My proposed addition:
Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more privilegies to its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see that as an expression of racism.
Israel's Jewish character needs to be given much more coverage than this. Not even mentioning the fact that each and every Jew can at anytime settle in Israel, while the Palestinian refugees cannot return, is a disgrace against the truth.
Point taken. The new "editorial" which includes a reference is:
Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more privilegies to its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see that as an expression of racism. In particular, archbishop [[Desmond Tutu]] has compared Israel to South Africa during the [[Apartheid regime]].
Palestine-info 07:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My proposed change:
The territories taken over by Israel since the 1967
To:
The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967
If they were taken over they would have been incorporated in Israel. They have not been, therefore they are occupied.
OK thats all! Discuss on, form consensuses, do whatever! I will gradually begin to reinsert all points that does not seem to rise an argument beginning from tomorrow. Palestine-info 01:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is an unanimous practice of labeling the territories as the "occupied territories". It is used by both sides (Israeli/Arab) in the conflict and by the UN:s resolutions etc. Arguing that they are not occupied is rediculous and the onus is upon those who argues in that way to prove that they are not occupied. Palestine-info 10:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Physical, though correct, is a bit vague, and is a sort of circumvention: physical (control) viz. military (control), and the Isl Govt. viz. the IDF (which it, the Isl. Govt., controls). Returning to Jayjg's point, perhaps we should consider a compromise along the lines (though not necesarily the order) of the wording in the Hebrew WP, which attempts to accomodate the controversy by accounting for terms representing several political views, possbily with some expansion/correlation of views-to-terms, though this does risks in becoming too convoluted (translation follows bellow) :
..." 'The Territories,' or the 'Held Territories,' or the 'Occupied Territories' or the , or the 'Liberated Territories' — in accordance with the various political views — are territores Israel captured during the Six Day War"
As an aside, in my own writings I usually employed the term Occupied Territories or The Territories, but I realize that the former is a disputed term. El_C
I'll be gone from Wikipedia for one or two weeks and therefore wont have time to respond to any arguments raised right now. However, I encourage everyone to keep the debate hot. Because we cannot let people like Jayjg have their extremist view presented as the truth. Also, remember that the purpouse of this discussion is not to convince Jayjg that the new wordings is better. It is not in my power to do that, and I don't think anyone else has that power except for God maybe. It is merely to show that the large majority of Wikipedias prefer the new wordings. Therefore simple "Agree with the new wording" (on some wording) is enough to show your position. Wikipedians are smart people and Im sure that sooner or later this article will be ok. Palestine-info 22:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with that sentence. It is not a tradition to have a Jewish state. Zionism is a European political movement of religious nationalism. It is not a tradition. That's like calling apartheid a tradition. I also disagree with the characterization that the modern state of Israel (the subject of this article) is the spiritual home for Jews. The Holy Land is the spiritual home for Jews and other Abrahamic religions whether or not Israel is the political state of the moment. This article should not be just the Jewish POV about Israel. -- Alberuni 15:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an article about Israel, not the Holly Land. The passage reads: tradition and national policy. Apartheid is, in part, derived from tradition also (going back to the 1652). And the Jews have lived in that specific region for much, much longer than the Dutch settlers in the Cape. Before it was edited the article said something to the effect of many Jews consider Israel to be the spiritual home for Jews and/or Jewish State: that means within the territory which the State of Israel encompasses, it is so viewed by many Jews. It would be POV not to mention this fact. Of course, Jews are going to recieve an especial emphasis since they are the majority of the population in (and founders of the) State of Israel. In closing, it strikes me that your comments tend to approach the Israel article as the Holly Land one. I therefore disagree with your disagreement. El_C
My proposed addition:
Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more privilegies to its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see that as an expression of racism.
Israel's Jewish character needs to be given much more coverage than this. Not even mentioning the fact that each and every Jew can at anytime settle in Israel, while the Palestinian refugees cannot return, is a disgrace against the truth.
Point taken. The new "editorial" which includes a reference is:
Israel is also a Jewish state. That means that Israel gives more privilegies to its Jewish citizens than its other citizens. Some see that as an expression of racism. In particular, archbishop [[Desmond Tutu]] has compared Israel to South Africa during the [[Apartheid regime]].
Palestine-info 07:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My proposed change:
The territories taken over by Israel since the 1967
To:
The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967
If they were taken over they would have been incorporated in Israel. They have not been, therefore they are occupied.
OK thats all! Discuss on, form consensuses, do whatever! I will gradually begin to reinsert all points that does not seem to rise an argument beginning from tomorrow. Palestine-info 01:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is an unanimous practice of labeling the territories as the "occupied territories". It is used by both sides (Israeli/Arab) in the conflict and by the UN:s resolutions etc. Arguing that they are not occupied is rediculous and the onus is upon those who argues in that way to prove that they are not occupied. Palestine-info 10:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Physical, though correct, is a bit vague, and is a sort of circumvention: physical (control) viz. military (control), and the Isl Govt. viz. the IDF (which it, the Isl. Govt., controls). Returning to Jayjg's point, perhaps we should consider a compromise along the lines (though not necesarily the order) of the wording in the Hebrew WP, which attempts to accomodate the controversy by accounting for terms representing several political views, possbily with some expansion/correlation of views-to-terms, though this does risks in becoming too convoluted (translation follows bellow) :
..." 'The Territories,' or the 'Held Territories,' or the 'Occupied Territories' or the , or the 'Liberated Territories' — in accordance with the various political views — are territores Israel captured during the Six Day War"
As an aside, in my own writings I usually employed the term Occupied Territories or The Territories, but I realize that the former is a disputed term. El_C
I'll be gone from Wikipedia for one or two weeks and therefore wont have time to respond to any arguments raised right now. However, I encourage everyone to keep the debate hot. Because we cannot let people like Jayjg have their extremist view presented as the truth. Also, remember that the purpouse of this discussion is not to convince Jayjg that the new wordings is better. It is not in my power to do that, and I don't think anyone else has that power except for God maybe. It is merely to show that the large majority of Wikipedias prefer the new wordings. Therefore simple "Agree with the new wording" (on some wording) is enough to show your position. Wikipedians are smart people and Im sure that sooner or later this article will be ok. Palestine-info 22:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with that sentence. It is not a tradition to have a Jewish state. Zionism is a European political movement of religious nationalism. It is not a tradition. That's like calling apartheid a tradition. I also disagree with the characterization that the modern state of Israel (the subject of this article) is the spiritual home for Jews. The Holy Land is the spiritual home for Jews and other Abrahamic religions whether or not Israel is the political state of the moment. This article should not be just the Jewish POV about Israel. -- Alberuni 15:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an article about Israel, not the Holly Land. The passage reads: tradition and national policy. Apartheid is, in part, derived from tradition also (going back to the 1652). And the Jews have lived in that specific region for much, much longer than the Dutch settlers in the Cape. Before it was edited the article said something to the effect of many Jews consider Israel to be the spiritual home for Jews and/or Jewish State: that means within the territory which the State of Israel encompasses, it is so viewed by many Jews. It would be POV not to mention this fact. Of course, Jews are going to recieve an especial emphasis since they are the majority of the population in (and founders of the) State of Israel. In closing, it strikes me that your comments tend to approach the Israel article as the Holly Land one. I therefore disagree with your disagreement. El_C