CIA Factbook, however, says:
Can someone clarify this? Adam 12:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This table from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics gives counts by age and origin for Jews and Others (the later being non-Arab non-Jews such as the non-Jewish family members of immigrant Jews). This table gives annual summaries by religion. Average values for 2003 that I can see (thousands): Total 6690, Jews 5130, Moslems 1055, Christians 141 (of which Arab Christians 115), Druze 110, Unclassified 251, Total Arabs 1283. For place of birth for Jews only: Israel 3404, Elsewhere 1726 (of which Asia 222, Africa 309, America+Europe+Oceania 1195 (of which former USSR 732, Romania 110)). So 66% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. I guess that the CIA figures are for "country of origin", which is not the same as country of birth. -- Zero 13:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has current summary statistics. For mid-year 2005: total 6921, Jews and Others 5564 (of which Jews 5269), Arabs 1357. -- Zero 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the CIA site says clearly born, and I'd be astonished if such a wildly incorrect statement, on such a sensitive subject, could survive without challenge on such a widely-read website, and an official US government website at that. That said, I will have to take the Israeli government figures as correct unless someone can show that they are not.
Adam
13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll list some problems, though I won't get far in this sitting. -- Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Guys, let me humbly point out that the Israeli declaration of independence does state that Israel is a Jewish State. Quote ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. (Caps are from the text) Please see [ [1]]
A declaration of independence is neither a constitution nor a statute. I of course don't dispute that the founders of Israel intended it to be a Jewish state. All I am pointing out is that there is no actual constitutional statement to that effect. Adam 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. Adam 05:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't expect to find a simple statement "Israel is a Jewish State" because then it would have to be defined. However, statements like "The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." have the same effect and are intended to have the same effect. The Law of the Knesset even has an enforcement provision: if your political party doesn't hold that Israel is a Jewish State you can't stand for election. There are also multiple references to the principles enunciated in the declaration of independence, of which "Jewish State" is central. It appears that the Israeli Supreme Court indeed holds the "Jewish State" concept as foundational even though they have trouble agreeing on what it means. Below is an extract from the Stanford Journal of International Law, Winter 2004, pp64-68. -- Zero 05:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
That is all very interesting, and what it shows is that Israel has felt increasingly compelled over the past 20 years to provide legal reinforcement for the view that Israel is a state for one and only one ethnic-religious community, the Jews, in the face of increasing rejection of this view of nationality in western liberal-democratic states. It is interesting in this context to note that the three Basic Laws which Zero refered me to date from 1986, 1992 and 1994. In other words, from 1948 to 1986 there was no reference at all in the Basic Law, the nearest thing Israel has to a constitution, to Israel being a Jewish state. Three such references have now been added to the Basic Law. But the Basic Laws are only statutes passed by the Knesset, they are not clauses of a constitution. By contrast, the Iranian Constitution (to take one example) says: "The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice." So Iran's status as an Islamic republic is constitutionally entrenched in a way Israel's status as a Jewish state is not. One might suggest that the principal reason Israel does not have a constitution after 57 years of statehood is because there is no consensus on what is meant by the expression "Jewish state" and on exactly what kind of state Israel is.
Adam
09:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I nominate this page as a page for deletion. Due to the fact that Israel has violated a large number of U.N. resolutions; it has demonstrated that it is not concerned with it's soveriegn status as granted by the U.N.. Therefore, it should be considered a non-soveriegn state, and as such, should be of no concern to Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, you have the right to vote for or against deletion, you do not have the right to erase my nomination for deletion.
We have the right to ignore it as a silly piece of anonymous provocation. Adam 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The 33 countries that voted in favor of UN Resolution 181:
Australia,
Belgium,
Bolivia,
Brazil,
Byelorussia,
Canada,
Costa Rica,
Czechoslovakia,
Denmark,
Dominican Republic,
Ecuador,
France,
Guatemala,
Haiti,
Iceland,
Liberia,
Luxembourg,
Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Nicaragua,
Norway,
Panama,
Paraguay,
Peru,
Philippines,
Poland,
Sweden,
Ukraine,
South Africa,
USSR,
USA,
Uruguay,
Venezuela.
The ten countries that abstained:
Argentina,
Chile,
China,
Colombia,
El Salvador,
Ethiopia,
Honduras,
Mexico,
United Kingdom,
Yugoslavia.
El_C
08:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with your general point, that vote was not a vote to recognise the State of Israel. It was a vote on the Partition Plan. Israel is quite clear that its sovereignty does not derive from a vote taken by the UN, but on the inherent right of nationhood of the Jewish people.
Adam
08:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; point taken though, I didn't qualify the above with great precision.
El_C
09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure what the discussion was about, but anyway Israel's sovereignty under international law derives from their recognition by other nations and by international bodies such as the UN. Same as for everybody. Nothing to do with how good their national myths are. --
Zero
09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
map
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/LocationIsrael.png)
Anyone notice that the map shows Israel containing
Gaza and not containing the
West Bank/
Judea and Samaria? Seems a bit
POV to me (though a mixed POV).
--23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
(Comment: unsigned by
USer:198.203.175.175. Please use ~~~~ in the future to auto sign & date your posts)
- Nah, I think the pixel for Gaza is missing. I envy your eagle vision though.
←
Humus sapiens
←ну?
00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, is
Sheba Farms shaded in or not? And the borders seem to include
Taba. Perhaps this is why eight pixel maps of countries are not used to determine international borders. --
Goodoldpolonius2
01:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
terrorist vs. militant
It seems very strange to me that self-described terrorists cant be described as such to the point of censorship. Ive just noticed on the wikipedia entry for 'stern gang' their called 'terrorist'-so theres a form of schizophrenia in wikipedia- however if thats what you want Im not going to argue it just that reality is being denied
Eric A. Warbuton
06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- The introduction refers to actions by groups on both sides; singling out just one group is POV, and needless detail in a summary article. As well, Wikipedia prefers the term "militant" as more neutral than "terrorist".
Jayjg
(talk)
06:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Motto
The page is protected but the motto has somehow disappeared, I think in the last edit by
User:Toya. Can somebody with access put it back?
- Israel don't have national motto!
Toya
15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, but in any event, a note here before doing it would've been nice. --
Sebastian Kessel
Talk
15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to make substantial edits while the page is protected. However, we can discuss here whether or not Israel really has a motto. Has anyone produced hard evidence in either direction? --
Zero
03:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- no motto. just see the Hebrew version of this page.
Deror
08:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm an Israeli and I've never heard of anything such as an Israeli motto. The removed "im tirzu, ein zo agada" was the motto of
Herzl's Altneuland, it has become a popular Zionist slogan, but I've never heard it is Israel's motto.--
Doron
13:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- So that's where I've heard it before. Unless someone can find some sort of official statement that the Altneuland motto was adopted by Israel, I think we should keep it out. --
Zero
06:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Look what i've found
[2]. This is curious... maybe somebody living in Israel can shed some light? --
Sebastian Kessel
Talk
23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Haven't got a clue--
Doron
06:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Again - no official moto. The flag anthem and symbol are set by Knesset legislation. NO legislation re moto.
Deror
10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This version
Having been accused within 48 hours of being both an Israeli agent and an anti-Semite, I am fairly confident that the current version is fairly balanced. Any article that annoys fanatics on both sides is heading in the right direction.
Adam
14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Balanced?? The tag
limitedgeographicscope is not inappropriate for this article since it presents a POV held by a narrow minority as if it was the (global) majority view. It's disgusting frankly. As a Jewish person I _know_ that what you are doing is a disservice to Jews even if you mean to do the opposite. By presenting (modern) extremist US-Israeli views on Israel and it's history as if it was factual you are turning a Wikipedia article into cheap propaganda.
- Imagine if I would edit an article on homosexuality and would put in this sentence: 'Men and women has throughout the ages strived to become homosexuals and it is well known that every important historical person that has ever lived has been a homosexual', do you think a person reading that would say 'Interesting, I didn't know that' or do you think they would laugh and then not take the other (real, factual) claims that were in the article seriously?
- If I was to edit an article about Israel I would probably slant it in a pro-Israeli way since I believe that we should have a homeland (and it's impossible to not be biased) but I wouldn't resort to writing a fairytale version of reality.
- In the opening paragraph you have this sentence;
- "In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens), but Israel is not a secular or multicultural state in the purest sense."
- Who do you expect would believe that? The whole article is like that and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia, and to discredit us Jews that wants and needs to live in the real world.
- I don't think it would be much use if I were to edit/suggest edits to the article as I believe they would get reverted, even if I submitted 100 references for every edit. That's not the way it should be. --
saxet
06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please be more explicit and less emotional. What would you write instead of that sentence? You might have a good point, but so far you haven't given us the opporttunity to judge it. --
Zero
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
And if you are not prepared to take part in editing, you have no right to put dispute tags on articles. If your edits have merit, other editors will protect them from reversion.
Adam
07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Largest city
jerusalem is not the largest city, tel aviv is three times larger —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.27.66.67 (
talk •
contribs) 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The
Tel Aviv metropolitan area is bigger (1.8 million), but the city itself is only 365,000. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
22:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are they referring to largest in population or per square mile?
MPA
- Population.--
Doron
09:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
How large is the population of West Jerusalem? Because the rest of the world doesn't consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel, and our Jerusalem article gives 704,900 as the population of all of Jerusalem. Assuming the two halves are about the same population (they may not be), you would have a situation where the Israelis say that Jerusalem (all of it) is the largest city in Israel, but the rest of the world says that Tel Aviv is, because it is larger than the undisputedly Israeli part of Jerusalem...does that make sense?
john
k
22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. The articles I've seen use that 700K number for combined East and West Jerusalem. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- About 58% of the population of Jerusalem lives in the territory annexed in 1967, out of which 45% are Jewish. About 67% of all residents of Jerusalem are Jewish. Even if you consider only the Jewish residents, Jerusalem is still the most populated city in Israel. For the facts-in-a-glance box, I think this is accurate enough.--
Doron
07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- This seems fair enough, I guess...
john
k
15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, wait. It doesn't make any difference whether they are Jewish or Shinto; it's people who make up the population of a place. I'm not at all sure of the relevance of the demography. I mean, if there were more Jews in NYC than in all of Israel, it wouldnot make NYC the largest city in Israel. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
15:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but the Jews living in East Jerusalem behave as active citizens of Israel - they vote in Israeli elections, they serve in the Israeli army, and so forth. I think it's a tough call, but when the options are either a) listing just Jerusalem; and b) listing both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, I'm going to go with the simpler option if a rationale can be found that's not too obviously POV.
john
k
18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Should there be such a topic at all? I mean Peace who needs it! -- Leonakselrad 17:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Remember, according to the Christians, when peace is brought between the Jews and Arabs, by the Anti-Christ, that the apocalypse is not that far down the road, so pray for no peace in the Middle East. 06:19 January 31 2006 (UTC)
"Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. A 1973 armistice agreement governs relations with its most immediate military adversary, Syria, and a de facto armistice persists with the other states as well. The chances for peace negotiations and/or full diplomatic relations with most Arab nations appear a more likely prospect once an independent Palestinian Entity is established."
I don't know, but is Isreal still formally at war with Iraq since the invasion and the installation of the new regime? 69.250.25.213 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement "Israel is formally at war with Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon" is wrong for two reasons.
Adam 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
My first statement is a straightforward statement of international law. There are of course plenty of de facto "states of war," but the word "formally" can only refer to a de jure state of war, which cannot exist between UN Charter signatories. Adam 14:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Whose idea was it for this? No other countries have information regarding their military. -- MPA
I just RV'd some changes that 68.235.169.70 put in place, I took the liberty of changing some "gramatical" changes back to where they were. I personally don't think some of the phonetics this user used are globally accepted, such as the "Iyy" for the "Iud" sound in "Iyar". I left "Herzliyyah" unchanged, but I'd like to form some kind of consensus before undertaking the task. I was refrained of reversing all the changes from "day month" (ie: 5 Iyar) back to where they were, like "Month, Day" (Iyar, 5) more in accord with the english nomenclature. Unless somebody expresses their disconform here within a couple of days, I'll go ahead and put them back as they were. -- Sebastian Kessel 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I just did it. -- Sebastian Kessel 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have reduced the size of the article from 55 to 38kb by
Adam 11:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This article says that 60% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. The CIA Factbook, however, says:
Can someone clarify this? Adam 12:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This table from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics gives counts by age and origin for Jews and Others (the later being non-Arab non-Jews such as the non-Jewish family members of immigrant Jews). This table gives annual summaries by religion. Average values for 2003 that I can see (thousands): Total 6690, Jews 5130, Moslems 1055, Christians 141 (of which Arab Christians 115), Druze 110, Unclassified 251, Total Arabs 1283. For place of birth for Jews only: Israel 3404, Elsewhere 1726 (of which Asia 222, Africa 309, America+Europe+Oceania 1195 (of which former USSR 732, Romania 110)). So 66% of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. I guess that the CIA figures are for "country of origin", which is not the same as country of birth. -- Zero 13:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has current summary statistics. For mid-year 2005: total 6921, Jews and Others 5564 (of which Jews 5269), Arabs 1357. -- Zero 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the CIA site says clearly born, and I'd be astonished if such a wildly incorrect statement, on such a sensitive subject, could survive without challenge on such a widely-read website, and an official US government website at that. That said, I will have to take the Israeli government figures as correct unless someone can show that they are not.
Adam
13:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll list some problems, though I won't get far in this sitting. -- Zero 13:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Guys, let me humbly point out that the Israeli declaration of independence does state that Israel is a Jewish State. Quote ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. (Caps are from the text) Please see [ [1]]
A declaration of independence is neither a constitution nor a statute. I of course don't dispute that the founders of Israel intended it to be a Jewish state. All I am pointing out is that there is no actual constitutional statement to that effect. Adam 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. Adam 05:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't expect to find a simple statement "Israel is a Jewish State" because then it would have to be defined. However, statements like "The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." have the same effect and are intended to have the same effect. The Law of the Knesset even has an enforcement provision: if your political party doesn't hold that Israel is a Jewish State you can't stand for election. There are also multiple references to the principles enunciated in the declaration of independence, of which "Jewish State" is central. It appears that the Israeli Supreme Court indeed holds the "Jewish State" concept as foundational even though they have trouble agreeing on what it means. Below is an extract from the Stanford Journal of International Law, Winter 2004, pp64-68. -- Zero 05:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
That is all very interesting, and what it shows is that Israel has felt increasingly compelled over the past 20 years to provide legal reinforcement for the view that Israel is a state for one and only one ethnic-religious community, the Jews, in the face of increasing rejection of this view of nationality in western liberal-democratic states. It is interesting in this context to note that the three Basic Laws which Zero refered me to date from 1986, 1992 and 1994. In other words, from 1948 to 1986 there was no reference at all in the Basic Law, the nearest thing Israel has to a constitution, to Israel being a Jewish state. Three such references have now been added to the Basic Law. But the Basic Laws are only statutes passed by the Knesset, they are not clauses of a constitution. By contrast, the Iranian Constitution (to take one example) says: "The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice." So Iran's status as an Islamic republic is constitutionally entrenched in a way Israel's status as a Jewish state is not. One might suggest that the principal reason Israel does not have a constitution after 57 years of statehood is because there is no consensus on what is meant by the expression "Jewish state" and on exactly what kind of state Israel is.
Adam
09:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I nominate this page as a page for deletion. Due to the fact that Israel has violated a large number of U.N. resolutions; it has demonstrated that it is not concerned with it's soveriegn status as granted by the U.N.. Therefore, it should be considered a non-soveriegn state, and as such, should be of no concern to Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, you have the right to vote for or against deletion, you do not have the right to erase my nomination for deletion.
We have the right to ignore it as a silly piece of anonymous provocation. Adam 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The 33 countries that voted in favor of UN Resolution 181:
Australia,
Belgium,
Bolivia,
Brazil,
Byelorussia,
Canada,
Costa Rica,
Czechoslovakia,
Denmark,
Dominican Republic,
Ecuador,
France,
Guatemala,
Haiti,
Iceland,
Liberia,
Luxembourg,
Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Nicaragua,
Norway,
Panama,
Paraguay,
Peru,
Philippines,
Poland,
Sweden,
Ukraine,
South Africa,
USSR,
USA,
Uruguay,
Venezuela.
The ten countries that abstained:
Argentina,
Chile,
China,
Colombia,
El Salvador,
Ethiopia,
Honduras,
Mexico,
United Kingdom,
Yugoslavia.
El_C
08:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with your general point, that vote was not a vote to recognise the State of Israel. It was a vote on the Partition Plan. Israel is quite clear that its sovereignty does not derive from a vote taken by the UN, but on the inherent right of nationhood of the Jewish people.
Adam
08:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; point taken though, I didn't qualify the above with great precision.
El_C
09:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure what the discussion was about, but anyway Israel's sovereignty under international law derives from their recognition by other nations and by international bodies such as the UN. Same as for everybody. Nothing to do with how good their national myths are. --
Zero
09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
map
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/LocationIsrael.png)
Anyone notice that the map shows Israel containing
Gaza and not containing the
West Bank/
Judea and Samaria? Seems a bit
POV to me (though a mixed POV).
--23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
(Comment: unsigned by
USer:198.203.175.175. Please use ~~~~ in the future to auto sign & date your posts)
- Nah, I think the pixel for Gaza is missing. I envy your eagle vision though.
←
Humus sapiens
←ну?
00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, is
Sheba Farms shaded in or not? And the borders seem to include
Taba. Perhaps this is why eight pixel maps of countries are not used to determine international borders. --
Goodoldpolonius2
01:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
terrorist vs. militant
It seems very strange to me that self-described terrorists cant be described as such to the point of censorship. Ive just noticed on the wikipedia entry for 'stern gang' their called 'terrorist'-so theres a form of schizophrenia in wikipedia- however if thats what you want Im not going to argue it just that reality is being denied
Eric A. Warbuton
06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- The introduction refers to actions by groups on both sides; singling out just one group is POV, and needless detail in a summary article. As well, Wikipedia prefers the term "militant" as more neutral than "terrorist".
Jayjg
(talk)
06:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Motto
The page is protected but the motto has somehow disappeared, I think in the last edit by
User:Toya. Can somebody with access put it back?
- Israel don't have national motto!
Toya
15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree, but in any event, a note here before doing it would've been nice. --
Sebastian Kessel
Talk
15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to make substantial edits while the page is protected. However, we can discuss here whether or not Israel really has a motto. Has anyone produced hard evidence in either direction? --
Zero
03:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- no motto. just see the Hebrew version of this page.
Deror
08:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm an Israeli and I've never heard of anything such as an Israeli motto. The removed "im tirzu, ein zo agada" was the motto of
Herzl's Altneuland, it has become a popular Zionist slogan, but I've never heard it is Israel's motto.--
Doron
13:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- So that's where I've heard it before. Unless someone can find some sort of official statement that the Altneuland motto was adopted by Israel, I think we should keep it out. --
Zero
06:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Look what i've found
[2]. This is curious... maybe somebody living in Israel can shed some light? --
Sebastian Kessel
Talk
23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Haven't got a clue--
Doron
06:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Again - no official moto. The flag anthem and symbol are set by Knesset legislation. NO legislation re moto.
Deror
10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This version
Having been accused within 48 hours of being both an Israeli agent and an anti-Semite, I am fairly confident that the current version is fairly balanced. Any article that annoys fanatics on both sides is heading in the right direction.
Adam
14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Balanced?? The tag
limitedgeographicscope is not inappropriate for this article since it presents a POV held by a narrow minority as if it was the (global) majority view. It's disgusting frankly. As a Jewish person I _know_ that what you are doing is a disservice to Jews even if you mean to do the opposite. By presenting (modern) extremist US-Israeli views on Israel and it's history as if it was factual you are turning a Wikipedia article into cheap propaganda.
- Imagine if I would edit an article on homosexuality and would put in this sentence: 'Men and women has throughout the ages strived to become homosexuals and it is well known that every important historical person that has ever lived has been a homosexual', do you think a person reading that would say 'Interesting, I didn't know that' or do you think they would laugh and then not take the other (real, factual) claims that were in the article seriously?
- If I was to edit an article about Israel I would probably slant it in a pro-Israeli way since I believe that we should have a homeland (and it's impossible to not be biased) but I wouldn't resort to writing a fairytale version of reality.
- In the opening paragraph you have this sentence;
- "In most respects, non-Jewish Israelis enjoy full political and civic equality (although some laws favour Jewish citizens), but Israel is not a secular or multicultural state in the purest sense."
- Who do you expect would believe that? The whole article is like that and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia, and to discredit us Jews that wants and needs to live in the real world.
- I don't think it would be much use if I were to edit/suggest edits to the article as I believe they would get reverted, even if I submitted 100 references for every edit. That's not the way it should be. --
saxet
06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please be more explicit and less emotional. What would you write instead of that sentence? You might have a good point, but so far you haven't given us the opporttunity to judge it. --
Zero
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
And if you are not prepared to take part in editing, you have no right to put dispute tags on articles. If your edits have merit, other editors will protect them from reversion.
Adam
07:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Largest city
jerusalem is not the largest city, tel aviv is three times larger —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
65.27.66.67 (
talk •
contribs) 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The
Tel Aviv metropolitan area is bigger (1.8 million), but the city itself is only 365,000. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
22:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are they referring to largest in population or per square mile?
MPA
- Population.--
Doron
09:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
How large is the population of West Jerusalem? Because the rest of the world doesn't consider East Jerusalem to be part of Israel, and our Jerusalem article gives 704,900 as the population of all of Jerusalem. Assuming the two halves are about the same population (they may not be), you would have a situation where the Israelis say that Jerusalem (all of it) is the largest city in Israel, but the rest of the world says that Tel Aviv is, because it is larger than the undisputedly Israeli part of Jerusalem...does that make sense?
john
k
22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. The articles I've seen use that 700K number for combined East and West Jerusalem. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- About 58% of the population of Jerusalem lives in the territory annexed in 1967, out of which 45% are Jewish. About 67% of all residents of Jerusalem are Jewish. Even if you consider only the Jewish residents, Jerusalem is still the most populated city in Israel. For the facts-in-a-glance box, I think this is accurate enough.--
Doron
07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- This seems fair enough, I guess...
john
k
15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, wait. It doesn't make any difference whether they are Jewish or Shinto; it's people who make up the population of a place. I'm not at all sure of the relevance of the demography. I mean, if there were more Jews in NYC than in all of Israel, it wouldnot make NYC the largest city in Israel. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
15:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but the Jews living in East Jerusalem behave as active citizens of Israel - they vote in Israeli elections, they serve in the Israeli army, and so forth. I think it's a tough call, but when the options are either a) listing just Jerusalem; and b) listing both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, I'm going to go with the simpler option if a rationale can be found that's not too obviously POV.
john
k
18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)